Commons Sitting of 14 July 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL, NOTTINGHAM AND RETFORD RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  MEDWAY AND THAMES CANAL BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; A Clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  LONDON UNITED ELECTRIC RAILWAYS BILL [LORDS]. PICCADILLY, CITY, AND NORTH-EAST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Second Reading postponed by the Chairman of Ways and Means under Order [1st May] till Wednesday, at the Evening Sitting.
  BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL |LORDS], ETC.
  Ordered, That in the case of the Motions for Instructions to the Committees on the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill [Lords], the Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway (New Lines, etc.) Bill [Lords], the Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway (No. 1 and No. 3) Bill [Lords], the Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway (No. 2) Bill [Lords], the Great Northern and Strand Railway Bill [Lords], and the North-West London Railway Bill [Lords], Standing Order 207 be suspended, and that the Instructions, if moved, be allowed to proceed although opposed.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means).

  LONDON UNITED ELECTRIC RAILWAYS BILL [LORDS], ETC.
  Ordered, That in the case of the Motions for Instructions to the Committees on the London United Electric Railways Bill [Lords], and the Piccadilly,

  99
  City, and North-East London Railway Bill [Lords], Standing Order 207 be suspended, and that the Instructions, if moved, be allowed to proceed although opposed.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means).

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC.) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Considered; to be read the third time upon Wednesday.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  WHITSTABLE IMPROVEMENT BILL [LORDS].
  The Chairman of Ways and Means, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 83 relating to Private Bills, informed the House that, in his opinion the Whit-stable Improvement Bill [Lords], though unopposed, ought to be treated as an opposed Private Bill.
  DEVONPORT CORPORATION (WATER) BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP M).
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE reported from the Committee on Group M of Private Bills: That, there being no further business ready for the consideration of the Committee, they had adjourned until Tuesday, 22nd July, at half-past Twelve of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—

  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

  100

  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill,

  Chard Gas Bill, without Amendment,

  Southport and Lytham Tramroad Bill,

  Salford Corporation Bill,

  Caledonian Railway Bill, with Amendments.

  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bermondsey (Extension), Stoke Newington, and Woolwich." [Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill (Lords).]
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a certain Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Society of Accountants in Aberdeen." [Aberdeen Accountants Order Confirmation Bill (Lords).]
  And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow Corporation (Gas, etc.)." [Glasgow Corporation (Gas, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill (Lords).]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
  Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 274.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTAND) BILL.
  "To make further provision for Local Government in counties in Scotland; and for other purposes," presented by Mr. Maxwell, under Standing Order No. 31; supported by Mr. Nicol, Mr. Crombie, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Hozier, and Mr. Renshaw; to be read a second time upon Monday 4th August, and to be printed. [Bill 272.]
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BILLS IN PARLIAMENT). BILL.
  "To amend The Local Government Act, 1888, by empowering County Councils to promote Bills in Parliament, and to amend the Borough Funds Act, 1872," presented by Mr. Long, understanding Order No. 31; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bills 273.]
PETITIONS.
  AMEEROON, SRI, AND OTHERS.
  Petition of Sri Ameeroon and others, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  BAKHSH, KAHI.
  Petition of Kahi Bakhsh, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Newcastle-on-Tyne; Dundee; Hull (three); and Sutton-on-Hull; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Huns-worth; Chipping Norton; Miles Platting; Ripley; and Exeter (two); to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  HONORARY FREEDOM OF BOROUGHS EXTENSION BILL.
  Petition from Bermondsey, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  KISHORE, JUGAL.
  Petition of Jugul Kishore, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Bermondsey, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Witham, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORT, ETC.

  SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  Accounts presented, showing the Interest accrued in respect of the Securities standing in the names of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to the credit of the Post Office Savings Banks Fund for the year
  102
  ended 31st December, 1901, and of the Fund for the Banks for Savings and the Fund for Friendly Societies for the year ended 24th November, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 268.]

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 8th July, 1902, declaring that Spencer James, post office sorting clerk, Exeter, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SEWAGE DISPOSAL (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of second Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire and report what methods of treating and disposing of sewage may properly be adopted [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [LORDS].
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 11th July, Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 269.]
  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, 1901–2.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 23rd June, Mr. Grant Lawson; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 270.]
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 356 (Falkland Islands, Annual Report for 1901) [by Command to lie upon the Table,
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2847 to 2850 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  African Protectorates -Imperial Grants.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what sums

  103
  have been paid out of the National Exchequer by way of Grants in aid or otherwise to the Protectorates of Somali-land, British Central Africa, East Africa, and Uganda (including in the latter the railway therein), respectively, during the financial year ended 31st March, 1902.
  (Answer.) The grants in aid of the several Protectorates are respectively as follows: Somaliland, £60,000; British Central Africa, £50,000; East Africa Protectorate, £93,000; Uganda, £172,000. It is impossible to separate the expenditure on account of that part of the railway which was in Uganda from the expenditure on account of the part in East Africa; but for the whole railway the sums advanced during the period in question to meet expenditure under the Uganda Railway Acts amount to £870,000. I may add, in order to avoid misapprehension, that since the beginning of this year the boundary between the two Protectorates has been moved, so that the railway now lies wholly in East Africa.—(Foreign Office.)

  African Protectorates—Comparative Trade Statistics.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the figures of imports and exports for the financial years ending 31st March, 1901 and 1902, for the Protectorates of Somaliland, British Central Africa, East Africa, and Uganda, distinguishing in each case, so far as may be, figures arising from administration or construction of public works and those due to natural trade; and what proportion of the import and export figures arise from trade with the British Isles on the one hand, and other countries on the other.
  (Answer). The fullest figures available are for the year ending 31st December, 1901. The imports and exports of the East Africa Protectorate and Uganda are taken together, as there is but one Customs Department for the two Protectorates. East Africa Protectorate and Uganda: total imports, £946,800. Natural imports (that is, excluding administration and public works imports, but including specie amounting to £170,000), £585,000, of which there came from the United
  104
  Kingdom £123,000, and from India £312,000 (including all the specie). Total exports, £115,180. Practically all are consigned to Zanzibar or Aden, and it is impossible to ascertain the ultimate destination. British Central Africa: total imports, £186,000. Natural imports, 173,260, of which there came from the United Kingdom £136,260, and from India £4,000 (assuming none of the administration imports came from India). Total exports, £45,000, of which there was exported to the United Kingdom £32,000. Somaliland: In this case the figures are for the year ending 31st March, 1901. Natural imports, £394,000. Total exports, £364,000. Practically the whole trade is with Aden, and it is impossible to ascertain the ultimate origin or destination.—(Foreign Office.)

  China—Evacuation of Tientsin by the Powers.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Government has appealed to the United States to use its good offices with the six Powers in reference to the proposed conditions for the evacuation of Tientsin; and whether the Government of the Uuited States has made any communication to His Majesty's Government upon the subject.
  (Answer.) His Majesty's Government are not aware that the Chinese Government have made such an appeal to the United States Government. The latter have addressed no communication to His Majesty's Government on the subject.—(Foreign Office.)

  Foreign Trawlers in the Moray Firth.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, if he will state when the Return relative to Foreign Trawlers in the Moray Firth, which was granted in March last, will be issued.
  (Answer.) The Return referred to by the hon. Member was presented to the House on the 21st April last, and ordered to lie upon the Table. The question of printing lies between the hon. Member and the authorities of the House.—(Scottish Office.)

  Glasgow Licensing Court—Public Money spent on Refreshments.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: To ask the Lord Advocate, whether he is aware that at the recent sitting of the licensing court in Glasgow, composed of fourteen magistrates, refreshments at the cost of the ratepayers of over £260 were consumed during the sitting; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a short Bill to prevent the use of public money on similar occasions.
  (Answer.) I am informed that a sum of £233 8s. 6d. was expended. It is fair to state that this sum was distributed over a period of seventeen days for the benefit of the magistrates, counsel and officials attending. I express no opinion as to whether or not such a charge upon the rates is legal as a necessary outlay incurred in the excution of the Licensing Acts. That is a matter which can be settled at the instance of any of the ratepayers in the proper court. The answer to the last paragraph of the Question is, therefore, in the negative.—(Scottish Office.)

  Postmen's Summer Uniform and Headgear.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will consider the advisability of providing postmen with lighter clothing and headgear during the present hot weather.
  (Answer.) Postmen are already supplied with serge uniform for summer wear, which is made as light as possible having regard to the hard usage that it has to bear: and London postmen are provided with a light summer shako. All postmen are allowed to provide themselves with straw hats to wear on exceptionally hot days, and it is not considered that anything more is necessary.—(Post Office.)

  Central Telegraph Office —Senior Telegraphists' Grievances.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the force of senior telegraphists attached to the cable room, Central Telegraph Office, has
  106
  been reduced from thirty-one in 1898 to twenty-six; that, owing to the lack of officers of the proper rank, supervising and senior duties are developed upon officers of lower grades; and that important duties, which in the inland divisions are performed by assistant superintendents, or at least by seniors, are in the cable room performed by officers below senior rank; and will he say whether representations made during the past two years by the officers concerned have as yet received consideration.
  (Answer.) The force of senior telegraphists employed in the cable room of the Central Telegraph Office in June, 1898 was thirty-one, and the number, now is twenty-seven. Members of the general body of telegraphists are not employed on supervising duties in the cable room. Some of them are, however, engaged at times on duties which may perhaps be regarded as more important than those usually performed by the general body. The representations on the subject made by the staff have received due consideration, and a memorial is about to be answered by the Postmaster General.—(Post Office.)

  Civil Service—Assistant Clerks (Abstractor Class).
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it is under consideration to improve the commencing salary and increment of the junior assistant clerks (abstractor class); and to what extent, if any, the position of the senior assistant clerks (abstractor class) may be affected thereby.
  (Answer.) A scheme has been approved, and will shortly be communicated to the Departments, improving the future increments, but not the initial salary of the new abstractor class. This will in no way affect the old abstractor class.—(Treasury.)

  Volunteers in Postal Service—Camping Leave.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that Volunteers employed in the postal service, who have been granted leave to attend their training

  107
  camps this year, are to be stopped in the same way as last year, the full cost of their substitutes, an amount which exceeds their regular pay for the period of absence; and whether, seeing that this same training service is now obligatory, this condition of leave will be removed.
  (Answer.) Every effort consistent with the exigencies of the service is made to enable Volunteers in the post office service to attend ordinary camps of instruction, but the Department would not be justified in incurring expense in the matter. As regards Volunteers attending the special camps for a fortnight, the hon. Member is no doubt aware that whenever the officer can be spared special leave is granted without civil pay in such cases.—(Post Office.)

  Irish Tea and Tobacco Duties, etc.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can explain the falling off in the amount of the Tea and Tobacco Duties in Ireland in the year ending 31st March, 1902, as shown by the Return, No. 256, just issued; and what amount does he estimate will be produced respectively by the income tax, death duties, tea, sugar, corn, and tobacco duties from Ireland during the year ending 31st March, 1903.
  (Answer.) The falling off in the amount of the tea and tobacco duties contributed by Ireland in the financial year 1901–2 is due to the heavy forestalments of duty made by traders throughout the United Kingdom in the previous year in anticipation of an increase of those duties. The contributions by England and Scotland are affected by the same cause. With regard to the figures for the current year, I think it would be premature to attempt an estimate, more especially as I have recently directed some fresh inquiries to be made with a view to ascertain more accurately the proportion of the present contributions to indirect taxation in the three countries. —(Treasury.)

  Railway Extension on Indian Frontiers and in Persia.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will say to what extent, as regards mileage and cost, have railway projects
  108
  in Beluchistan been entertained by the Indian Government, more especially I whether sanction has been promised for the proposed line from Quetta to Nushki; what is the estimated cost per mile and total of such railway, and what liability, if any, in respect of the Indian credit will the Government of India accept on behalf of such railway outside of India; whether the Indian Government has had proposals placed before it regarding the extension through Seistan into Persia, of which project the Quetta-Nushki Railway would be the first portion; and, will he lay the correspondence between the Government of India and the projectors of railways in Beluchistan, Seistan, and Persia before Parliament at an early date.
  (Answer.) Since the recent completion of the Pishin section of the State Railway from Rukh to Chaman, the only project entertained by me is the Quetta to Nushki Line, for which a provision of forty-seven lakhs has been made in the current year. The final surveys are not completed, and I cannot estimate the cost at present. The line is not outside India, Beluchistan being a protected Native Indian State. The answer to the second Question is in the negative, and to the third I can only reply that there is no correspondence of the character therein described. —(India Office.)

  Council of India Appointments.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India will he state whether the appointment of the twelve members of the Council of India rests with the Secretary of State for India; and, if not, will he say by whom the appointments are made, and on whose recommendation.
  (Answer.) Members of the Council of India are appointed by the Secretary of State for India.—(India Office.)

  Indian Postal Savings Banks—Investment of Deposits.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that deposits in the postal savings banks of India are not invested in the purchase of securities, but held as part of the balances available for the general purposes of the

  109
  Government of India, will he state where the balances are lodged, and what percentage would be available on demand.
  (Answer.) The balances of the Government of India are held in the Public Treasuries and in the Presidency banks. They are all at the free disposal of the Government of India, and they exceed by several millions sterling the amount of the balances at the credit of depositors in the Post Office Savings -Banks.—(India Office.)

  Royal College of Science, Ireland—Teaching of Electrical Engineering.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that the chair of mathematics has been abolished in the Royal College of Science, Ireland, he will consider the advisability of making provision for the teaching of electrical engineering in the said college.
  (Answer.) Provision for the teaching of electrical engineering in the Royal College of Science has been decided upon.—(Irish Office.)

  Irish Intermediate Education Board —Science Syllabus.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state who is responsible for the framing of the Intermediate Science Syllabus; whether university professors in Ireland were consulted regarding it; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Commission consisting of university professors or men of acknowledged standing in science to consider the matter.
  (Answer.) The Science Syllabus adopted by the Board of Intermediate Education was framed by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction upon the advice of its own professional experts. The Department did not consult university professors, and sees no necessity for recommending the appointment of a Commission to consider the matter as suggested.—(Irish Office.)

  Labourers' Cottages in Cavan Union.
  MR. M' GOVERN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that dissatisfaction exists owing to the delay in building labourers' cottage in Cavan Union; and will he state whether the delay in erecting these cottages is caused by the rural District Council or the Local Government Board.
  (Answer.) The inquiry into the scheme promoted by the council was held in December last. It has since been occupied in the preparation of the preliminaries essential to the making of the Provisional Order. These preliminaries were only completed on the 8th instant and the Order will probably be issued this week. There has been no unnecessary delay on the part of the Local Government Board, and it is not in a position to say that there has been any undue delay on the part of the council. —(Irish Office.)

  Balaclava Veteran George Maughan.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that George Maughan, formerly Sergeant in the Inniskilling Dragoons, who was wounded in the thigh at the battle of Balaclava, was present at Inkerman, and has a clasp for Sebastopol, subsequently serving for five years in India during the Mutiny, has forwarded a medical certificate to the War Office showing that he is suffering from chronic valvulous disease of the heart, varicose veins accompanied by ulceration, inguinal hernia, and, chronic rheumatism, due to hardships and exposure during his term of service as a soldier; and, seeing that this man has been informed that his application cannot be entertained for an increase of his pension of 9d. per day, as there is no official record of his wound, and the increase of pensions being limited to soldiers who have been wounded, or who have been discharged for disability due to service, whether, in view of the medical certificate, an exception can be made in this case, and the pension augmented.
  (Answer.) I am afraid it is impossible to do anything more for this old soldier.

  111
  He is in receipt of the full campaign pension of a soldier of his service, and there is no official evidence that his present infirmities are due to service which terminated thirty-seven years ago. I must further point out that in I his claim he admits that he was not medically treated for the slight wound which he received at Balaclava. He was discharged after twelve years at his own, request.—(War Office.)

  War Office—Abstractor Clerk's Compulsory Retirement.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will lay upon the Table the Minutes and Correspondence on which full consideration was given to the case of the efficient abstractor clerk compulsorily retired at sixty on £30 1s. 7d. a year, he having at the time less than forty years service for superannuation.
  (Answer.) No, Sir. It would be quite contrary to all precedent to do so.—(War Office.)

  Education Bill—Orphan Asylums, etc
  MR. CHARLES M' ARTHUR: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the obligation of the local education authority, under Clause 8 of the Education Bill, to maintain and keep efficient all public elementary schools within their area, will apply to orphan asylums and similar boarding institutions, which are public elementary schools; or, if the obligation in such cases is to be a limited one, how it is proposed to define the extent of the powers and duties of the local education authority with respect to institutions of this character.
  (Answer.) The Question, no doubt, raises a point of some importance, which, however, has not escaped the attention of the Government. The discussion upon it can best be taken during the consideration of Clause 8.—(Treasury.)

  Printing of Parliamentary Papers, Reports, etc.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will state, after consulting, if necessary, the authorities of the House, who is
  112
  primarily responsible for giving the orders for printing, and what is the procedure in connection with Parliamentary Papers and public documents of the following nature: when orders have been given by the House for their printing; Papers laid before the House by Command; Papers laid before the House by Statute; Reports of and Papers connected with Royal Commissions.
  (Answer.) The Votes and Proceedings and the Journals of the House and the Proceedings of Grand Committees and certain Papers of an analagous kind are printed under the directions of Mr. Speaker by the printers appointed by him for that purpose pursuant to the Order of this House. Bills for both Houses are printed under a contract with the Stationery Office, which includes also the preparation of drafts of Government Bills, but during their passage through Parliament they are corrected for the Press by the authorities of the two Houses. Acts of Parliament are printed by the same printers under a contract from the Stationery Office. The Clerk of the Parliaments is responsible for the accuracy of the text. The printing of Papers laid by Command and of Papers laid pursuant to Statute is carried out under the directions of the Controller of the Stationery Office, but the matter is prepared and corrected for Press by the Department which lays the Papers. Reports of and Papers connected with Royal Commissions are prepared and corrected by the Secretary of the Commission acting under the directions of the Chairman. The Papers so prepared are printed to the order of the Controller of the Stationery Office.— (Treasury.)

  Civil Servants—Treasury Minute on Participation in Public Controversies.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will cause the Treasury Minute, relating to the participation of civil servants in public controversies, to be printed as a Parliamentary Paper.
  (Answer.) The only Treasury Minute on this subject was presented to the House in 1884, as Command Paper No. 4,229.—(Treasury.)

  (2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    India and the Imperial Institute.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the total amount of money which up to the present time has been paid from the Indian revenues to the Imperial Institute; whether any payment of a similar character is now made from those revenues and to what amount; whether the Indian revenues are charged with any part of the salary of any persons engaged in duties connected with the Imperial Institute; and, if so, what is the amount of such charge.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The total sum paid from Indian revenues to the Imperial Institute up to March 31st, 1902, was £16,911. This represents the aggregate of annual grants made to the Institute since 1891 for the maintenance of the Indian section. The present annual grant is £1,725, but for 1902–3 only £400 additional has been granted to meet exceptional charges. From the annual grant the Institute pays the salaries of the curator and staff of the Indian section, the total amounting to £830 a year. No other charge on account of salaries of persons employed in the Institute falls on Indian revenues.

    Indian Currency—Closing of the Mints in 1893.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the condition of India's manufacturing and agricultural industries, as affected by the competition of silver-using countries and aggravated by the recent serious depreciation of silver, he would recommend the institution of an inquiry into the action and effects of the currency system promulgated in 1893.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The effect on industry and agriculture in India of the closing of the Indian Mints in 1893 was one of the subjects considered by Sir H. Fowler's Currency Committee, which reported in July. 1899. That Committee did not support the view which is suggested in the hon. Member's Question, and no facts have since been brought to my notice which invalidate this conclusion.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOONasked whether the noble Lord was aware that several large cotton mills in Bombay were on the verge of bankruptcy, and that tea and kindred interests in India were sore pressed, and had difficulty in holding their own in foreign markets.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I understand that these allegations are made, but I am sure that on examination it will be found that the state of things referred to cannot be attributed to the closing of the Mints in 1893.

    India Office Coronation Reception.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Lord Curzon was consulted as to the expenses of the reception at the India Office in connection with the Coronation Day, charged on the Indian Budget; if so, what reply he gave; whether the Secretary of State for India himself decided that the expenses of the reception should be thrown on the Indian Budget; and whether any opportunity will be given to this House to express its opinion on the matter.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: My answer to the first Question is in the negative. The Secretary of State has no power to put a charge upon the revenues of India except with the assent of a majority of the Council of India. The discussion on the Indian Budget will take place as usual this year, and any Member of the House can then direct attention to any item of expenditure to which he objects.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Then do I understand that this was done by a majority of the Council?
    LORD G. HAMILTON: No, the decision was absolutely unanimous.

    Yehti.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has received any information in regard to the hoisting of the French flag at Yehti, a fishing bay between Macao and Canton.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): We are informed that the report that the French flag has been hoisted at Yehti has no foundation.

    Omnibus Accidents in the Metropolis.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of recent accidents to omnibuses licensed by the police, one of which occurred as recently as Wednesday the 2nd instant, whereby, through the overturning of an omnibus in St. John's Wood Road, several persons were injured, will he direct an inquiry into the subject with a view to ascertain the cause of such frequent accidents.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I do not understand the hon. Member's reference to the frequency of omnibus accidents. There have only been two such accidents recently. One was caused by the omnibus being carelessly driven against a lamp post; the other—to which apparently the Question specially refers—by reason of an axle breaking. Inasmuch, however, as the London General Omnibus Company, to whom the omnibus in question belonged, make every endeavour to get the best axles obtainable, it is difficult to imagine what more can be done. Considering the number of omnibuses running everyday, accidents are remarkably few.
    MR. WEIR: Will some inquiry be made into the abominable state of the roads between—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Coronation Stand near Westminster Bridge.
    MR. P. J. O' BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the order of the House to the police to keep the approaches to the House of Commons free of access for Members, and of the fact that the approach to the subway entrance to the House is at present blocked by the erection of a stand at the end of Westminster Bridge, adjacent to the statute of Boadicea, whether he will take steps to have this obstruction removed.
    *MR. RITCHIE: The Sessional Order to the police does not appear to me to apply to a stand of this nature, which was lawfully erected and is not under the control of the police.
    MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: Who is responsible for the erection of this stand? What is the use of the subway if it is to be thus blocked?
    *MR. RITCHIE: It is the duty of the police to see that hon. Members have free access to the House. Of course that does not mean that they have control of the buildings erected under powers possessed by local authorities.
    MR. DELANY: But we have no access at present to Palace Yard except by the carriage way.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Automatic Railway Couplings.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a recent invention for the construction of automatic couplings for railway trucks and similar vehicles has been brought to his notice; and whether, in view of the official returns of calamities to railway servants through coupling during the last five years, he will give his consideration to the invention in question.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Several inventions of this character have recently been seen by the officers of the Board of Trade. If the one to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is fitted on a train of ordinary goods waggons, so that it can be tested in working, I will direct an Inspecting Officer of the Department to be present at the trial.

    Passenger Accommodation on Railways.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the President to the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, gives him power to inquire only into the question whether the proportion which the existing accommodation for passengers, at fares not exceeding the rate of one penny a mile, bears to the total existing

    117
    accommodation for all classes of passengers is a sufficient proportion, he will consider the advisability of introducing a short amending Bill to give power to the Board to make inquiry into the question of the sufficiency of the total accommodation for each class of passengers.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I see no sufficient reason for legislation in the direction indicated by this Question.

    Park Deer Forest, Ross-shire.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the deer forest of Park, Lewis, Ross-shire, which contains upwards of 75,000 acres, is quoted in the amended Deer Forest Return, 1899, as containing no more than 41,913 acres: and will he take steps to have sonic fresh estimate of the acreage obtained.
    *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on Thursday last.†
    MR. WEIR: But does not the Return, show 35,000 less than the actual number of acres? How was it obtained?
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I do not know what the hon. Member's figures are based on. Ours are based on a Return given to the Assessor by the Factor. If a more accurate Return is needed, it would require a survey, and my noble friend and I hold that no public purpose would be served by ordering one. I can give no further information on the subject.

    Scottish Equivalent Grant.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can now state whether the Government intend to apply the Scottish equivalent of the English Educational Grant of £900,000 to educational purposes in Scotland; and, if so, in what manner it will be applied.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: It has already been stated that the just claims of Scotland arising out of the additional grant to England will be
    †See preceding volume, page 1376.
    118
    duly considered. But it would be premature at present to make any statement as to the amount or application of any additional grant.

    Crown Salmon Fishings in Ross-shire.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the fact that, on the 22nd October, 1900, Crown salmon fishings ex adverso, the southern to the north boundary of the lands of Flowerburn, in the parish of Rosemarkie, Ross-shire, were leased to James Douglas Fletcher, Esquire, for ten years from Martinmas, 1900, at an annual rental of £1, will he state whether the fact that a lease of these fishings was open to public tender was advertised in the Press; and, if so, will he state on, what dates, and in what papers, the advertisements appeared.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): An advertisement as to the letting by public tender of various salmon fishings belonging to the Crown in Scotland, including those referred to in the Question, was inserted in the Scotsman on 2nd. 9th, 13th, and 23rd June, 1900; in the Glasgow Herald on 8th, 15th, and 22nd June; in the People's Journal on 8th June: and in the People's Weekly News on 15th June. The advertisement was also at about the same time inserted in various local papers published in each of the Counties in which the salmon fishings advertised were situate, including the following, viz:—the Dingwall Journal on 8th and 15th June; the Dingwall North Star on 14th and 21st June; the Dingwall Northern Weekly on 7th, 14th, and 21st June; the Inverness Chronicle on 13th June: the Inverness Courier on 8th June; and the Invergordon Times on 20th June.

    Phoenix Park, Dublin—Treasury Grant in lieu of Rates.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet been able to examine into the proposed stoppage by the Treasury of the Grant in lieu of rates payable in respect of the Phoenix Park to Dublin County Council; and, if so, will he state the result of his inquiry.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Yes Sir, I have carefully examined into this matter, which was brought under my notice by the hon and learned Member. I find that, in consequence of a decision given by the House of Lords in 1897, the Treasury contributions in lieu of rates on the Royal Parks in London and Edinburgh have been stopped. The Phoenix Park appears to be in this respect in precisely the same position as these parks: and I think it is only fair that the similar contributions in respect of that portion of Phoenix Park which is unenclosed and open to the public (including park-keepers' lodges, etc., connected therewith) should also cease.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to allowing the question whether the Brockwell Park Act applies to the Phoenix Park to be tested by a Petition of Right?
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That would hardly depend on me.

    Foyle and Bann Salmon Fisheries.
    MR. SETOX- KARR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that over 100 drift nets, decided by the House of Lords in May, 1900, to be illegal, are now being used on the coast of Ireland, off the mouths of the rivers Foyle and Bann, for the capture of salmon, which nets form an obstruction for over seventy miles; and, seeing that the Conservators of the Londonderry district are now practically powerless to take any steps to enforce the law as to the weekly close time, which has been openly disregarded, owing to want of funds and assistance from His Majesty's coastguards, whether the Government propose to take any, and, if so, what steps to put down the use of drift nets and to enforce the observance of the weekly close time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The decision of the House of Lords referred to was given in a Scotch case. The Salmon Fishery Laws of Scotland rest on an entirely different basis from those of Ireland (there being
    120
    no common law right of salmon fishing in Scotland). This method of fishing is a source of livelihood to perhaps 1,500 of the poorer class of fishermen on the Irish coast. The use of drift nets has been in many cases regulated by bye-law, and has been undisputed for about forty years. The obligation of seeing that the weekly close time is observed rests with Boards of Conservators.
    MR. SETON-KARR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservators asked for a gunboat to protect these fisheries and were refused?
    MR. ATKINSON: Among the many things the Irish Government is responsible for, gunboats are not included.

    Irish Commercial Fisheries
    MR. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Bill has been introduced into this House, at the instance of the owners of commercial fisheries in Ireland, to carry out the recommendations of the Lord Lieutenant's Inland Fishery Commission of 1899; and whether the Government will either give facilities for the consideration of this Bill, or will themselves introduce a Bill carrying out the said recommendations.
    MR. ATKINSON—-(for Mr. WYNDHAM): The subject dealt with by this Bill is of great importance, but I see no prospects of proceeding this session, with any further legislation of this kind, which is contentious in character.

    Irish Equivalent Grants.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is now in a position to make a statement as to the reasons why equivalent grants are being withheld from certain technical schools in Ireland contrary to the undertaking given in the circular issued by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland).
    MR. ATKINSON—(for Mr. WYNDHAM): No, Sir, not at present.

    Wicklow Magistracy.
    MR. JAMES O' CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of Roman Catholic magistrates in the County of Wicklow, and the number of magistrates who are not Roman Catholics.
    MR. ATKINSON—(for Mr. WYNDHAM): Exclusive of ex-officio Justices of the Peace, the total number of Justices in Wicklow is 127, of whom twenty-three are believed to be Roman Catholics.

    Land Purchase in County Wicklow.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of tenants in the County of Wicklow who have purchased their holdings since 1890, the total acreage of the land purchased, the amount of rent which had been paid before purchase, and the amount of the annual instalments now paid by the purchasers, the average number of years purchase, the names of the landlords who have sold to their tenants, and the number of acres sold by each landlord.
    MR. ATKINSON-(for Mr. WYNDHAM): The number of tenant purchasers is 318; the acreage purchased, 21,834; the rental prior to purchase was £13,227; the purchase money advanced amounted to £251,295. representing nineteen and a fifth years purchase; the annuities amount to £10,051. The information desired by the last two queries could not conveniently be given in the form of an answer to a Question. It will be found in the Returns annually presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 33 of the Act of 1891.

    Trinity College (Dublin), Estates in County Kerry.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that rents fixed in 1898 in the Cahirciveen Union, County Kerry, Trinity College. Dublin, being the landlord, are still under appeal; and whether he can state approximately when the Land Commission will sit to dispose of these cases.
    MR. ATKINSON—(for Mr. WYNDHAM): There are no appeals pending from fair rents fixed in 1898. But there are nine cases where appeals are pending from Orders made in 1900. These will probably be in the next list of appeals for hearing at Killarney, but a date for a sitting there has not yet been arranged.

    Tullyhogue Disturbance.
    MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Very Rev. Canon Rice, P.P., the Lady Superioress of the Convent of Mercy, and two companion nuns, were attacked on Sunday evening the 6th instant, near the village of Tullyhogue, and the carriage in which they were travelling stoned; and will he say what steps have been or will be taken against the persons making this attack.
    MR. ATKINSON—(for Mr. WYNDHAM): One stone, I am informed, was thrown at the carriage. The act was committed, it is believed, by a drunken person whose name the police have and whom they hope to make amenable.

    Irish Technical Schools—Discontinuance of Equivalent Grant.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the technical schools in Ireland were established on the conditions under which the equivalent grant was to be continuous, and that the result of the discontinuance of this grant will be to close many technical schools in Ireland; and whether, under these circumstances, this matter will be reconsidered by the Government.
    MR. ATKINSON—(for Mr. WYNDHAM): As I have stated, this matter is now being considered.

    Case of Stephen Kirby.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 30th June a tramp named Stephen Kirby, an ex-member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, was

    123
    arrested for having abused a servant in the employment of Dr. R. R. Leader, J. P., Millstreet, on being refused alms; and that he was immediately taken before Mr. H. W. Leader, J. P., a cousin of Dr. Leader's, and sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour, and to a further term of four months imprisonment in default of finding bail; will he state how long Mr. H. W. Leader has been a justice of the peace, and how often has he adjudicated at petty sessions; and why this man Kirby was not charged before the ordinary Court instead of being dealt with summarily.
    MR. ATKINSON—(for Mr. WYNDHAM): Kirby was arrested on the complaint of Dr. Leader and charged with begging. The case was dealt with out of petty sessions, under the provisions of Sections 8 and 22 of the 14 and 15 Vict. cap. 93. by Mr. W. H. Leader, who sentenced Kirby to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. Mr. Leader, is in no way related to Dr. Leader. A second charge was preferred against Kirby for having used opprobrious and abusive language towards Dr. Leader's daughter and servant. For this he was ordered to give sureties for his good behaviour, in default of which he was committed to prison for three months. Mr. Leader was appointed to the commission of the peace tour years ago. He is not a frequent attendant at the Millstreet petty sessions. It is competent to a justice to deal with cases of the kind mentioned out of petty sessions. It is not known whether Kirby served in the Constabulary.

    Ex-Sergeant Sheridan.
    MR. PATRICK O' BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the date when Sergeant Sheridan, recently dismissed the Royal Irish Constabulary for committing and inciting to the commission of felony, entered the constabulary force; whether he can give the names of the counties and police districts in which Sheridan was stationed, with the dates in each case; and, if Sheridan served in more than one county, will he state for what reason he was transferred from one county to another.
    MR. ATKINSON—(for Mr. WYNDHAM): The earlier part of the Question does not represent the facts accurately. Sergeant Sheridan was not dismissed recently for inciting to felony. He was removed from the force on the 9th February, 1901, for supporting a charge against a tramp named Ryan by evidence so unsatisfactory and conflicting as to render his further retention in the force undesirable in the interests of the public. He entered the force on the 20th December, 1880, and was allocated from the depot to the County Limerick on 26th, April 1881, in which county he was stationed in the following districts: Limerick from 26th April, 1881, to 30th April, 1885; New Pallas from 1st May, 1885, to 30th September, 1885; Limerick from 1st October, 1885, to 31st October, 1888; New Pallas from 1st November, 1888, to 30th June, 1889; Limerick from 1st July, 1889, to 31st July, 1893; Abbeyfeale from 1st August,' 1893, to 28th February, 1894; Bruff from 1st March, 1894, to 30th November, 1894; Rathkeale from 1st December, 1894, to 31st March, 1895: Abbeyfeale from 1st April, 1895, to 30th April, 1896; Bruff from 1st May, 1896, to 30th May, 1898. He was transferred, on marriage, to the Ballinamore District, County Leitrim, on 1st June, 1898, where he served until 30th June, 1900. On the 1st July, 1900, he was transferred, on his own application, to the County Clare. He was stationed in the Corofin district until 8th October, 1900, and in the Ennistymon district from 9th October, 1900, to 9th February, 1901.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Was he transferred from one county to another, and, if so, why?
    MR. ATKINSON: He was transferred from Limerick to Leitrim on his marriage.

    New College of Science for Dublin.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the architect for the proposed new college of science in Dublin has yet been appointed; and, if so, will he state the name of the gentleman.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I am not in a position to make any statement until I see whether it is possible to make progress with the Bill. If the Bill passes through Committee I shall be prepared to announce the intention of His Majesty's Government on the Third Reading.

    Irish Board of Works.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state how many employees under the Irish Board of Works have salaries above £400 a year, how many of them are Roman Catholics, and whether any Roman Catholics have been appointed or promoted within the last ten years to positions bearing salaries over £400 a year.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The number of persons employed under the Irish Board of Works at salaries above £400 a year is thirteen. I have no knowledge of their religious beliefs, and must decline to make any inquiry into such matters.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Is the reason for declining to make inquiry the fact that there are no Catholics?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. It would be gross impertinence on my part to inquire at all.

    Irish Postmasterships.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state how many vacancies have arisen in Irish postmasterships since the appointment of the present Postmaster General; and how many of those appointed to fill those vacancies profess the religious opinions of the majority of the Irish people.
    MR. AUSTEX CHAMBERLAIN: The number of postmasterships which have become vacant in Ireland during the period referred to is twenty three. The Postmaster General has no information which would enable him to state the religious belief of the officers appointed to fill the vacant offices.
    MR. REDDY: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly not, Sir.

    Telephone Service for Mallow and Tipperary.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in regard to the promised inquiry into the feasibility of extending the trunk telephone system to the towns of Mallow and Tipperary, where the trunk line is already looped in for testing purposes, and taking into consideration the fact that the extension of the trunk system to these towns will entail but little additional expense to the Post Office, he will waive the demand for a guarantee, which has hitherto been insisted on, and grant this facility.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The inquiry to which the hon. Member refers has for its object the possibility of providing a trunk telephone service at Mallow and Tipperary by means of the existing trunk line between Dublin, Cork, and Limerick without disturbing the traffic between those places. If the service can be given on this condition it is possible that no guarantee of revenue will be required. The wires are, however, not looped into the post offices at Mallow and Tipperary, although they pass through Mallow. Considerable expense will be involved in extending them to Tipperary.

    Brehon Laws.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in the last Report of the Commissioners for the Publication of the Ancient Laws and Institutes of Ireland, the Commissioners state that there are in other libraries tracts bearing on the Brehon Laws, which have not yet been edited or properly examined, and that the Commissioners recommend the consideration by the Government as to whether a competent scholar should be employed to visit the Continental libraries and furnish report as to any additional matter which may be extant in them; and whether he proposes to give effect to the suggestion of the Commissioners.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Report was only presented on the 7th inst., and has not yet been issued; therefore the Government are not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

    Wexford County Council and the Irish Government.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, in view of the fact that certain provisions of the Local Government (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill are the result of a treaty between the County Council of County Wexford and the Irish Government, he will give facilities this week for the discussion of the Bill so as to ensure its passing this session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Baronet is hardly justified in describing the arrangement as a treaty. No doubt it is due to representations made to my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary by the local authorities. I cannot promise any particular date for the discussion, but the Government are most anxious to get the matter settled.

RESIGNATION OF LORD SALISBURY— THE NEW PRIME MINISTER.
On entering the House, at half-past two o'clock, Mr. A. J. Balfour was received with loud cheers from both sides.
SIR H. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: The period in this process of asking Questions has arrived when we become aware of the presence in the House of the First Lord of the Treasury. Perhaps I may be allowed to be guilty of the irregularity of interrupting the course of Questions by offering to him on my own part, and on that of those who act with me in politics, and I am sure on the part of a far more wide circle, including Members in every part of the House—our warm congratulations on the honour which he has received by being invited to form an Administration—and wishing him success and prosperity, not only in the formation, but in the conduct of that Administration.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure the House that it is not easy for me to express in adequate terms my sense of its kindness on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman, in the words he has spoken, has really moved me more than I can well say; and the manner in which his most kind observations have been received, not only among my own friends and supporters, but among Gentlemen on the other side — with whom I am so often brought into what I hope is never unfriendly collision— I can assure them I feel most deeply. In fact, I am quite incapable of saying anything more.
At a subsequent stage,
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid: By leave of the House I think I ought to say one word, though it will only be one word, about the distinguished statesman whose services the country has lost by the new arrangement which has been entered into. It would be improper, and, indeed, impossible, for me to express my personal feelings on the subject, nor would it be any more proper, though it would be easier, to express the loss which Gentlemen on this side of the House, and the Party to which I belong, feel on the subject. But it is the glory of British statesmanship that we have never regarded our Party Leaders, because they are Party Leaders, as otherwise than representative of the country of which they are statesmen. And when I remember that Lord Salisbury has been, I think, four times Foreign Secretary, and three times Prime Minister, and that probably there has not been a man in our generation whose name has carried more weight outside this country, and who has done greater services to the State within this country, I think it will be felt that I can hardly allow the occasion to pass without expressing my deep feelings of the immense public loss which this country has sustained in his retirement from the public service.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the feeling which he has expressed is not confined to his side of the House, nor to any particular Party in this country. The great and distinguished

129
statesman who has now, it appears, retired from the foremost position in the Empire under the Crown, carries with him the respect and the gratitude of his fellow-countrymen, irrespective of their political opinions. I cannot say that Lord Salisbury has ever shown any partiality towards the Party with which I am connected—but though he has often been a strenuous antagonist, and has sometimes thrown a good deal of that cold water which he is capable of throwing upon the ardent aspirations of the Liberal Party, yet I can at least say this, that in his dealings with foreign affairs and with international questions, he has, again and again, earned our applause and approval and confidence. It is a subject of deep regret to us, quite as much as to the right hon. Gentleman, if Lord Salisbury no longer takes part in the councils of the Empire.

Exchequer Grants for Education.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have caused to be prepared any Return, Schedule, or Estimate showing the respective amounts of Exchequer grants which under their proposals will probably be given to each education authority to be established under the Education Bill; and whether he will lay such a Return, Schedule, or Estimate upon the Table of the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid it would be impossible to make the Return the hon. Gentleman asked for, because the materials for it are really not complete. We made our calculations in respect of those figures on data now found in some cases to be antiquated.

Necessitous School Board Districts.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can say when an opportunity will be afforded to the House, by the introduction of the financial Resolution, to discus; the position of the necessitous School Board districts, in order to consider the financial position in those districts, under his new proposals, as compared with the existing law.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give any pledge at present.

Brussels Sugar Convention.
MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the treasury whether he will say when His Majesty's Government proposes to take steps to secure the ratification by this louse of the Brussels Sugar Convention.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The proceedings to which the hon. Gentleman refers will have to be taken before the conclusion of the session, though not, I think, before the conclusion of this position of the session; but, at any rate, I cannot make any announcement at the present moment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should like to ask a question as to the course of business.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I informed the House last week, my intention was that the Education Bill should be taken today and tomorrow, and Supply on Wednesday and Thursday. I have since learned that there has been put down for the evening sitting on Wednesday a group of Private Bills which will absorb the greater part of that sitting. It so happens that Private Bills have been put down once or twice on Supply nights, and as I do not think that is quite fair to the House, I propose, under these circumstances, to take the Education Bill on Wednesday, and the Supply on Tuesday and Thursday. On Tuesday the English and Scotch Education Votes will be taken, and on Thursday the War Office Vote. On Friday the consideration of the Water Bill will be resumed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
They have agreed to Midwives Bill.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 6:—
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Before the Amendment standing in my name is passed over, I wish to ask if one I have further down on the Paper—
"In Clause 6, page 2, line 33, leave out from 'have' to 'the' in line 35,"
is in order. It is of a more limited character than my first one, which proposes to insert the words —
"Except in the case of schools provided by a School Board."
*THE CHAIRMAN: The second Amendment would not make some unless oilier words were inserted. Does the hon. Member propose to do that?
MR. HERBERT LEW1S: No, Sir.
*THE CHAIRMAN: But standing alone the words would not read.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: The words I want to leave out are—
"The powers and duties of School Boards and School Attendance Committees under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 1900,"
and that raises a question of great importance, although of a much more limited character than the first Amendment, which I understand you have ruled out of order.
*THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will bring up an amended Amendment I will consider it.
*MR. CHANNINGsaid that the object of the Amendment he now moved was to attempt to embody in the Bill the principle of the devolution of the powers of the Education Department to the local authority, which was suggested by the Government in the Bill of 1896. After the discussion of last week it was obvious that the whole, position assumed a different aspect. The principle of an ad hoc, authority had now been set aside, and it was desirable, in the interests of educational efficiency, to extend as far as possible the powers of the new authority, in order to make it effective for the coordination of education and to render all branches of education absolutely and permanently efficient. He did not wish
132
to raise on that Amendment the question of the control or management of denominational schools, he wished simply to touch the question of the responsibility of the local authority for the efficient working of denominational schools in the new position in which they were placed. In this Bill an enormous boon and advantage was being conferred on the voluntary or denominational schools by placing them upon the rates, and they certainly ought to demand some quid pro quo for the local authority in respect of it. It used to be urged again and again, although he could scarcely understand the sincerity of those who urged it, that the control of the Education Department was quite sufficient popular or public control of the denominational school system of this country to justify placing them on the grants or on the rates. But it seemed to him that the principle which the Government set before the House in 1896 was a sound one to follow, in order to meet the present situation, and to secure in the public interest a quid pro quo for the enormous boon granted to denominational schools under the Bill. If there was a strong case for devolution in 1896, there was a far stronger case now that the rates were in question. He had expressly drawn his Amendment on moderate lines, and had only proposed that the Board of Education should have a gradual power of devolution; in tact, it was a more limited proposal than that of the Government in 1896. In addition to the question of the efficiency of the voluntary schools, he would draw attention to the absolute necessity of the local authority having more power with a view to the co-ordination of all-branches of education in the area. They ought not only to co-ordinate education, but they ought to be in a position to provide against wasteful expenditure on small and inferior schools. If they were to have a real educational authority, the county authority ought to be in a position to form a general scheme of education for the whole of its area, to deal with inferior, inadequate, and improper schools, to impress on managers the necessity of giving up some schools and consolidating others, and otherwise to provide for the efficiency of education in the district. Obviously this co-ordination was most

133
needed in the rural districts, and they would be able to do nothing for education in such districts unless there was a power of reorganisation and consolidation such as he suggested. For these objects there must be some devolution of the powers of the Board of Education, especially in dealing with this class of district. The Vice-President of the Council in 1896, in defending the proposal then made, said that the work of the Department had become unbearable—and that the paramount Education Authority constituted under that Bill in every county and county borough was to be "a sort of separate Education Department for each county." And further—
"It is proposed to decentralize entirely the administration of school grants by the Education Department to throw upon these bodies the duties of administering the Parliamentary grant. The general inspection of schools will of course, be undertaken a so by the count authority, and the Committee of Council will only have inspectors who will visit the schools from time to time see than the county education authority is properly fulfilling its duties and the education is up to the proper standard."
He even went so far as to encourage each county to draw up its own type of Education Code. That might be going too far, and acting too precipitately, but he would only say, looking to Clause 8. that he saw there no powers which were sufficiently wide, detailed, and definite, to secure the object he had in view, and which the Vice President of the Council had in view in his more sweeping proposal in 1896. Therefore he wished to press his Amendment on the Committee. He was bound to say that the Bill of 1896 was a more liberal and more progressive measure in many respects than the present. There was great danger in the present Bill that the local educational authority would not have the power or the opportunity of really co-ordinating or developing education to the highest point or of curing the evils of unsatisfactory tendencies in itself. He asked the Government to deal with this proposal in a broad spirit. He thought his suggestion merited consideration, because; it did not insist on an immediate and sweeping devolution of the powers of the Board of Education. In some counties or county boroughs there would be an immediate devolution of some important powers, and in other counties the devolution should be more gradual and tentative.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 32, after 'shall,' insert 'undertake, on such terms as may be from time to time agreed on between the authority and the Board of Education, the administration on behalf of the Board of all or any of the duties of the Board in respect of money provided by Parliament and in respect of certifying the efficiency of schools.' "—(Mr. Channing.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University),said that as he understood, the hon. Member proposed to grant to the local authorities on elementary education proposed to be set up by this Bill, certain provisions which it was intended to bestow on the local educational authorities by the Bill of 1896. He would be glad to consider a proposal of that sort with the greatest possible goodwill, but if his memory did not betray him, the proposal made in the Bill of 1896 was very vehemently opposed by his predecessor in office, and by the generality of the hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member himself. The fact really was that the condition of the present Bill was wholly different from that of 1896, and that very admirable provision of the 1896 Bill referred to by the hon. Member did not apply at all either to the machinery of the present Bill or to the present condition of the relations between the Board of Education and the elementary schools. In the first place, in 1896 the local authorities were not made the managers of the new schools, but rather the controlling body. There were not only School Board schools, but private schools under voluntary management to the number of 20,000, and if the Bill had become law it would not have lessened that number. Therefore, the Board of Education would have had to deal under the Bill of 1896 with an immense number of independent bodies of school managers. Under the present Bill the Board of Education would have only to deal with the number of local authorities for elementary education which at the maximum amounted to little more than 200. [Dr. MACNAMARA: 338.]. Well, 338; that was a very much less number than 20,000. Not only that, the relation between the Board of Education and the managers of schools

135
was very much simpler than in those days. In those days schools were inspected by the Department, and grants were made for all sorts of different subjects, and there was a great deal of detailed work in fixing the amount of the grants. Now a block grant was given at so much per scholar in every school in average attendance, and all that the Board of Education had got to do was to see that the attendance was maintained and that the school was in an efficient and satisfactory state. He did not see how those simple but very important duties which the Board of Education had to perform could be conveniently delegated. He dared say that it might be possible, in conjunction with the local authorities, to make some new regulation as to the average attendance. While they had the responsible local authorities to deal with, they would be able to simplify the duty of the Board of Education in regard to attendance, but that could be done without any authority of the kind proposed in the hon. Member's Amendment by Act of Parliament. It only required an alteration of the Rule in the Code, and that could be done by degrees more satisfactorily than by Act of Parliament; although he dared say that some of these functions could be, with great advantage, delegated by the Board of Education to the local authorities. But there was a great function which the Board of Education ought not to delegate to anybody. It was absolutely necessary that when they spent money in elementary education the schools should be efficient, and that efficiency was only to be obtained by a proper and intelligent system of continuous inspection by properly organised inspectors from the Central Board. It was for the interest of the local authorities themselves that this impartial inspection should go on, because all the results of that inspection would be communicated to them and they could have no better information as to the efficiency of the teaching in their schools, than the reports of the inspectors of the Central Board, properly organised, as he hoped they would be.
*MR. YOXALLsaid while he sympathised with the motive of the hon. Member in moving his Amendment, he did not think it was necessary to press it. Under Clause 8, the local authorities would have power over the whole of the schools in their area not now possessed, in two ways. First of all, they could inspect all the aided schools. In the second place, there would be a public audit of the accounts of all the schools. The efficiency of a school depended on two factors—the efficiency of the teaching and the adequate expenditure of money; and when the local authority was able to assure itself that all the public money given to denominational schools was spent for the purpose for which that money was given, they should see a considerable improvement in the efficiency of these schools. Again, it was almost as important that the inspection from the Central Board should go on concurrently with the local inspection. He submitted to his hon. friend that if he desired to realise the standard of efficiency which ought to be, he ran a risk that that would not be obtained if all the powers were delegated to the local authority. Experience in the past has proved that the local authorities had not been sufficiently keen in securing a full average attendance, and not particularly eager to fix a high standard of efficiency, as the parents who had children at school were anxious to get them to leave school and go to work. Pressure, therefore, might be brought to bear on the local authorities to spend less money on the schools by reducing educational efficiency in the locality. At present, if a School Board attempted to lower the efficiency of the schools in order to lower the rates, that Board would be fined. It should depend upon the standard set up from Whitehall, and maintained at as high and fair a level as the joint wisdom of the inspectors can devise. The duty of testing and deciding as to efficiency must be placed outside the locality. When his hon. friend proposed that the local authority should take over those powers which were now vested in the central authority, and which ought not to be relaxed, he thought he was going too far.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought his hon. friend the Member for West Nottingham had rather misread the Amendment, which did not contemplate that the central authority should let go all control. The principle was the same as that which was introduced in the Bill of 1896, and it was the best thing in that measure. If that principle had been given to Wales they would have made very good use of it. Their secondary and higher education was worked on the principle of this Amendment. The central authority still had every control, and if they found that secondary education was poor they could withhold the grant, and bring the most effective pressure to bear to keep the schools up to the mark. That was what his hon. friend contemplated in his Amendment, which devolved upon the local authority greater powers for organising education, and not to reduce the level and status of education. What the Amendment aimed at was to alter the direction of educational activity and energy, in any one particular county. In every country in the world where education had been a success it was organised upon the principles of local autonomy. In Germany or Switzerland the Government did not lay down the general standard. Each canton organised its own education, and the central Government only had financial control. The curriculum of the school was not prepared by the central authority, and the same applied to the United States, where the education was almost entirely in the hands of the State authorities. His hon. friend simply proposed by his Amendment a compromise between the United States system and the present system in this country. The complaint was not that they did not spend sufficient money, but that they did not get the kind of education that was applicable to the needs of particular districts. They got an education given in a rural district which trained the children for town life, and children were flocking from the villages to the towns. They should not merely train children for a county life, but also develope in them an aptitude and taste for a country life. How could the Board of Education prepare a curriculum for an agricultural county like
138
Somerset or Gloucestershire. Why not leave it to those counties to lay down the general lines upon which education should proceed there? [Cries of Oh, Oh!"] Apparently his hon. friends had no confidence in Gloucestershire. They ought to say to those counties— "These are the grants we make you, and you can spend them in any way that trains them to become good citizens of Somerset or Gloucestershire." That was what they wanted, and not attempts to make a Cockney out of a Somerset man. It had been said that Somerset would probably use the money for putting down swine fever, or something of that kind, but if they provided that the money must be spent upon education then each county would form its own plans and draw up its own curriculum. In that way they would get what the Prime Minister indicated in his speech, namely, the training of every intellect in order to bring out its most efficient qualities. The primary system was the only failure in Wales, and had been denounced by the hon. Member for North Camberwell. But while the higher and secondary education, as organised by themselves, produced the best results, the primary system, as turned out by the right hon. Gentlemen at Whitehall, gave the same training to a Welsh child as to a child living in Whitechapel.
SIR JOHN GORST: If that is so it is the fault of the local education authority, because the curriculum is drawn up by the managers of the schools.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that although he agreed with a good deal of what was said by the mover of the Amendment, he could not vote for his proposal as it stood. His hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon appeared to have misconstrued the effect of this Amendment, for if it were carried it would be possible for the Board of Education, by favouring a particular authority, to part with all control of the money provided by Parliament. He could not understand how anybody could defend that devolution of that kind to any local education authority should take place. How could they hand over the money voted by Parliament to one local authority without retaining any control

139
between it and the Board of Education? This proposal meant to transfer all the authority of the Board of Education to the local authority. He could quite understand that it might be well to group divers education authorities together, and devolve on such a general body, representing a large number of education authorities, some powers of the Education Board. He had no wish to prolong the discussion, his only reason for rising being that he did not care to oppose the Amendment of one so sincere in his devotion to the cause of education as his hon. friend, without stating the reason for his so doing.
Amendment negatived.
*DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had considerable misgivings as to what would take place if they handed over the control of elementary education to the rural education authorities, because the past history of the agricultural communities of this country for the last thirty years did not disclose any particular zeal or enthusiasm on their part for primary education. They did well in technical education when they did not raise money from their own rates, but obtained it out of the Exchequer. The more he studied the question, the greater his misgivings became. A good deal had been said by the Prime Minister as to the irritation of Whitehall interference; but if that were abolished it would be disastrous to the children who were unhappy enough to be born in the villages of this country. He could not say what would be the effect in Wales, where the people appeared to be strongly enthusiastic in this matter, and who no doubt would carry out this power with great generosity and ardour. But that would not be the case with England. What sort of primary education would the children have meted out to them? The history of the last seventy years had been one long struggle by the local authorities in agricultural districts against the standard which Whitehall had endeavoured to hold them to. It was a good thing for the unfortunate children born in the country that there were some gentlemen at Whitehall, city bred, to look after their interests. The agricultural administrators did not see the
140
necessity for education. Right hon. Members like the Member for Thanet and the Member for Sleaford would come down and tell the House that education had done a great deal of harm that it had depleted the country of labour. And if broad-minded men of affairs like these made such remarks as those, what would not happen in the villages? Every child ought to have a thoroughly liberal education. He repudiated the doctrine of a country educacation for a country child as one which was thoroughly unjust to the child; as one which ruled him down to a certain; level. We had no right to rule him, down. Let us give them a good and solid foundation, and then they could become agricultural labourers afterwards. He drew attention to the fact that in the agricultural counties the rural school attendance committees for many years past had the right to fix the standard for total exemption from school in the rural districts, with the result that only one fixed the Sixth Standard, 238 fixed the Fifth, and 336, or rather more than half the rural school attendance committees in the country did not go beyond the Fourth Standard. Recent modifications of the law, largely due, he was glad to say, to the Vice-president of the Council, would, however, mend that matter. With regard to the half-time exemptions, 323 school attendance committees only fixed the Third as the Standard for half-time exemptions, whilst forty-five committees had not gone higher than Standard 2. In addition to fixing low Standards there was not a local authority which did not flagrantly disregard its own byelaws. We were now going to give autonomy. He would accept it that it was proposed, to continue the Whitehall Code and inspection and the general control of the Education Department over the Government grant. But he asked not only that there should be a continuance of Whitehall control and inspection, but that that control should be strengthened and developed, so that with the additional million sterling which it was proposed to grant from State funds to primary education, further advances might be made in the character of the instruction in the interests of these village children. Many of the rural

141
schools were in respect of staffing, equipment, and apparatus in a shameful condition, and it was absolutely essential that the local education authorities should not be freed from the control and inspection of Whitehall in regard to these important matters.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 32, at beginning, to insert the words 'In accordance with the regulations for the time being of the Board of Trade.' "—Dr. Macnamara.
Question proposed, "That those words 'be there inserted."
SIR JOHN GORSTthought the words of the Amendment were unnecessary. The object of the Bill was to shift the responsibility for education in the rural parts of the country to the County Councils. Those Councils were composed of gentlemen who, in a variety of ways, had shown their strong interest in education by the provision they had already made in their respective counties. There was no primâ facie reason to suppose that the Councils would not make proper provision for elementary education, or that they would require the regulations of the Board of Education to show them what to do. He reminded the Committee that the Board of Education already possessed absolute powers in regard to elementary education in every district in the country. Decentralisation did not mean that the Exchequer were to give these local authorities money to spend as they liked. The Board of Education was to retain the whole control of the Exchequer money, and as that defrayed three-fourths of the cost of maintaining the schools the Board would be able to exercise a most powerful influence in the direction of efficiency. In the case of an inefficient school, the Board would be able to take away the grant, and thus absolutely fine the school. The Board nominally had that power at present, but it was practically impossible to use it because the inefficiency of a school was usually due to lack of funds, and to stop the grant would probably close the school altogether, or, at any rate, to render it absolutely impossible for the school to become efficient. But when the managers of the school were the
142
representatives of the ratepayers, and could take out of the rates the money necessary to make good the deficiency, the power to withhold the grant would be a very real power, and in the case of a really inefficient school would be exercised at once, because it would not entail the closing of the school, or even a reduction in its expenditure. It would simply throw the burden upon the ratepayers of the county, who might be trusted to take care that the County Council who represented them did not allow it to be possible for such a burden to be cast upon them. The Board of Education would thus have sufficient power to secure the efficiency of the schools, and the Amendment was really unnecessary.
MR. BRYCEpointed out that on several occasions they had been told by the First Lord that many of the powers of the Board of Education were to be handed over to the local authorities. The Vice-President, however, had now apparently gone back on that declaration, and conveyed the idea that the Board would in the future have all the powers it had had in the past. If that was the case there would be the same inspection, the same class of control, and the same amount of correspondence between the local managers and Whitehall as in the past.
SIR JOHN GORST: I did not say anything like that.
MR. BRYCEsaid the managers would not be the same as the local authority, but would be under them. There would be three authorities to deal with, viz., the Board of Education, the local authority, and the managers.
SIR JOHN GORSTexplained that the Board of Education would not correspond with the managers of the school, but with the local authority; the managers would be the mere creatures and servants of the local authorities.
MR. BRYCEsaid the Committee had been led to understand that the managers, at any rate of the voluntary schools, were to have a very important

143
and independent position, but the Bill was so kaleidoscopic in its character that its aspect changed with every statement of the right hon. Gentleman, The questions to which answers were desired were: Would the control hitherto exercised by the Board of Education be diminished? Would the work hitherto done by the Board in the way of keeping the managers up to the mark be henceforth done by the local authorities? He understood the right hon. Gentleman to answer those questions in the negative. That was entirely different from the view given by the First Lord. The Bill had been welcomed by many Members because they thought it would lead to decentralisation, and that the Board of Education would transfer some of its powers to the local authorities. They now understood that that would not be the case. The clause was one of the most important in the Bill; it came nearest to raising the question of the relations between the local authorities and the Board of Education, but it was impossible properly to deal with either the clause or the Amendment without some further explanation. To take the one question of inspection: were the schools to be inspected by the Board of Education inspector or by the inspector of the local authority, or by both? There was the greatest difficulty in understanding what were to be the relations between the two bodies, and the present was as good an opportunity as any for the right hon. Gentleman to explain more fully the intentions of the Government.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the clause at first sight appeared to deal only with matters of routine, but it really raised the important question of the general relations which were to exist between the Board of Education and the local authorities, and upon that point the Committee were entitled to some further explanation. From an educational point of view, he agreed with the hon. Member for North Camber-well that in many places it would be well to keep the control practically in the hands of the Board of Education. Much of the difficulty in dealing with the various Amendments arose from the
144
fact that some Members were inclined, quite naturally, to regard one part of the country instead of looking at the country as a whole. An indication of what would happen in English counties unless the control were in the hands of the Board of Education might be gathered from the warm welcome given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division to the statement that the managers would be the mere creatures and servants of the local authority.
MR. CHAPLINsaid the hon. Member was quite mistaken; he made no exhibition of feeling, either the one way or the other.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he entirely agreed that that ought to be the position of the managers of the schools.
MR. CHAPLINagain dissented.
MR. SAMUEL EVANShoped, then, that in the course of the debate the right hon. Gentleman would state what his view on the point was. The practical questions involved were very important. Were the inspectors of the Board of Education to remain in their present position?
SIR JOHN GORST: Yes.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid in that case there would be some control by the Board of Education. In the next place, was the Board of Education to frame the code?
SIR JOHN GORST: It must do.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that these matters were not clear from the words of the clause, and there were other points upon which enlightenment was sought. His view was that the Board of Education must be supreme in matters of education, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment.
SIR W. HART DYKEsaid they were all looking forward to having better schools, but how were they going to be procured? Where did the punitive power or compulsion come in?

145
With regard to the school managers, he presumed after the Act had passed they would be in very much the same position as they were at present. Under the Act of 1870, School Boards might delegate their powers of management of a school to a body of managers, and they might remove all or any of those managers if they liked.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: That refers to managers of board schools, but we are now talking of the managers of voluntary schools.
SIR W. HART DYKEreplied that no doubt the system for all schools would be alike. [Cries of "No, no."] Could any hon. Member opposite quote any clause to show that there was to be a distinction drawn between the two? Hon. Members opposite had conjured up all kinds of possibilities, but they were in regard to some other Bill, and certainly did not apply to this Measure. Under this Bill he presumed that the same system would prevail for both board schools and voluntary schools, and in this matter he hoped the Committee would be guided by common sense. The responsibility could not rest alone with the local authority, and it must come home to Whitehall to control the expenditure of these vast sums of money. At Whitehall must rest the punitive power.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEcontended that the question of the managers did not arise upon this clause. The intention of the Amendment was that the position should be made perfectly clear, and he could not really understand why the right hon. Gentleman should not agree to insert those words. On the Opposition side they thought the insertion of the words was desirable, and on the other side of the House they had been told by the Vice-President of the Council, that they could not possibly do any harm.
SIR JOHN GORST: I never said that. I said the words were unnecessary.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid that if the words were inserted, the power of the Education Department would
146
be kept up, and if an uncertainty did arise it would be because of the wide and far-reaching generalities which were used about decentralisation by the First Lord of the Treasury. When this Bill was first introduced, many hon. Members said it was a decentralisation Measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire said that the County Councils were tied hand and foot by the Education Office, and then he was told by the Prime Minister that he was entirely wrong, and they had been led to believe that this principle was contained in the Bill.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEhoped the Committee would not insert the words which had been proposed, for it had not been disputed that the words wore unnecessary. This clause put the local authorities in the position of the existing School Boards. The result of inserting such words was very often mischievous, because some new meaning had to be found for them, and they might place the local authorities under still further restrictions. A good deal had been said about that decentralisation contained in this Bill, but he understood that the inspectors of the Board of Education would still perform their present duties. He hoped the reports of the inspectors would be submitted to the local authority, so that they might have an opportunity of judging of the efficiency of the school. The grants would be paid through the local education authority, and if the Board of Education inspector reported that a certain school was inefficient after he had represented that fact in his report to the local education authority, the Board of Education might withhold the grant and bring pressure to bear to remedy the inefficiency.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he understood that the words which had been proposed were in the Act of 1870, and, therefore, it would be an unwise thing to deliberately leave them out in the present Act. If they were not inserted, it would give the new local authorities a kind of freedom which was not desirable. He desired the local education authorities to have plenty of elasticity, but not freedom, with regard to the standard. If there was any doubt about this point, it would be unwise to

147
reject this Amendment. It was more important now than it was in 1870, and for this reason: that all the grants were now capitation grants. The new grant should be a capitation grant. They were always told that the Department took some means of securing that the money did not go to the relief of ordinary subscriptions, but for the improvement of the staff or apparatus. If they were able to secure that in the past, he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to secure that under this Act, when they were going to have twice the sum of money given as a capitation grant, the money should go to increasing the standard of education to be given in the schools. He thought that was a reasonable request. What they wanted was to have it made perfectly plain in the Act that the Department had the power of the screw to compel the authority to keep up the efficiency and the standard of education.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that they could not really ascertain what the effect of the addition of the words proposed to be inserted would be, or whether they were necessary or unnecessary, until they had a full understanding of several vague phrases which occurred in Clause 6. The effect of inserting these words after "shall" would be to finally determine the form of the Clause. The Clause said—
"The local education authority shall throughout their area have the powers and duties of a School Board and School Attendance Committee under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, and the control of all secular instruction in public elementary schools, whether provided by them or not."
And then the Clause went on, somewhat irrelevantly from a drafting point of view—
"And School Boards and School Attendance Committees shall be abolished in that area."
What he could not understand clearly was what was the position under the first proposition of the Clause. Did it mean that the Board of Education would he in exactly the same relation to the local authority as the Board of Education was now to the School Board?
SIR JOHN GORST: Yes.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: Very well. If that was so, the insertion of the
148
words of the Amendment might be very important. They might be necessary from certain points of view. They might materially after the relations between the Board of Education and the local education authority by extending or restricting the powers of the Board of Education—he did not know which. If the words "subject to the regulations of the Board of Education for the time being" were inserted, obviously the powers of the local education authority would be limited.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that when he answered the speech of the hon. Member for North Camberwell he had not seen its terms, the Amendment not being on the Paper. He understood that the object of the Amendment was to give more power to the Board of Education. It was in reference to that that he said it was unnecessary, and he assured the Committee that the Education Department had sufficient power to secure the efficiency of the schools. Since then he had had an opportunity of considering the actual words proposed by the hon. Member, and he thought that all this time the Committee had been discussing what was not affected by the Clause. The object of the Clause was to give the new authority "the powers and duties of a School Board and School Attendance Committee under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900." The hon. Member for North Camberwell proposed that that should be done "subject to the regulations of the Board of Education for the time being." What would be the effect of that? The effect would be to enable the Board of Education to curtail their powers as a School Board, and to curtail their powers as a School Attendance Committee. The words of the Amendment would enable the Board of Education to modify or increase the powers of the local authority. That might be a useful provision, perhaps, for the Board of Education, but it might be utterly subversive of the real intention of the Act of Parliament. It would give the Board of Education a roving commission to modify the provisions of the Act by regulations made at their will. That was not what the hon. Member intended. He was sure the Committee would never give such powers to a

149
Government Department. If it were desired to give more power to the Board of Education, this Clause of the Bill was not the place in which to give it. The powers of school managers would be discussed when they came to the next Clause.
MR. T. P. O' CONNORthought the hon. Member for North Camberwell might be satisfied with the discussion which had taken place. When he heard the speech of the hon. Member, he was inclined to strongly support the Amendment. They were all agreed in the desire that education should be kept up at a higher level than it had been in some villages by the rural obscurantist School Boards and School Attendance Committees. The Vice-President of the Council had been one of the strongest critics of those reactionary bodies in the rural districts. He believed that the Vice-President would agree with the hon. Member for North Camberwell that the necessary pressure should be put on those districts. As he understood the question, the Board of Education had under this Bill fuller authority than under any previous legislation. With regard to the giving of grants, they would be perfectly entitled to withhold the grant if they were dissatisfied with a school. He understood that the additional million would also be subject in its distribution to the approval of the school by the Board of Education. If that were so, he wanted to know what good the Amendment would do. The harm it would do was that it would give the Board of Education power to interfere in the economy of a school in other subjects than the mere efficiency of the school. Roman Catholic schools would now have public support in the shape of rates instead of private subscriptions; and if the manager of a school came to him in future and asked him to interfere with the Vice-President for insisting on greater efficiency and healthiness, he could refuse to go to the Vice-President, because it would no longer be possible for managers to plead poverty, as they had done on previous occasions. He believed the Amendment would be mischievous, because subjects which should be dealt with by the local autonomous authority would be under
150
the regulation of the central authority. That was a depletion of local autonomy which he would not be ready to accept. He was in entire sympathy with the spirit of the Amendment, but in the circumstances he would ask his hon. friend not to press it.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he understood from the Vice-President of the Council that the powers of Whitehall would be unimpaired, and that it would not be competent for the local authority to reduce the standard of education. On that understanding, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid it might be thought that the Amendment he now moved was an Amendment more verbal than substantial. The Clause as it stood read—
"The local education authority shall, throughout their area, have the powers and duties of a School Board and School Attendance Committee under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900."
Now, as a matter of fact, some of these powers and duties had already been expressly abolished, and as there were certain powers under the Elementary Education Acts of 1870, 1873, and 1876, which were abolished by Section 19 and the Fourth Schedule of this Bill, it seemed to him it was absolutely necessary to insert the words he proposed, in order to make it quite clear that the powers and duties which were to be transferred to the local education authorities did not include those powers and duties which were expressly abolished by the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 32, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'except as hereinafter provided.' "—Mr. Herbert Lewis.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.),said he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, because the Clause was perfectly clear, and the powers and duties to which the hon. Member referred would not pass to the new education authority.
MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that while he thought the inclusion of the words he had proposed would be an improvement, after what the right hon. Gentleman had said he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HERBERT LEWISmoved the omission of the words—
"The powers and duties of a School Board and School Attendance Committee, under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, and the."
The object of this Amendment was to keep alive the School Boards, so far as the "powers and duties" were concerned. The Committee had already decided that there was to be one authority over the whole of education, and necessarily the School Board would be the subordinate body to the local authority. His Amendment would enable the School Boards to carry out the powers and duties assigned to them, subject to the control of the local authority.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that that question had been decided by an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rossendale, and could not be raised again.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that there were two bodies by which the school attendance was to be supervised—the School Boards and the School Attendance Committees of the Board of Guardians. The object of the words inserted in the Clause was to make it clear that the powers and duties of the School Boards and the School Attendance Committees of the Boards of Guardians should be transferred to the new educational authority.
MR. HERBERT LEWISasked if he was to understand that the meaning of the words in the Clause as it stood was that the local educational authority was to have control of education over all schools—whether board schools or voluntary schools?
MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly.
MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that his contention was that there was absolutely
152
no necessity whatever for the introduction of those words in the Clause, having regard to the fact that the local educational authority was to have the control of all secular instruction in the public elementary schools. Surely these words were as wide as they could possibly be made. As a matter of fact, however, he contended that all the powers and duties of the School Boards were not transferred to the local educational authority. He asked the Chairman to put his Amendment to the Committee in such a form as would not exclude other Amendments of substance lower down on the Paper.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 23, to leave out from the word 'have' to the word 'the' in line 35."— (Mr. Herbert Lewis.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that it was undoubted that if those words were omitted it would open up the question as to whether the powers and duties of the School Boards and of the Attendance Committees of the Boards of Guardians were transferred. They were quite distinctive powers.
LORD EDMUND F1TZMAURICEsaid that if he understood the position correctly, he hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment, because in the rural districts they must get out of the hands of the School Attendance Committee. His absolute conviction was, from what he knew of the schools of England, that if they got a County Committee representative of a large area, they would be much more likely to improve the bye-laws securing a better attendance of scholars, than if they trusted small parochial School Boards or School Attendance Committees of the Boards of Guardians. He was not one to throw stones at the small School Boards. He had known small School Boards which had done good work, and he had known small School Boards which had done bad work, and he was bound to admit that except where they were adjacent to large towns and partook more of an urban character, small School Boards

153
and still more small School Attendance Committees had as a whole failed. He hoped the words would be allowed to stand as they were in the Bill, that his hon. friend would withdraw his Amendment with regard to that, and that the other points which it was desired to raise by the Amendment might be raised in another form.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONcalled attention to the fact that the School Boards had power to re-transfer the voluntary schools which had been transferred to them in the past. The voluntary schools so transferred were innumerable; they were unable to come up to the standard of efficiency required by the Board of Education and so were transferred to the School Board, which had not only made them efficient but had maintained them out of the rates. If the new authority were to have this power of re-transference and these schools were re-transferred, as in all probability they would be, the voluntary school managers would be thrown upon their own resources to obtain voluntary subscriptions to maintain what was now a public school maintained out of the public rates.
SIR JOHN GORSTthought this question would be more properly raised under Clause 12.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONdid not know-how that might be. All he knew was that the School Boards had the power to re-transfer these schools, and he thought that by the new authorities they would be re-transferred wholesale. It would be in his opinion a most serious thing to re-denominationalise schools which for years had been public schools maintained out of the rates. With regard to the attendance bye-laws, it had been suggested that those were transferable to the new authorities, but he took it that one of the bright spots of this Bill was that these bye-laws were to be abolished.
SIR JOHN GORSTpointed out that this was really a legal question. Bye-laws were territorial, and prevailed over certain areas in the county. When the Bill passed, the bye-laws would not be abolished, but the local authority would have power to vary them.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONasked whether this would be so, because the School Boards had no power to vary the bye-laws of the schools which came under their observation, and if all these bye-laws were transferable to the new authorities as successors to the School Boards, and had power to vary them, that would be sufficient. The School Boards had no power to vary them without the consent of the school managers, and as the School Boards under this Bill would disappear, he assumed these bye-laws would be abolished.
SIR JOHN GORSTdoubted whether a local authority would be so foolish as to consent to administer a hundred different sets of bye-laws. If it was a wise authority it would make, he thought, one bye-law for the whole of the county.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid if that were so, there was nothing more to be said with regard to that matter. Another power he desired to refer to was with regard to the supply of sufficient accommodation by the Department. At present the Education Department could compel the School Board to find sufficient accommodation; would that power be transferred to the new authority?
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the new authority was compelled to provide school accommodation for the children within its area.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONin that case had nothing more to say, except that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would insert some words in the Bill to make it quite clear.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid the first thing the new authority would do would be to look over these bye-laws and see that they were put into a proper form. He thought that, if this Amendment were carried, the effect would be most disastrous. This Clause at present gave the new authority all the powers of the School Board, but if these words were inserted the local authority would not be able to provide a school for a district in which a School Board did not now exist. He therefore hoped the words of the Clause would be allowed to stand.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether, as these words stood, it was perfectly clear that the new local authority would be in the same position as if we had universal School Boards at present.
SIR JOHN GORSTwas understood to assent.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that was an important admission, because the Bill was really establishing something like universal School Boards under the local authority. There was an ambiguity in the word "their" as it stood in the Clause. "The local authority" it was proposed, "should, throughout their area, have the powers and duties of a School Board and School Attendance Committee." The words were rather misleading, and it should be made clear that the words "their area" referred to the area of the local authority and not to the areas of the School Boards and School Attendance Committees, which would exclude non-school board areas.
MR. BRYCEsaid three points had been raised. With regard to the first, the natural reading of the passage would be that all the powers of the School Board within the area would pass to the new authority. It would also be a natural course for the county authority to provide a uniform set of bye-laws. Any doubt about these points raised by the form of drafting should be removed. The next point was with regard to the attendance bye-laws. After the passage of this Bill the educational authority would be the educational authority for one area no longer, and it would be particularly awkward to enforce one set of bye-laws in one area and one in another, and therefore all the County Councils would make them uniform, no doubt, for the various areas. The third point raised was the power of re-transfer. If the power of the re-transfer of schools arose later in the Bill, discussion could be reserved, but it was an important point, and he could not suppose that it was intended that schools taken over by a School Board should be given back by the new authority to voluntary management.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLhoped that among the improvements which the Bill would effect would be the unification of bye-laws, which now varied in adjoining districts, though all conditions of population and trade were similar. It was most injurious to adjoining districts that these bye-laws should vary, and he hoped that the Government would, when the new bye-laws were submitted to them for sanction insist that they should be uniform and require higher standards to the benefit of education and the advantage of the people.
SIR JOHN BRUNNERexpressed surprise and alarm at the possibility of the new authority exercising the power to re-transfer to denominational management schools which had been transferred to School Boards. It was quite plain that the power would exist, and it was a disastrous prospect. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell the Committee that this part of the Bill would not be insisted on, because if it were they would have to oppose it very strongly indeed.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the 24th Clause of the Act of 1870 empowered a School Board, on stringent conditions, to re-transfer a school to voluntary management. The conditions included the consent of the Education Department, a resolution of a two-thirds majority at a special School Board meeting, and the repayment of all expenditure upon the school from the rates. No doubt under the general words of the Clause, the same powers, with its conditions, would be vested in the new authority. He hoped, however, the Committee would find more convenient opportunity for discussing this point on Clause 12 in regard to the new regulations for voluntary schools. If, from the general powers, the Committee wished to make this an exception, the schedule would be the place to make it.
MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid it was absolutely necessary, in dealing with a matter of this kind, to test it in detail, and he wished to know how far the powers of the School Board were to be transferred to the new authority. First of all he desired to know if the power of

157
a School Board to dismiss the managers of a school would be transferred intact to the new authority.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that would depend on the conditions the Committee might think it right to insert in Clauses 7 and 8 in reference to the position of managers.
*(5.15.) SIR CHARLES DILKE, reminded the Vice-President that this point was not now being raised for the first time, but that it was dealt with by several speakers in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. The point was of first-class importance, and the right hon. Gentleman had suggested that it could be met by including Section 24 of the Act of 1870 in the schedule of repeals, but he had not said that the Government would assent to such an Amendment. It was essential that the Committee should know the intention of the Government on the subject, and until that knowledge was imparted these general words should be kept before the Committee. Many of the powers transferred were, however, inapplicable in detail to the new state of things, and these general words ought to be carefully scrutinised from the point of view of such details. To take the one point of the two-thirds majority. What would answer to the two-thirds majority of the School Board? Would it be a two-thirds majority of the County Council, or a two-thirds majority of the Committee? That was merely an illustration, but it showed how productive of litigation these general words might be.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONhoped the Committee would have some assurance from the Government with regard to the treatment of Clause 24 of the Act of 1870. Quite apart from the difficulty of the two-thirds majority, which had been referred to, it had to be remembered that heretofore a school, when re-transferred, was transferred to a body prepared to take over its maintenance, whereas now it would be transferred to a body which would continue to repair the buildings, but would not be I responsible for the maintenance. Under
158
these circumstances the position was so very different that he hoped the Government would promise favourably to consider the repeal of Clause 24 when the Schedule was reached.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid that although the stringent provisions of Clause 24 of the Act of 1870 would prevent the frequent use of the power of re-transfer, it might be availed of in cases which otherwise would have to be met under Clauses 9 and 10 of the present Bill. In places where there were only board schools, but in which a considerable proportion of the population preferred a denominational school, and, by common consent, it was desirable that they should have such a school, the case might occasionally be met by a re-transfer of an old voluntary school to the denominational managers. To provide for such a case he thought the words should be retained.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the-argument of his noble friend was not likely to appeal very strongly to the Committee. It was perfectly true that the policy of the Bill was that under certain circumstances new denominational schools might be built not at the expense of the denomination, but that was very different from a case in which a denomination was unwilling or unable to continue the cost of a school, and had transferred it to the local authority under conditions which made a re-transfer impossible unless there was some extraordinary change in local circumstances. It would be a rather strong order to say that there should be a re-transfer to a denomination when the burden of keeping up the school had been so largely diminished. His own inclination would be to say that this power of re-transfer—which he thought was rarely, if ever used—should not be continued, but that the denominations should be content with the very large powers given to them to erect denominational schools where there seemed to be a real necessity for them.
MR. HERBERT LEWISin view of the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman, and the assurance that the point raised by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs would be considered, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSmoved to omit the words ''and duties" from line thirty-three. While disposed to agree that the powers as to management hitherto exercised by the School Board should be transferred to the local Education Committee, he thought there was much to be said in favour of leaving the duties as far as possible in the hands of the local managers. There were many advantages in having a single authority dominating the primary schools in a county area, but there was also the danger of a diminution in the local interest taken in the primary education in the various towns and villages in that county. What was to be the real position of these managing Committees? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Dartford Division had expressed the opinion that they would be in pretty much the same position as at present, while the Vice President had assured the Committee that they would be the creatures and servants of the local Education Committee. On the broad ground that it was well to place some responsibility upon these bodies, he thought there was much to be said for the Amendment. One of the duties to be transferred, if the Clause passed in its present form, was that of maintaining the schools in an efficient condition. That was already provided for by Clause 8. Then there was the duty of providing school buildings and suitable school apparatus. From the standpoint of efficiency a very good purpose might be served by leaving that responsibility on the shoulders of the local Committee. All would agree that the duties with regard to inspection should be discharged by the Board of Education and the county authorities, but the duty of appointing an attendance officer—who required to be a local man in order that he should know the local circumstances of each case—might be better exercised by the local Committee. The same remark would apply to the duty of making returns. It was very desirable that people should be induced to continue to take an alert interest in the management of the schools in their respective localities, and if such duties as he had referred to were left in the
160
hands of the local managers it was far more likely that efficient men and women would be forthcoming to fill positions on those Committees. He believed the interests of education would be promoted by the adoption of his Amendment, and therefore, he begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 33, to leave out 'and duties.'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
Question proposed.
"That the words 'and duties' stand part of the clause."
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the hon. Member had spoken about what he called the local Education Committee, but what that body was he had not attempted to explain. It was quite clear that nobody but the local authority could find the funds, and therefore upon that body should be put the duty of providing school buildings and apparatus. As to school attendance officers, it was quite true that they might consult the local body of managers of their own creation to advise them, but they must make themselves responsible for the carrying out of this important duty. In regard to the making of returns, which School Boards were bound to do, it was clear that some of those returns would be very costly, and incur a very large expenditure of money indeed. The examples which had been given by hon. Members seemed to him most clearly to be fatal objections.
Amendment negatived.
MR. CHAININGsaid he understood that in the schedule the 5th Section of the Act of 1891 was repealed, and therefore the powers and duties of a School Board as regarded the provision of free places were omitted from this Bill. He did not see in any part of the Bill any provision which placed the same responsibility or gave the same power to the local education authority which was given in Section 5 of the Act of 1891 to the School Boards. He wished to raise this matter because it seemed to him to be a matter of extreme importance that the local education authority should have the same power of providing on its

161
own responsibility the making of provision for free places. If the right hon. Gentleman could assure him that such power was already in the Bill, he would not press his Amendment. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 35, after '1900,' to insert the words 'and if at any time the Board of Education are satisfied that the authority have failed to perform any such duty, the Board may send them a requisition requiring them to fulfil the duty which they have so failed to perform.'"—(Mr. Channing.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid there was no doubt about the authorities having this power under the Bill, but he would promise that this matter should be looked into, and he would take care that the authorities should be subjected to the obligation expressed in the Amendment.
MR. CHANN1NGsaid he was astonished that so important a point had not been fully considered before. If the right hon. Gentleman would give him a pledge that this particular section of the Act of 1891 would not be repealed, of course the question fell to the ground.
SIR JOHN GORST: Really the hon. Member should not be surprised because in the third schedule it is provided that—
"(5.) The following provision shall have effect in lieu of section 5 of the Elementary Education Act, 1891—
" 'The duty of a local education authority under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1902, to provide a sufficient amount of public school accommodation, shall include the duty to provide a sufficient amount of public school accommodation without payment of fees in every part of their area.' "
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he wished to know whether it was the view of the Government that Clause 10 did or did not seriously modify the situation which had existed up to the present time with regard to the supply of the necessary school accommodation.
SIR JOHN GOESTsaid they could discuss that point upon Clause 10 when he should be prepared to argue the point.
MR. CORRIE GRANTpointed out that Section 5
162
of the Act of 1891 provided for a limit of age, and laid down that public school accommodation should be provided without payment of fees for children over three and under fifteen years of age. Sub-section 5 took the place of this provision, but it only imposed the obligation of providing public school accommodation and said nothing about the limit of age prescribed by the Act of 1891. This Amendment raised one of the many questions which ought to be raised as to the powers and duties of School Boards. He wished to know if this was the correct method of raising these questions, or should they be dealt with when dealing with the schedules, or would they then be shut out?
THE CHAIRMAN: I should say generally that they would not be shut out. This Clause is a general transfer of all the powers except those which are entirely repealed by the schedules. Therefore if the hon. Member wishes to transfer to a new local authority certain powers which appear now under the Schedule, his proper course is to strike out the repealed section under the schedule. If the hon. Member wishes to add to those powers I do not think he will be precluded in any way when we reach the schedule, this Clause being simply a general one.
MR. CHANNINGsaid that having regard to the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the status quo was to be maintained, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that before the Amendment was withdrawn he wished to know whether he could now or at some subsequent stage raise the question of the provision of free places in unsectarian schools. That was a very great grievance in some parts of the country. He asked whether, with the leave of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, the Committee would consent to allow the Amendment to be amended by the insertion after "accommodation" of the words "in a school provided by the local authority." They were making a new departure in elementary education, and it would be a great dereliction of duty on the part of the House of Commons if they allowed

163
this opportunity to pass of securing sufficient accommodation in schools provided by the local authority itself.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEasked whether the Amendment was in order.
MR. BRYCEsubmitted that this Amendment might well be considered in order.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid this Amendment would impose an entirely new duty. The Clause dealt with the transfer of existing powers.
*THE CHAIRMAN: If a School Board has the power now which the hon. Member is desirous to have transferred, the words are not necessary, because it will be transferred. If they have not the power now, I do not think it can be put into this Clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*(5.52.) SIR JOSEPH LEESEmoved an Amendment on Clause 6, providing for the insertion after "Committee" of the words "as set out in the fifth schedule hereto." the object being to add a schedule to the Bill clearly defining the powers and duties under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, to be conferred on the new local education authority. He confessed when he first read the words imposing powers and duties of a School Board and School Attendance Committee, under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900—that was thirty years of statutory accumulation, and further complicated by Cockerton and other judgments—he was dismayed. If these were his feelings, having had the advantage of a legal training involving a more or less intimate acquaintance with statutes for some years, what must the feeling of the newly-appointed member of the new local education authority be when he was confronted with the appalling and unexplained responsibility conveyed in these words. Such a man would not in the least know how to start finding out what his duties and obligations were. An expert would be wiser. He would send immediately to the Vote Office, if he were a Member
164
of Parliament, or to Messrs. Eyre & Spottiswoode if he were not, and he would buy all the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900. Then he would take the repealing schedule of this Bill, namely the fourth schedule to this Act, and he would proceed to strike out of the Elementary Acts, 1870 to 1900, all sections and portions of sections that were repealed by that schedule. Then he would make a careful abstract of what remained of the Elementary Acts, and from that he would extract a list of his "powers and duties." That was how the skilled member of the new education authority would set to work—but alas for the amateur at this kind of job. He would be distracted, if not driven to insanity, or at least insomnia; and one thing was certain—that if his knowledge depended upon his own exertions, there would not be one in fifty of these new members of the new education authority who would ever face the task and know what his powers and duties under this Bill were. They simply would not do this technical work, and he did not think it was fair to ask them to do it unaided. Then why not do it for them? His object was to give the new member of the Local Education Authority a bird's eye view of his duties and powers under this Bill. When he has read this Clause and asked what were his duties and powers, the answer was clear—"look at Schedule V." Otherwise there was a danger that he either would never make his investigation at all, or he would be left to the guidance of a Town Clerk or some other official, who would not, and could not be expected to be a reliable educational authority. From either alternative, he could foresee confusion and mistake. Nay, even supposing that a clerk to the new education authority did become a legal expert—and there were many able men amongst these corporation and County Council servants — the clerk in legal matters would become the Board, and a repetition in education of the influence of clerks to justices, would be repeated—a condition of things which, he thought, was much to be deprecated. So much for the convenience and utility of his suggestion. Now, as to the drafting. This was not so much a drafting Amendment, as a supplement to the words of the Clause—explanatory of the words. He did not attack the drafting. He

165
only desired to make it clear, so that he who runs may read and understand. Now as to the effect of his proposed words. He wanted only a declaration in the Clause that there should be a schedule of duties and powers. He did not ask the Government to prepare the schedule. He had had a schedule prepared for him. It was based on a paper issued by the National Education Association, which he had had carefully checked. It had, he believed, been carefully done, and against each description of power and duty there was placed this section of the Act whence that power or duty was deduced, so that the member of the new authority could be put at once on the spot. It might be urged that it would be dangerous to have such a list, lest some power or duty should be omitted. To this he replied, No. These powers and duties were nearly, if not entirely, statutory. There was no danger, provided the subject was attacked with industry and zeal. Even if there were such danger, it would not pass the wit of man to provide, after consideration, protecting words against limitation. Further, there was nothing in his proposal which would interfere with the form of the Bill, except perhaps the simplification of the repealing schedule. He desired that this Bill should be self-contained. A little trouble taken now would make these points and duties clear. If they desired a popular Bill let the Government make it a clear Bill. He offered it with all sincerity, desiring to improve this Bill, and he ventured to regard his suggestion is a red piece of practical legislation.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2., line 34, after the word 'Committee,' to insert the words '[as set out in the Fifth Schedule hereto].'" —(Sir Joseph Leese.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he sympathised with the object his hon. friend had in view, viz., to make Acts of Parliament clearer and more easily understood. But it did nut appear to him that that object would be obtained by the means adopted by his hon. friend. The difficulties would, he conceived, be
166
increased rather than diminished by the adoption of the Amendment. Perhaps what was desired might be best secured, after the Bill had become law, by passing an Act consolidating all educational legislation, and issuing a text book containing in general and popular form the necessary information. In these circumstances he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he supported the Amendment, because it was an attempt to make an Act of Parliament more simple for laymen. The right hon. Gentleman had distinctly argued on the other side of the question, and wanted to make Acts of Parliament more complicated than they need be, and to worry the general public by a, text book which would be written by a lawyer. He wished to quote a judgment by the late Lord Coleridge on legislation by reference in a case in which the judges were asked to decide the meaning of a section in an Act of Parliament—
"This procedure of legislation by reference," said Lord Coleridge, "makes the interpretation of modern Acts of Parliament a very difficult, and sometimes doubtful matter. We, the judges, have perhaps the least cause to complain. We sit here for the purpose, among other things, of interpreting Acts of Parliament, and we bring, or ought to bring, to our task trained and experienced intellects. But in practical matters of every day concern, such as the possession and exercise of the franchise, it is of the last importance that the law conferring it, and the rules which govern its exercise, should be easily comprehensible by the mass of the ordinary voters. We are well aware that protest as to past legislation is unavailing, but for the future to draw attention in a plain evil may perhaps be the first step towards its remedy."
He had other references in which judges had complained of the same thing, but he did not think he need trouble the Committee with further illustrations of the evils of the present system. There was no Member who had ever been called upon to deal with a far reaching Act of Parliament but had felt the difficulty which his hon. friend wanted to remove. If a man wanted to know what the Bill really did, he was told that the local education authority was to have all the powers and duties of a School Board and School Attendance Committee, and then he was referred to the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to

167
1900. If he purchased these Elementary Education Acts he found, as soon as he got to the second of them, that certain sections of the Act of 1870 were repealed, and if he went on through all the Acts he discovered that certain sections in previous Acts were repealed and certain other sections were modified. And then having gone through all these Acts and tried to understand them, he was advised to buy a text book, which might or might not be accurate, and which certainly had no authority. Why should not a simple schedule of the kind proposed in the Amendment of his hon. friend be adopted, so as to give those who had to deal with education all the information they required.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid there was not much chance in a particular case of doing anything which was contrary to the general run of legislation. There could be but one opinion, that the vicious practice of legislation by reference rendered it difficult for lawyers, and practically impossible for laymen, to understand Acts of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman who answered his hon. and learned friend had spoken in sympathetic terms in reference to the matter, and he suggested that the difficulty might be met by a Consolidation Act. No doubt that was a way to solve the difficulty, but his right hon. friend knew well that there was not the slightest chance of an Educational Consolidation Act being passed within a measurable and reasonable time. He would like to ask the Government if the passing of such a Consolidation Act could not be facilitated by some alteration in the Standing Orders.
MR. A. J. BALFOUEsaid such a Standing Order was already proposed.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he did not understand that there was such a Standing Order in existence. At any rate, some alteration should be made in what was at present a very vicious practice.
MR. BRYCEsaid he thought his hon. and learned friend was entitled to the thanks of the Committee, and even of the Government, for the trouble he had taken
168
in preparing this schedule, which was a model, in point of clearness and preciseness, of what a schedule should be. It was really a matter of the greatest possible importance that in this Act, which was going to be worked by large numbers of education authorities, there should be such a clear and brief statement of the powers and duties of the new education authorities, as was contained in the Schedule drawn up by his hon. friend. The President of the Local Government Board said that the members of the local authorities could provide themselves with a legal textbook; but the ordinary layman found it as difficult to understand an ordinary textbook as the Act of Parliament with which it dealt. The sections were interspersed with comments and cross references, which would make it difficult for a lay member of the local authorities to follow. The President of the Local Government Board had also said that they might have a Consolidation Act. He acknowledged that there was a proposal to facilitate the passage of Consolidation Acts by a new Standing Order, but that was not yet passed. But overloaded as the House was with work, it would be found difficult to pass an Education Consolidation Act, and, therefore, it was like asking them to wait till the millennium. He thought his hon. and learned friend had done very well in bringing forward this schedule. The only difficulty was that it would require very close examination, but the law officers of the Crown and the legal Members of the House had got plenty of time for that. He thought the Government would really do well to accept the Amendment, and between now and the time when the schedule would be reached to give it that close examination to which he had referred.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he agreed with the opinion expressed on both sides of the House as to the undoubtedly great inconvenience to the public which now arose from the habit of legislation by cross-reference. He believed that he had been as responsible for legislation by cross-reference as his neighbours; but, after all, it was the inevitable result of the desire of the modern House of Commons to discuss at great length all important legislative measures brought before it. Every Government had experienced that difficulty, and had been

169
been forced to meet it in the same way. An hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of a dictum of Lord Coleridge, in which he denounced legislation by reference; but he had no doubt that Lord Coleridge, when he was Attorney General, had, in drafting Bills, done exactly what his predecessors had done. He was afraid he could not recommend the House to adopt the Amendment.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the matter was extremely simple and non-controversial, and he was quite sure, if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to meet the supporters of the Amendment, there would be no disposition to discuss at length the schedule when they reached it.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would consider the matter.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that the Amendment of his hon and learned friend would command the assent of everybody on that side of the House. All were agreed that legislation by reference was a bad system. If the right hon. Gentleman were himself a lawyer, he would see the mischief which was now complained of. The evil was more pronounced, perhaps, in the Workmen's Compensation Act than in any other. Under that Act complaints arose over and over again as to the way in which the Act had been drafted. With regard to the Amendment before the House it raised no very controversial matters, but it gathered into a convenient
form that which was put forward in Clause 6 of the Bill. There were many parts of the various Acts of Parliament which imposed duties on School Boards which had not been considered, and if they were not considered and dealt with now, the Government would only be laying up for themselves a great many difficulties. Nobody could say how many Acts of Parliament were dealt with. There were the Acts of 1870, 1873, 1876, 1879, 1880, 1893 and 1899 and others, and was it common sense to ask the House to legislate on matters of this kind in this way? There would be many persons dealing with the Act who were not lawyers but members of local bodies, and it was not conceivable to suppose that these men would not find themselves in a perfect quagmire of difficulties when they came to deal with these matters. In his opinion, in this Act they ought to have a complete code, so that anybody who ran could read the Act. He hoped the hon. Member who moved the Amendment would go still further and arrange a complete schedule. So far as the Amendment went he should support it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsuggested that there was a precedent for a schedule of this kind, and that was the Behring Sea Fisheries Act, in which all the sections referred to were embodied in a schedule. Such a method removed much doubt and difficulty.
(6.23.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 105; Noes, 277. (Division List, No. 288.)

AYES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cremer, William Randal

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Harwood, George

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Helme, Norval Watson

Atherley-Jones, L.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Hemphill, Hon. Charles H.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Dunn, Sir William

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

Brigg, John

Edwards, frank

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Broadhurst, Henry

Elibank, Master of

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Emmott, Alfred

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidst'ne

Kearley, Hudson E.

Burns, John

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Lambert, George

Burt, Thomas

Fanquharson, Dr. Robert

Langley, Batty

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Fenwick, Charles

Layland- Barratt, Francis

Caine, William Sproston

Fitzmamice, Lord Edmond

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Caldwell, James

Gladstone, Rt. Herbert John

Levy, Maurice

Cameron, Robert

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lewis, John Herbert

Causton, Richard Knight

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

Lloyd-George, David

Channing, Francis Allston

Griffith, Ellis J.

Lough, Thomas

Craig, Robert Hunter

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

White, George (Norfolk)

Mather, Sir William

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Soares, Ernest J.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Moulton, Jon Fletcher

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Newnes, Sir George

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Tennant, Harold John

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.

Priestley, Arthur

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Rea, Russell

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Yoxall, James Henry

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Tomkinson, James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Robson, William Snowdon

Toulmin, George

Sir Joseph Leese and Mr.

Runciman, Walter

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Corrie Grant.

Russell, T. W.

Ure, Alexander

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Colston. Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Gunter, Sir Robert

Ambrose, Robert

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hall, Edward Marshall

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cranborne, Lord

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Harrington, Timothy

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Crossley, Sir Savile

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hayden, John Patrick

Baird, John George Alexander

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

Healy, Timothy Michael

Balcarres, Lord

Delany, William

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Baldwin, Alfred

Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower H'mlets

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dickson-Poynder Sir John P.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Higginbottom, S. W.

Banbury, Frederick George

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Doogan, P. C.

Hogg, Lindsay

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Beckett, Ernest William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Duke, Henry Edward

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Bignold, Arthur

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hoult, Joseph

Bill, Charles

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Howard, J no. (Kent, Faversham

Blundell, Col. Henry

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Bond, Edward

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Boulnois, Edmund

Fardell, Sir T. George

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Bousfield, William Robert

Fellowes, Hon. Allwyn Edward

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Bowles, Capt, H. F. (Middlesex

Fergusson, Rt Hon Sir J. (Manc'r

Joyce, Michael

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

Field, William

Kennedy, Patrick James

Brassey, Albert

Finch, George H.

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Fisher, William Hayes

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Bullard, Sir Harry

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Butcher, John George

Fletcher. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lawson, John Grant

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Flower, Ernest

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Carew, James Laurence

Forster, Henry William

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Foster, Sir Michael (Lon. Unv)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Galloway, William Johnson

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gardner, Ernest

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (E'lgin & Nairn)

Lowe, Francis William

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)

Lowther, C. (Cumb., (Eskdale

Chapman, Edward

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Charrington, Spencer

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Clancy, John Joseph

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Graham, Henry Robert

Lundon, W.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

172

173

Macdona, John Cumming

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Smith, Hon W. F. D. (Strand)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Maconochie, A. W.

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Pemberton, John S. G.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Penn, John

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

M'Govern, T.

Pierpoint, Robert

Sullivan, Donal

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Plummer, Walter R.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Talbot, Rt Hn J G (Oxf'd Univ.

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Pretyman, Ernest George

Thornton, Percy M.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Purvis, Robert

Tomlinson. Sir Win. Edw. M.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Pym, C. Guy

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Milvain, Thomas

Rankin. Sir James

Tully, Jasper

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Raseh, Major Frederic Came

Valentia, Viscount

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Vincent, Sir Edgar Exeter

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Reddy, M.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Mooney, John J.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. CE (Taunton

Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

Redmond, William (Clare)

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Morrell, George Herbert

Renshaw, (Charles Bine

Whiteley, H. Ashton-und-Lyne

Morrison, James Archibald

Richards, Henry Charles

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Mount, William Arthur

Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wills, Sir Frederick

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bate

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Royds, Clement Molynenx

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Rutherford, John

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Wylie, Alexander

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Seely, Maj J.E.B. (Isle of Wight

Young, Samuel

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Younger, William

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

O'Conner, James (Wicklow, W

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

O'Conner, T. P. (Liverpool)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Sir William Walrond

O'Malley, William

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

and Mr. Anstruther.

MR. WHITLEYmoved—
"In page 2, line 35, after 1900,' insert 'and the Canal Boats Acts, 1877 and 1884.'"
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he had no objection to this Amendment.
SIR JOHN BRUNNERthought a shorter form of words would be more convenient, and suggested "and other Acts including local Acts."
MR. CORRIE GRANTthought this would be very much the better way of dealing with this matter.
MR. BRYCEexpressed his gratification at the acceptance of the Amendment by the Government; at the same time he thought its acceptance made all the more necessary the schedule suggested by his hon. friend.
MR. WHITLKYin order to make the matter clear begged leave to withdraw his Amendment, in order to insert after "1900" the words "any other Acts including Local Acts."
The Amendment was by leave withdrawn, and the substituted Amendment agreed to.
*MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that so many questions had arisen as to the respective spheres of control and management occupied by the local education authorities, and local school managers respectively, that it became absolutely necessary to add some words to the Bill showing where the controlling authority was to be found. What authority, for instance, had control over the teachers' salaries? That was a most important question. Was that to be left to the discretion of the local managers? Then, again, with regard to the specific amounts to be allocated to the different teachers, was that to be settled by the county authority, or was that body to grant a lump stun which the Managers could divide as they thought best? He thought the ultimate authority in a case of that kind ought to rest with the local

175
authority and not with the managers. Then there were questions which related to the schools and the expenditure for books and apparatus. Hitherto considerations of economy had had to prevail in the schools; were they now to have a régime of extravagance because whatever was asked for would have to be supplied by the local authorities? Was the supply of books and apparatus to be left in the hands of the local managers? Then, with regard to school fees, was that to be in the hands of the education authority, or was it to be determined by the school managers? The county to which he belonged had two secondary schools, one of which attempted to underbid the other by charging a lower fee, but the county authority decided that the fees should be uniform in order that one school might not underbid the other. Was it not possible under this Bill that similar difficulties might arise, not by underbidding, but by offering illegitimate advantages, unless the education authority had full control over the schools. Another important question was as to the control of religious instruction in the schools provided by the authority. Was that control to be in the hands of the managers or of the authority? If the former, he feared the managers would be appointed on sectarian grounds. In any case, it was desirable that the Committee should know exactly whether the local education authority would have full control in that respect. These questions should not be left to be settled by Courts of law. The High Court of Parliament should, in the first instance, define the respective spheres of the authority and the managers. Again, who was to decide as to the use of school buildings and furniture outside school hours? Further, if new furniture had to be provided, and the managers preferred a kind which would be more useful for general parochial purposes, would the local authority be able to insist on the provision of furniture primarily, if not entirely, suitable for the purposes of the children of the school? Another question was as to the use by the Church, without payment, of furniture provided at the expense of the ratepayers. A number of similar questions would occur to every Member, in regard to which unnecessary friction
176
might arise between the local authority and the managers. It was impossible to set out in the schedule the respective degrees of control to be exercised by the two bodies, and, as far as he could see, the only satisfactory solution of the difficulty was by providing that the full control of the schools should be in the hands of the local education authority. He therefore begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 35, after the word 'the' to insert the word 'full.'"—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'full' be there inserted."
SIR JOHN GORSTdid not think there was much difference between "control" and "full control," and doubted whether the insertion of the adjective would much strengthen the clause. The hon. Member had raised a great number of questions which had nothing to do with this Amendment, and would be more conveniently discussed on Clauses 7 and 8, regulating the relations between the local authority and the school managers. The present clause merely gave, in general terms, control over all secular elementary education to the now local authority. The local authority had the power of the purse, and, therefore, he fancied that in all the minor matters which the hon. Gentleman had mentioned that authority would be able to exercise pretty effective control. Reference had been made to teachers' salaries. As the local authorities wore going to pay the salaries, he believed they would have a very potent voice in the matter, and, as they would be responsible for the efficiency of the school, they would have a potent voice in deciding what the start' of the school should be.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that the education authority, so far as it provided schools, might no doubt provide them on its own terms, but with regard to voluntary schools it might find itself in some difficulty, owing to the ambiguity of the word "control." If this Amendment were accepted the education authority would have, in effect, absolute control over the schools. The word "absolute" would perhaps be a better word than that proposed by the

177
Amendment, but the adjective "full," in his opinion at any rate, strengthened the power of the local authority, and he should, therefore, vote for the Amendment.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Committee had already decided that the local authorities were to have the powers and duties of a School Board and School Attendance Committee, and if they were to add to that the control of education, the latter must be something which the School Board did not, at present, possess. The Amendment was important only to the extent that it raised the question as to whether the absolute control of education in a certain area was to be given to the local authority. In the schedule the section had been abolished which enabled the Board of Education to put a School Board which did not perform its duties in default, and to take independent measures to organise education in that district. He took it, therefore, that, in future, the Board of Education could not exercise those functions. What did "control of education" mean? If he interpreted the words aright it meant that the Board of Education transferred the whole of its powers, free from any conditions or safeguards, to the local authority. If it did not mean that, what did it mean? He thought the Committee ought to have the assistance of the legal advisers of the Crown on these points of drafting, which sometimes involved questions of considerable substance. The relations of the local authorities and the Board of Education depended entirely on the interpretation placed by the Courts upon the word "control." As far as he could see, it would be within the competence of any Government in future practically to band over the whole control of education now exercised by the Board of Education to the local authorities. His only objection to that, provided it were done under proper safeguards, would be in regard to the small towns of 10,000 inhabitants. It was one thing to hand over the control to responsible bodies such as the County Councils, but to hand it over to these little authorities was quite a different matter, and, he believed, would be detrimental to the interests of education. He again asked
178
the Vice President of the Council what was contemplated by the word "control." Would the Board of Education have any power to declare a School Board to be in default?
SIR JOHN GOESTsaid the point was so simple that he would even venture to answer the hon. Member without the assistance of the law officers of the Crown. In the Schedule, Section 16 of the Elementary Education Act was repealed, and that was the section which required the Board of Education to declare a School Board in default. This Bill contained what was believed by the Government to be a very much better provision. It would be very easy to go to the Courts and get a mandamus if the necessity arose.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked what powers the local authority would have that the School Board had not got at present.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the local authority would he able to take a general survey of the whole of the elementary education in their county, to make provision for it as a whole, to co-ordinate the different schools in the county, and fit them into one general scheme.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESasked whether the Board of Education could obtain a mandamus against the local authority.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid there was a provision of that kind in the Bill. This might be a good or a bad proposal, but it was the provision that the Government put before the Committee, as a better provision than that in Section 16 of the Elementary Education Act.
MR. McKENNAsaid that it was perfectly clear that the word "control" must be interpreted by sub-Clauses a, b, c, and d, of Clause 8, which defined what was to be the nature of the control. He thought the Amendment was an extremely valuable one. If they put in the word "full" in front of "control," he submitted that it would be held that the word "full" gave some greater power than was given by the word "control" alone. He looked upon this word, not as a mere

179
adjective in front of control, but as a matter of real substance, and it provided that it was to be a full control so far as secondary education was concerned. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had said that they were perfectly willing that the local authority should have absolute control over secondary instruction. Unless they put in some qualifying adjective, they would not get that complete and full control for the aided schools which the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich was willing to grant.
MR. CHARLES Mc ARTHURthought the point was one of importance, as it was proposed to define the extent of the authority given. The hon. Member opposite used the words "absolute control," and if there was and doubt about the matter, and the word "full" would clear away that doubt, then he should be quite willing to settle the matter in that way. He had always understood that any terms used in an Act of Parliament were used in the full sense unless limited by express words or by the context. He should have thought that the word "control," in the absence of any limitation, meant full control. There were duties and powers appertaining to these education authorities which were not clearly understood, such as the dismissal of teachers. He thought, however, that the proper way was to deal with those points when they were reached, and he yielded to no hon. Member in his desire that the control should be full and effective, but he hardly thought the proper way to deal with it was by accepting this Amendment.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought there was great force in the argument that "control" would be read as being limited by the words in the various sub-clauses of Clause 8, and therefore he hoped the Government would accept the word "full," for it could not do any harm. He agreed that adjectives ought not to appear so much in Acts of Parliament, but it was necessary to adopt some word to show that there was nothing in the way of control which was outside the jurisdiction of the local education authority. He desired to make two or three observations upon this subject in a wider sense. When they were dealing with
180
the jurisdiction of the School Boards over elementary education they had never before divorced the words "control" and "management." He thought he was entitled to point out that in the Act of 1870 they did not distinguish between "control" and "management," and he thought it was important to know the opinion of the Government upon this point. Under the Act they devolved from the local authority on to the managers of school matters of management, but in the Act of 1870, section 14, it was provided that every school should be conducted under the control and management of the School Board. Section 15 of that Act provided that the School Board might, if it thought fit, from time to time do certain things in regard to the control and management of the school. The hon. Member opposite had referred to the dismissal of teachers which he thought required full investigation, but was the appointment and dismissal of teachers a matter of control by the Education Department, or was it a matter in regard to the management of the schools? He hardly knew what they were leaving in the hands of the authority. He should like to know whether the local authority, which was to have full control over all secondary and elementary education, could in any way get rid of that control. He was rather inclined to think they could. Under this Bill, having regard to the portion of the section which they had already disposed of, he thought the education authority could give up its control if it desired to do so. He thought that followed by the provision made by section 15, which had been brought into this Clause. They were placing the control in the hands of the education authority, but by giving control to the manager they were allowing the local education authority to divest itself entirely of control, and they might leave the question entirely to a body of managers. This might turn out to be a very serious matter, for the managers need not be members of the education authority at all. In some small boroughs or urban districts an obscurantist body might appoint certain managers to deal with education just as they liked, and that was allowed by the Bill. He thought they ought to know

181
much more clearly than they did now what was the dividing line between control and management, and they ought to make it impossible that this control, which ought to remain in the hands of the local authority, should be delegated to any body of managers upon which it was not necessary that there should be any single person elected by the ratepayers at all.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman was right in saying that "control" and "management" had been used very much as synonyms, and that it was now necessary to make a distinction between them. Hitherto there were practically only two bodies—the Board of Education and the School Board. It was true that there was some power for the delegation of duties, but the School Board had been the managing body. The new authority was to be the controlling body and not the managing body. He urged that the Committee should make a distinction between control and management. It occurred to him that control was equivalent to supervision. Now it was proposed to insert the word "full" before "control." Lawyers all admitted that adjectives were rather dangerous in Acts of Parliament. He did not think anybody had given whole-hearted support to the insertion of the word "full." The "control" referred to in the Clause was divided with the Board of Education which was the superior controlling body. There being double control, it would therefore never do to give absolute control to the local education authority.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid it seemed to him that the observations of the hon. and learned Member for North Monmouthshire were irrelevant to the Amendment. He endeavoured to point out the difference between "control" and "management," but it was difficult lo see how that was relevant to the question whether the word "full" should be inserted. It was either unmeaning or tautological. Adjectives were carefully to be avoided except in newspaper articles, where they were useful, especially when payment was at space rates, but the idea of bringing the
182
sobriety of an Act of Parliament down to the somewhat florid style of newspaper articles was novel and revolutionary, and he hoped it was an idea unacceptable to the Committee. To insert the word "full" in the way proposed would be inconsistent with sub-section (c) of Clause 8. He would be glad if his hon. friend would withdraw the Amendment.
*SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid that Clause 8 had been spoken of as a Clause of limitations. It was not so. Clause 8 described several powers which were to be bestowed on the local education authority. If the word "full" or "absolute" were inserted in Clause 6 now they would not be so nervously anxious to put every description of power into Clause 8. If the word "absolute" were inserted now, they would avoid a struggle to get further powers for the local authority into Clause 8.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he would prefer the word "absolute," to the word "full." In support of this view he cited a letter, dated April 22, 1902, written by the Secretary for the Colonies to Mr. James Grey Glover, in which the right hon. Gentleman said—
"It gives to this authority, working through a representative Committee, absolute control of the secular education in the schools. The hours and the curriculum of instruction, the salaries of the teachers, the nature of the appliances, and the arrangements of the buildings will all he decided by the local authority, and although the actual nomination of the teachers is, in the case of the voluntary schools, reserved to the Committee of Management of such school, the local authority will he able to veto the appointment, or to secure dismissal if necessary, on educational grounds."
He thought this a good reason for inserting the word "absolute." He ventured to suggest that it was very desirable from the point of view of the hon. Member for East Somerset, to provide in this Clause that the whole power of dealing with schools on the secular side was to be given to the local education authority. Clause 6 conferred the power; Clause 7 proceeded to deal with the appointment of two sets of managers; and then came Clause 8 which was entirely a limitation Clause.
MR. A. J. BALFOURoffered as a compromise the words "shall be responsible for, and have control"

183
This being accepted, the Amendment was withdrawn in favour of Mr. Balfour's words, which were inserted in the Clause.
It being half-past seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 6:—
  MR. YOXALLmoved to add after the word "control" in line 35, the words "and regulation" this referring to the control the Clause provides the education authority shall exercise over elementary instruction. He expressed a hope he would not be told that the words were superfluous. In this part of the Bill words were of very great importance and, if his Amendment were accepted, it would imply that the authority would exercise a regulating power over the aided schools of the district. Acceptance of this would achieve something towards the shortening of the Debates on subsequent parts of the Bill. The question was what was intended to be meant by the word "control." Under Clause 15 of the Act of 1870, control and management, were almost identical in their meaning, but now the Government proposed to set up a new meaning of the word "control"—a meaning it had not hitherto had in school law. Having regard to the context, it was almost necessary to add words to convey the new meaning. At present the School Board did exercise over its schools very effective control. It laid down regulations for the guidance of managers, for the management of the schools and for the direction of teachers; and in London, Nottingham, and parts of Lancashire, it shared the management of schools with local managers. But it retained control in two ways—financially and in the issue of regulations. He
  184
  wanted a similar course to be followed by local authorities under this Bill; he wanted the local education authority to be compelled to make regulations for instruction in secular education in all their schools. He understood the framers of the Bill were willing to give that control, and he, therefore, could not understand why the Government objected to it. The insertion of the words "and regulations" would do away with all chance of misconception. The Bill as it stood was vague to the last degree. What, for instance, were the powers of finance to be devolved on the managers of schools? He could not say, but he gathered, from the Vice President that the local education authority would pay the expenses of the school direct. If not, then they ought to be in a position to make regulations as to the amount and method of expenditure, otherwise if the managers of the schools received a lump sum they might spend it as extravagantly as they pleased. In the interests of popular control, and in the interests of the Bill itself, he urged the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. Finally he asked—did the Board of Education intend to issue minutes on this point?
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 35, after the 'control' to inset the words 'and regulations.' "—(Mr. Yoxall.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'and regulations' be there inserted."
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the words which the hon. Member proposed to insert, and which he had spent nearly a quarter of an hour in defending, were words which really did not add anything to the force or sense of the Bill. They might not do any harm, but he had no hesitation in saying that the addition of them would do no good. A body which had a right of control obviously had a right to make regulations. Therefore the Amendment was superfluous; it added nothing but phraseology to the Bill, and it did not produce greater clearness. He therefore thought the Government were bound to resist it.
  MR. BEYNMOR JONESagreed entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that the addition of the words would not

  185
  in any way aid the object which he understood the proposer had in view. It would not be commended as a matter of draughtsmanship. If the word "control" was to be construed in its ordinary sense, it included the power of making regulations such as the hon. Member had referred to. But he would like to point out to the Vice President that this kind of Amendment was produced by the very vague manner in which the Bill had been drawn. The word "control" was not usual in Acts of Parliament, and its use might give rise to indefinite disputation in the future between public bodies in the royal Courts of Justice. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  Amendment negatived.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the Amendment standing in the. name of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs, to add after ''control" the words "and management," is in order at this point.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that if reference were made to the fourteenth and fifteenth sections of the Act or 1870, it would be found that the words "control and management" were used together as terms to denote the authority of the School Board. Many hon. Members on that side attached great importance to the word "management." They felt that as the School Board powers included "management." reference should be made to it in this clause also.
  SIR MICHAEL FOSTERpointed out that the phrase "manage instruction" would have a very dubious meaning.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid his hon. friend simply desired to do as was done in the Act of 1870.
  SIR JOHN GORST: In the Act of 1870, the words are "the control and management of schools"; in tins case it is "the control and management of instruction." The things are different.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid there was a great distinction between the words "control" and "management," "control" had a general meaning, but "management" signified a more definite interference with carrying on operations of any kind. He therefore submitted that the Amendment was quite in order.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: It is true, as the hon. Member has pointed out, that "control" has a general and "manage" a special meaning, but if he will look at Clause 6 he will find that is general, while Clause 7 is special. If the words "and management" were introduced in Clause 6 what would become of Clause 7? The Committee would never have an opportunity of considering it.
  MR. TREVELYANmoved to insert the word "inspection" after the word "control." He said that the object of the Amendment was to make the work of inspection a positive obligation on the new educational authority. This was a most important thing under the new scheme of education which the country was entering upon. It was impossible to conceive that the authorities who had the control of education for a whole county would be able to deal with it properly without the aid of inspectors. However active the members might be it would he impossible for them to visit the very numerous schools under their jurisdiction. For instance, in the case of Northumberland, how could they get to the schools in the out of the way parts of the Cheviots?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I notice that the matter which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise is provided for in Clause 8. Sub-section (b), which gives the local authority power to inspect.
  MR. TREVELYAN: That only applies to voluntary schools. It does not deal with schools provided by the local authority. The only clause which deals with these schools is Clause 7.
  MR. WALTER. LONG: May I submit that with regard to schools provided by the local authority itself it obviously would have powers of inspection. Clause 8 gives the necessary powers over other schools.
  MR. TREVELYANthought his Amendment could hardly be said to be redundant. It would be well to insert those words, for they wanted to encourage local authorities to undertake the duty of inspection. In no other way could

  187
  they carry out these duties effectually. One of rise most valuable uses of inspection under the London School Board system had been found to be the advice and information available when the question of the selection of teachers for promotion came up for consideration.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 35, after the word 'control,' to insert the words 'and inspection.' "—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rather hope the hon. Gentleman will see that the words he proposes, not only do not carry out his object, but that they militate against it. The House has decided that the local authority is to be responsible for, and to have control of, elementary and secondary education. Do you strengthen these words, or the reverse? I submit that they are so wide and strong that they are only weakened by any suggestion of the methods by which the control and responsibility are to be exercised. There is absolutely no doubt whatever that the local authority has the power of inspection, and it would be ludicrous to suggest that they had not. I think the hon. Member, from his own point of view, will be well advised not to press the Amendment.
  MR. BRYCEdid not agree that the matter was so simple. His hon. friend desired to make it perfectly clear that all the powers the authority could want over those schools they should have. This Clause was the only one which dealt with schools provided by the local authority itself, and Clause 8 had no weight at all in determining what could be done here. What was necessary was to define the extremely vague term "control,'' and he held that the Amendment was not unnecessary, as there was doubt as to how far the local authority could go, under the words of the Clause, in dealing with the managers of its schools. What were they to do? The House had just transferred the powers of School Boards. Those powers did not include the appointment of managers, yet by Clause 7 power was to be given to appoint them. While he
  188
  agreed that in all probability the local authority would have the power of inspection, the Amendment of his hon. friend conveyed a more complete and definite idea of these powers, and it was well that they should be directed to send inspectors into schools managed by local managers. Although his hon. friend might be content with the assurance given him by the right hon. Gentleman he must say he did not think the Amendment superfluous.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that the Lancashire County Council, under the Technical Instruction Act, did inspect schools, although he could not discover in that Act any word about inspection. But inspection naturally followed a grant of money—it followed from the power of supervision and control. The remarks which he had made in regard to Lancashire applied also to the West Riding of Yorkshire. They could not supervise education without inspection; and without inspection control would be wholly impossible.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he thought the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend was much more important than the right hon. Gentleman had been willing to concede. He had no doubt whatever, in his own mind, that even in the, old days, if an hon. Member had asked the Minister in charge whether the local authority had power to employ and pay inspectors he would have got full assurances from the Minister that they would have ample control. But then a Mr. Cockerton might arise and get the Courts to decide that that was not so. They must have properly appointed inspectors to overlook the education in the schools, and it should be made perfectly clear that the money of the public could be used in the payment of these inspectors. It was true that in the Act of 1870 there were no particular words to show that the School Board had the right to appoint inspectors, although it was constantly done; but it was thought necessary in that Act to provide that the schools should be open to inspection at all times. That was all that they wanted here, and then there would be no doubt that the local authorities would have the right to appoint and

  189
  pay inspectors. He knew of no decision or any Act of Parliament which entitled the right hon. Gentleman to say positively that the Courts would necessarily hold that control included inspection. Inspection by the local authorities was a most useful and necessary thing, and his hon. friend was quite sound in desiring to put it into the Bill.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid the question turned on the meaning of the word "control". By the Amendment to the 5th Clause the School Board of the county borough of Cardiff would be got rid of, and he wanted to ask what would be the position of the County Council under these circumstances. There were many schools in Cardiff provided by the School Board, many voluntary schools, and continuation and higher grade schools. Would the County Council have the right, or would they not, to expend the money in the payment of inspectors? He had done his best to puzzle out what would be the effect of this Bill in regard to Wales. No one on either side of the House seemed to thoroughly grasp the situation in regard to the abolition of such Boards upon Welsh education. Would the County Council have the right to appoint inspectors and pay them out of the rates or out of the money derived from Treasury grants?
  SIR JOHN GORST: Certainly.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: The Vice-President said, "Certainly": but he was not at all sure of that; and the addition of the words of the Amendment would make it clear without altering the effect of the Clause.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid there were two grounds on which it might be alleged that the local education authority might appoint inspectors—first because they were the successors of the School Boards, and second, because they were responsible for secular education. The words "secular instruction'' applied to the aided schools as well as to the provided schools; but by Sub-section (b) of Clause 8 special power was given to inspect aided schools only; and in view of the Cockerton judgment he did not think it would be wise to refuse to accept the Amendment.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that after what they had heard that afternoon there was no proposition so elementary or so simple that was not arguable. He asked if there could be any reasonable doubt that these authorities would have powers of inspection? They were responsible for, and had control of, secular education, they were bound to maintain and pay for the schools, and under these circumstances was it not plain that the local authorities would have to satisfy themselves that the education for which they were responsible, and over which they had control, was being properly conducted and efficient. It really seemed to him that the insertion of the word "inspection" would militate against the earning into effect the wishes of the hon. Member for the Elland Division, and would diminish, by enumeration, the powers of the local authorities.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid he thought that if the Clause as it stood was construed along with Sub-section (b) of the 8th Clause there was no power of appointing an inspector except in the case of aided schools, in the face of an auditor such as Mr. Cockerton. He pressed the desirability of the appointment of inspectors from an educational and economical point of view. There were in hundreds of village schools classes of different standards and one teacher had to deal with the whole of them. In such cases an inspector would insist on co-ordination. The insertion of the words of the Amendment in the Clause would be an encouragement to the educational authorities to take that favourable step forward.
  MR. ABEL THOMASsaid that the second sub-section of Clause 8 provided for the inspection of voluntary schools, but did that mean the exclusion of other schools? There was nothing certain in the construction of a statute, and it seemed to him that to pass the clause as it stood there was probability of the Courts of Law holding that they could not have inspection of the schools provided by the local education authority.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid the hon. Member for Oxford University was strongly in favour of the appointment of

  191
  inspectors. Then why, in Heaven's name, not say so in the Bill and thus leave the matter no longer in doubt? The hon. Gentleman had not the same acquaintance with local bodies as he had. This was a subject which had been administered by Town Councils and County Councils, and these were bodies that were most arguable when it came to be a question of the increase of rates. His opinion was that the definite certainty of the appointment of inspectors would be most advantageous to the education of the country, and economical besides. If the matter was left in doubt, and if each County Council or Town Council were to interpret this Act in accordance with its own inclination, there would be various decisions, and in would come some Mr. Cockerton
  and upset everything. All that the Amendment meant was to make the intention of the Government more plain and clear.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he wanted to know whether two or three local authorities could combine for an inspection.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought they could. The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman was well worth consideration, and he would consider it.
  (9.53.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 68: Noes, 194. (Division List No. 289).

  AYES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hayne, Rt Hon. Charles Seale-

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh

  Brigg, John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Bryce. Rt. Hon. James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Burns, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Caldwell, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, JA (Glam'rgan, Gower

  Cawley, Frederick

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J

  Ure, Alexander

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Mather, Sir William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Emmott, Alfred

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Fenwick, Charles

  Perks, Robert William

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Priestley, Arthur

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond Univ.

  Rea, Russell

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Grant, Come

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Guroon, Sir W. Brampton

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Mr. Trevelyan and Mr.

  Harwood, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Evans.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Bond, Edward

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Allhusen, Angustus H'nry Eden

  Brassey, Albert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Delany, William

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bull, William James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Butcher, John George

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr d Dixon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cavendish, V.C. W (Derbyshire

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Chapman, Edward

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Charrington, Spencer

  Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Claney, John Joseph

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A.E.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Field, William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Finch, George H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Firbank, Sir. Joseph Thomas

  Lundon, W.

  Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Flower, Ernest

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Arthur. Charles (Liverpool)

  Russell, T W.

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Govern. T.

  Rutherford, John

  Foster, Philips. (Warwick, S. W.

  M'Kean, T.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Majendle, James A. H.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sheehan, Darnel Daniel

  Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morgan Hn. Fred-(Monm'thsh

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Harrington, Timothy

  Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Strovan, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Myers, William Henry

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Heath, James (Stafford, N. W.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Thorborn, Sir Walter

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Vincent, Col Sir G. EH (Sheffield

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hoult, Joseph

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E (Taunton

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.

  Joyce, Michael

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Power, Partrick Joseph

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

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Purvis, Robert

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Randles, John S.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Mon.)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Young, Samuel

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Reddy, M.

  Younger, William

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Long, Rt Hon. Walter (Bristol, S

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Mr. Anstruther.

  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he desired to move an Amendment to leave out the word "secular" in line 35. The effect of the Amendment would be that the, clause would read—
  "The local education authority shall throughout their area have the control of all instruction in public elementary schools whether provided by them or not."
  As had been said more than once during the discussion of I he clause, the real question turned on the meaning of the, word "control"; and he still invited the attention of the Prime Minister to the meaning of that word. The Committee had settled the religious difficulty with respect of secondary education; and it was now approaching the same difficulty in regard to public elementary education. The School Boards having practically disappeared from the scheme
  194
  of education which the Government proposed to establish under the Bill, they were face to face with the question as to what should be the powers of the local education authority. All he asked was that the control of all instruction, whatever kind of adjective might be applied to it, should be given under the conditions of the Bill to the local education authority. Supposing the word "secular" was taken out of the clause what would be the power of the local education authority? He did not think that they would, in the least degree, attempt to say what religious doctrine should or should not be taught in schools of which they had the use for the purposes of elementary education. On the other hand if the word "secular" were left in, questions of the very gravest difficulty would arise. What

  195
  was secular education? The Bill stated that the local education authority was to have control of all secular education in public elementary schools. These schools were of two kinds; schools which had been provided under the Act of 1870 and schools, which might be provided under the Bill. Then there were the voluntary schools which were managed in a different way to the board schools. What did secular education mean as applied to these schools? If the word "secular" were left out there would be really no difficulty whatsoever. He did not wish to argue upon an Amendment of that kind the whole question as to what should be the ultimate system of elementary education in the country. He wished to proceed by steps; but he would take that opportunity of asking once more what was the real and ultimate intention of the Government. He went further and said that if the word "secular" were left out they would have an opportunity of determining once for all, those religious controversies which the Prime Minister had more than once referred to as barren controversies in connection with educational matters.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2 line 35, to leave out the word 'secular.' "—( Mr. Brynmor Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'secular' stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, with all respect, that the hon and learned Gentleman found difficulties where they hardly existed, and did not see difficulties which appeared to him, at all events, to stare one in the face. The hon. and learned Gentleman saw great difficulties in distinguishing religious from secular education. No doubt they might argue for ever as to what was secular or religious education; they might argue for ever as to what was education at all. After all, they must use some language in a Bill, and the English language was fairly understood, even by his Majesty's Judges. He would point out a difficulty which the hon. and learned Gentleman had ignored. The hon, and learned Gentleman said if the local authority dealt with education all round, no controversial
  196
  questions would arise, because they would not trouble themselves about religious controversies. Under the clause as it stood, they were responsible for and had full control over secular education, but if the Amendment were adopted, they would be responsible for and have full control over religious instruction. Then questions of dogma must come in. The Act of Parliament would throw on them full responsibility and full control; they could not avoid it; and the result would be that every education authority throughout the country, if the Amendment were embodied in the Bill, would be responsible for these dogmatic controversies which, he agreed, were sometimes carried to excess, and which could not be avoided, if religion were to be dealt with at all. He could not imagine anything more fatal to the local education authority than the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was quite true it had been found possible in Scotland to throw that responsibility upon the local authorities, but in Scotland they did not avoid all these dogmatic questions. The system worked well in Scotland; but they were a remarkable nation. He really did not think it would work in England. It was hardly a practicable proposal to say that every education authority in counties and boroughs was to have brought under its control the religious teaching to be administered in every school in the country.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to have quite grasped the meaning of his hon. and learned friend's Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that his hon. and learned friend's intention was, at that stage, to discuss the religious question. The view of his hon, and learned friend was that, at the present stage, it would be premature to determine that the local authority should have no control whatever over religious instruction. His hon. and learned friend felt as much as any hon. Member the extreme gravity and difficulty of dealing with these religious questions. He agreed that in Scotland they had succeeded in dealing with the question. That was due, not only to the admirable qualities of the nation, for the right

  197
  hon. Gentleman's reference to which he was grateful, but also to certain happy circumstances which occurred in the sixteenth century, and which made the Reformation in Scotland a morel borough-going piece of work than it was in England. He passed away from that tempting theme to the practical question of the Amendment. If they put in the word "secular" in the clause they would determine, the question, because they would declare that the local authority should have nothing to do with religious instruction. They would be face to face with the Question on Clause 8; and they ought not, at that early stage, when they had had no opportunity of considering the various solutions which might be suggested to tie their hands in that way. If the clause were passed in its present form their hands would be tied. The local authority would have two kind of schools to deal with the schools it provided itself and the schools it found provided by someone else. These latter schools would be dealt with under Clause 8. The natural construction of this clause, if they left in the word secular, would be to exclude the local authority from having any control over the religious instruction to be given in elementary schools. The Vice President shook his head, and perhaps he might have some subtle argument to cover that point. The right hon. Gentleman might say that that would be one of the powers to be handed over; but there were powers now possessed by the School Boards, such as the power of managing the schools themselves without appointing a manager, which would not be handed over to the education authority. The natural construction of the clause would be that the general power possessed by the School Boards of providing for religious education would be negatived by the fact that secular education only could be given under this clause. It was clear that that ambiguity should be removed, and the natural and simple way to effect that, would be to use words covering all kinds of instruction, letting subsequent clauses limit, in any way that might be necessary, that general power. He did not think his hon. and learned friend thought that they could solve the religious
  198
  difficulty with his Amendment. Far from it. It would only mean taking one stop on the path loading to that quagmire, but they would not help themselves by leaving in the word "secular." He was not going into the various solutions which had been suggested. One was that the local authority should have power, as in Scotland, to give or not to give religious instruction in the schools provided by itself. In Scotland some of the School Boards gave religious instruction and some did not, and he believed that in some of the western islands Roman Catholic instruction was given because the population was almost entirely Roman Catholic. Another solution was that there should be power to give unsectarian instruction, as was now given by most of the School Boards under the Cowper-Temple Clause. There was a third suggestion that the local authorities should have the duty imposed on them of giving some kind of religious instruction with a conscience clause; and there was a fourth suggestion that the local authorities should be responsible for providing different kinds of religious instruction. He was not at all without hope that, in spite of the difficulty of the question, if they gave themselves a little time before they entered on the discussion of that thorny matter, they might arrive at a solution which would greatly diminish the difficulty. All that the Amendment said was that they should not, at that initial stage, tie their hands, or in any way preclude themselves from coming to an ultimate decision on the question. All the Amendment meant was whether, at that stage, they ought to decide to restrict the powers of the local authority; and he hoped the Committee would regard the matter from that point of view.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid the hon. and learned Member moved his Amendment with an air of simplicity which was very amusing. From end to end of the country they had schools attended by the majority of the school-going population for the sake of the religious instruction given in them; and in his own constituency it was well known that the people were so much attached to schools in which a definite religious education was given that, in spite of the severe competition of the Board Schools supported out of the rates, the majority of the children attended the

  199
  voluntary schools. If the Amendment were passed, it would appear as if the local authority, which had no definite religious character, were to control religious education in all classes of schools. It would be better to leave the question open by enacting that the local authority should control secular education; and then the schools not managed in connection with any denomination might be arranged for afterwards. He objected to the Amendment because it would impose on the denominational schools, of which he had been a supporter during all the years he had been in Parliament, an authority which had no claim to control religious education at all.
  SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid he wished to ask the Vice-President whether, under the Clause as it stood, it would be competent for the local authority, who were to be the heirs of the School Board, to give unsectarian religious instruction. If not, then it amounted to this—the local educational authority in the future could give no religious instruction whatsoever unless in denominational schools, which instruction might be dogmatic and purely sectarian. The speech of the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen was a very important one, and the Amendment was not, as the last speaker appeared to think, a quibble, nor an attempt to get rid of the religious question altogether. It was a practical question affecting the proper education of all children in this country who did not go to denominational schools. It was a common opinion, held by all Members of that House, that some form of ethical training, which was often in the best sense of the word religious training, should be given to the children, and he asked the Vice-President whether the new local authority under that Bill, if it became an Act, would be able in the presence of that word "secular" to conduct unsectarian religious education.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that in the course of the debate that evening he had been repeatedly astonished at the ingenuity of hon. Members in raising objections to the words of the Clause; but he though the most extraordinary objection which had yet been raised was that contained in the speech of the right
  200
  hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, which, however, he answered himself. As far as the Government were concerned they had no doubt that by the transference of the powers of School Boards to local authorities the latter would be able in the schools which had been provided by the School Boards or by themselves to give such religious instruction as was permitted by the Elementary Education Acts—that was to say, religious instruction which did not contain any catechism or formulary distinctive of a particular religious denomination.
  MR. MELLORsaid he wished for many reasons to controvert the statement of the Vice-President. If the Vice-President were right in his view, he could not understand why they should have provided that the local authorities should have all the powers and duties of the School Boards, and then proceed to state that they should have the control of all secular education. Was that reasonable? If the Clause as it was now worded were to be construed by any court of law, it would, in his opinion, hold that the powers and duties of the School Boards which were transferred were confined to secular instruction, and that the local authorities had not the power which the Vice President thought they ought to have. He wished to ask the Committee, Was it wise, at that stage of the Bill, to tie their hands in regard to the matter? Surely they ought to provide that the local education authority should have some control over religious instruction. That power ought to be lodged in some authority, otherwise there would be absolutely no control under the Clause with regard to religious education in these schools. That ought not to be and was never intended to be. Surely it was not necessary at the present moment to lay down any particular line with regard to any particular instruction to be given in these schools. It seemed to him to be very desirable that the power of giving unsectarian religious instruction ought to be clearly preserved by the terms of the Clause, and the easiest way of effecting that was by leaving out the word "secular." That would give the local education

  201
  authority all the power necessary without laying down any particular kind of treatment in regard to the matter, or determining at the present moment what kind of religious instruction should be given. Unsectarian religious instruction had worked remarkably well in this country, and School Boards had succeeded, by means of it, in doing enormous work. He challenged anyone who had taken the trouble to examine the condition of education now as compared with thirty years ago, to deny that proposition. In the large towns, where unsectarian religious instruction had been mostly given, crime had diminished to an extent which was somewhat startling, and the general condition of the people had vastly improved. When he first went on the Midland circuit he remembered seeing from 90 to 100 prisoners at the Nottingham Assizes; but the School Boards had gradually brought down crime—mainly by means of unsectarian education—to such an extent that there were now only three or four prisoners at every assizes. The School Boards had brought the people in many places from being little better than savages, into a condition of law-abiding, industrious people. In London an enormous amount of good work had also been done by the School Board. They had succeeded in doing that, because they had appealed for and received the assistance of the parents, and in that way they had been able to bring London into the satisfactory condition it was today. They could not in this country work a system of education unless they enlisted the sympathy of the parents, and unless the parents were given an interest in the education of their children no system would work. He appealed to the Vice-President to consider whether he would not make some suggestion in regard to this matter. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would; because he thought it was of the greatest importance that they should be able to offer, in elementary schools throughout the country, as part of their system of education, Biblical teaching to all children whose parents desired it. The right hon Gentleman the Member for North-East Manchester said that he and the majority of the people in Manchester were in favour of denominational
  202
  schools. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman knew the condition of things in his own constituency, and had said that there was there a very strong feeling in favour of denominational schools; but Mr. Mellor earnestly desired that in all schools where the parents wished it, there should be some unsectarian religious instruction. When they came to deal with the kind of religious education to be given in the denominational schools, they would have to be very careful to see that the particular doctrine taught in a school was the doctrine which that school was intended to teach. If a school professed to teach the doctrines of the Church of England, there ought to be some authority to see that those doctrines were really taught. That was a very serious and important matter, because if they set up, or allowed others to set up, denominational schools, they ought to see that those who taught in the schools acted fairly and behaved honestly. If they empowered a set of people to teach a particular doctrine, they ought to have some means of ascertaining that that doctrine was taught. They ought not to allow a clergymen or any one else to receive money for teaching one doctrine, and then deliberately to set to work to teach another. Doctrines contrary to the Church of England had already been introduced into the Church schools, and when the proper time came, on Clause 8, he hoped the Committee would be able to devise some means of preventing that. If the Amendment were accepted, the result would be to empower the local education authority to give unsectarian religious education, and in these circumstances, he hoped the Committee would accept it.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDSsaid that the right hon. Gentleman challenged any lawyer to get up and explain what he would have understood himself if he had had any practical School Board knowledge. He spoke, not as a lawyer, but as having served on the London School Board, and as knowing something of how the work was carried on. If the right hon. Gentleman could not find time to wade through the reports of the School Board, he would recommend him to read the life of the late W. H. Smith,

  203
  and in Volume II. he would find that the very first duty the London School Board, other and School Boards in the country, under the Act of 1870, had to undertake was to determine, first, whether they would have any religious instruction at all in their schools, and secondly, if so, what it should be. If that had been the work of the School Boards under the Act of 1870, what was there in this Bill to prevent the bodies which took the place of the School Boards from exercising the same powers and duties in this respect? As to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if he had, any difficulty in deciding what were the doctrines of the Church of England, he would find them set forth in the Prayer Book. When any difficulties arose among the members of the oldest educational society in this country as to what the Prayer Book did or did not teach, those difficulties were settled by three Episcopal referees, and he himself would much prefer the Episcopal referees to the august wisdom of the House of Lords or the trained intellect of Cambridge. As the challenge had been thrown out, he simply desired to say that the proper persons to decide any such differences which might arise were the Bishops of the Church, and not any lay tribunal in the House or elsewhere.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that the Vice-President had complained of the ingenuity of hon. Members in raising difficulties, but he thought the Committee had a right to complain of the ambiguity of many Clauses in the Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman would bend his acute intellect to removing that ambiguity, it would tend to the better transaction of business. As he understood the Clause, it was to provide that the local authority, in its own schools and in the schools wholly transferred to it, should have entire control of the secular and religious instruction, the latter of which should be subject to the Cowper-Temple Clause, and therefore unsectarian. But in regard to denominational schools, the purport of the Clause, he gathered, was that the local authority should have entire control of the secular instruction, but no control of the religious instruction. For his part, he was not prepared to
  204
  upset, through this Bill, the system of denominational religious instruction in the denominational schools. He did not think they could do it, and if they attempted it they would simply go back into the wilderness for another twenty years, and nothing would be done to tackle this crying evil. If they were beginning afresh, he would have un-sectarian religious instruction universally, which he believed satisfied the bulk of the parents of the country, and which, if they were left alone, they would acclaim. But they were not beginning again, and they had got to do the best they could with the existing system. But the Clause, did not give what its authors desired, because of its ambiguity. It was no part of the duty of a School Board to give religions instruction of any sort. Therefore, if the Clause were left in its present form, and the word "secular" emphasised, what would be the result? They would emphasise the fact—a fact not generally known, even to School Boards—that they could confine themselves to secular instruction alone. That he would deplore. But unsectarian religious instruction would not be secured in the schools of the local authority by simply leaving the first part of the Clause as it stood. The whole difficulty, however, would be removed, and they would arrive at what the Government themselves desired, if the Clause were to run in this way —
  "The local education authority shall, through-out their area, have the powers and duties of a School Board and a School Attendance Committee under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1890, and the control of all secular instruction in the public elementary schools not provided by or transferred to them."
  A sharp distinction would then be drawn; and while, in the publicly maintained schools, the local authority would have control over the secular instruction, with power to give unsectarian religious instruction, their powers in the other schools would be confined purely to the secular instruction, and the denominationalists would be free to give their own denominational teaching.
  MR. ABEL THOMASthought the Vice - President could hardly have considered his own Bill. The first part of the Clause clearly and distinctly gave the local authority all the

  205
  powers of the School Board, but the commencement of the next sentence showed that something was intended contrary to that provided in the previous sentence. He could not follow the argument that, secular instruction meant unsectarian religious instruction. Unless this Amendment were adopted, the Clause would state that the authority, which had the powers of the School Board, would be able to give, not un-sectarian religious instruction, but secular instruction, and that meant that they could not give the other. He was inclined to think it would be unwise to interfere with the old arrangement under which the denominations had power to deal with the religions instruction given in the schools provided by themselves; but it was clear that by this Clause the new authority would be prevented from dealing with schools provided by itself. The word "secular" clearly limited the power, and he should, therefore, vote for the Amendment.
  MR. LYTTELTONthought the interpretation of the word given by the Vice-President was perfectly sound. He contended that the control of unsectarian religious instruction was not excluded, because by the first part of the Clause; the new education authorities were given the entire powers of the School Boards, and those powers were not limited by the words of the second part of the Clause.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid there was no difference of opinion as to what was desired; the only question was whether the object was secured by this Clause. It was agreed that such, religious instruction as the School Board might now give should be permitted in the future, and that the local education authority should have power to control that religious education. According to the Vice President, the word "secular" meant religious instruction, provided it was undenominational.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I did not say that.
  MR. BEYN ROBERTSthought the right hon. Gentleman argued that it included unsectarian religious instruction.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I never said the word "secular" included religious instruction.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid that at any rate the right hon. Gentleman recognised that the local education authority should in the future have the same power as the School Boards had had in the past in regard to the giving of unsectarian religious instruction. Unless the word "secular" included such religious instruction, it was clear that by this Clause they would be precluded from giving it. The word "secular" was used in contradistinction to the word "religious," and secular instruction meant instruction which was not religious, if that was so, how was it possible to argue that by giving the control of secular education they did not withhold the control of religious education? And if the control of religious education was withheld, they also withheld the control of undenominational religious instruction. The only way out of the difficulty was that suggested by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, viz., to confine the operation of this sentence to schools not provided by the local authority.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHURthought there was no difference of opinion as to the merits of unsectarian teaching; the difficulty had arisen entirely out of the slipshod way in which the Clause had been drafted. It would be a most dangerous and unfortunate thing if, through any doubt in the wording of the Bill, the excellence of unsectarian religious teaching should be imperilled. All that was desired was fair play between denominational and undenominational schools. That the Christian instruction given in board schools was excellent, was shown by the fact that scholars belonging to the board schools in Liverpool had again and again won prizes for Biblical knowledge over the heads of scholars who had been taught in the denominational schools. It was said that that teaching was not imperilled, because the School Board had the power at present to give this undenominational religious teaching, and that power was to be continued to the new authorities But he believed it was the case that in

  207
  the construction of Acts of Parliament general words were limited by particular words that followed. In that case, was there not some danger that, although a Court of Law might find that it was in the power of a School Board to give undenominational instruction, yet when it came to the words that the education authority was to have the control of secular education it would find that the latter words limited the former? As a layman, he was afraid there was a danger of that construction being placed upon the word. Unless some assurance was given that, either in this Clause or in some other part of the Bill, this doubt would be removed, he would be compelled to vote for the Amendment.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsuggested that the clause would read a great deal better if the words "and the control of all secular instruction in public elementary schools, whether provided by them or not" were left-out. The clause would then simply become a clause to transfer to the new authority the existing powers and duties of School Boards and School Attendance Committees. The hon. Member who had just sat down agreed that the words introduced a certain ambiguity about the religious instruction. The words either added or subtracted from the powers transferred, and they had to ask themselves very closely what the words really meant. If there was something which the Government wished to insert which was not contained in Section 8, would it not be better to put some general words at the commencement of Section 8? He had the advantage not long ago of hearing this question discussed by the members of the County Councils Association of England, and they were of the opinion that these words were unnecessary.
  SIR JOHN GORSTappealed to the Committee whether it was worth while to go on discussing questions of drafting when they were practically agreed as to the lines on which they wished to proceed. Before the Report stage, the questions raised would be considered by law officers of the Crown and
  208
  draftsmen and people of authority of that kind, and he had no doubt the result would be that the Government would be able to meet the House with either an official legal defence of the clause as it stood, or with such modification as would bring it into accordance with what were the wishes of both government and Committee.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that he had always understood that the Committee stage was the proper time to thresh out questions of this kind. Because they had been discussing this matter for about one hour cran hour and a half, the right hon. Gentleman now asked the Committee to proceed to a division. He wished to know what they were going to divide upon. The point they had to decide was whether they were agreed about the substance of this proposal, and the very thing they ought to do was to put that substance in appropriate Act of Parliament, phraseology. The clause was very clumsily worded. With regard to the powers of the authority over secular instruction, he would vote for the exclusion of the word "secular." Where did the Government get it from? It was not in the Elementary Education Act of 1870. He disliked the word in respect of instruction, just as much as he disliked the distinction drawn between sacred and secular music. This provision would not shut out from aided schools any definite religious instruction at all. Suppose the managers of a particular school believed in high Ritualism, which would be obnoxious at any rate to one of the hon. Members for Liverpool, and the hon. Member for the Sowerby Division. In such a case surely the local education authority ought to be able to exercise some control over the religious instruction in that school. In this instance the managers might decline to interfere because they did not wish to make themselves disagreeable to the teachers. He went so far as to say that in all schools there ought to be a certain amount of control by the local authority in regard to all the instruction. They might, nevertheless, say that, with regard to aided schools within certain lines, certain definite religious formulæ might be taught, but that was not sufficient to take away entirely from the local authority all control. The

  209
  drafting was bad, and some control and supervision ought to be retained over all the schools by the local authority, and for those reasons he should support the Amendment.
  SIR RICHARD JEBBsuggested that the wording of the clause might be made perfectly clear if it provided that the local education authority should have "the control of all instruction in public elementary schools provided by themselves and of all secular instruction in schools not so provided."
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid the Amendment just suggested did not cover the real difficulty put forward from that side of the Committee. What was really wanted was an Amendment to read in this way—"and the control of all secular instruction in public elementary schools not provided by them." That would cover denominational schools, which was, as he understood, the intention of the Government.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University was a considerable improvement, for it cleared up the point as to whether the new authority would be deprived of the powers exorcised by School Boards. To his mind, however, there was a deeper point than that. The words "responsibility for and control of had been introduced into the clause, by the Prime Minister, and that made a considerable difference. He should like to know it the new authority was to have any responsibility at all in regard to religious instruction in the denominational schools. Control and management might be a different matter, but was the local authority to have no responsibility whatever for religious instruction in British schools or even in Anglican schools? The hon. Member opposite had told the Committee that the scriptural instruction in some denominational schools was very deficient, and they had heard that in Liverpool the scriptural instruction in the board schools was superior to that given in the denominational schools. It was a fact that in some denominational schools
  210
  there was hardly any scriptural instruction at all. Was the local authority to have no responsibility for quickening the efforts of voluntary schools in regard to religious instruction? More than half the children of the land were taught in these schools, and they were constantly being told by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich that religious education was by far the most important part of the instruction of a child. Was it suggested that religious education should be withdrawn from the cognisance of the local authority? Were they going to confine the local authority to secondary instruction, and give it no power to make any suggestion with regard to the religious instruction in denominational schools? Was the local education authority to have no restraining influence upon the religious instruction given in denominational schools? As far as England was concerned, the local authorities would be dominated by men who believed in denominational instruction, and they would simply have the lay element instead of the clerical element. At a Church of England school in Cardiff the pupils were taught a form of catechism highly offensive to the vast majority of people who maintained the school, and the Town Council should have some control in a matter of that kind. That catechism would be taught in the school he had alluded to, and he wished to know whether the Town Council of Cardiff, under this Bill would have the right to restrain the teaching of a catechism of that kind which was offensive to the vast majority of the people who maintained the school. Therefore, this question went much deeper than a purely drafting question. All they sought was that in this country the local education authority should have that power which was given to it in every other country in the world. There was not another single case in the world where the control and management of denominational education was not subject to the control of the education authority. In Germany, Switzerland, Ontario, Quebec, and in every other country except England, the municipality controlled the instruction, even where it was purely denominational; and why were they not

  211
  allowed in this country to have a voice in the denominational and the religious instruction which was considered by some hon. Gentlemen opposite to be more important for the training of the
  character of the children than any other kind of education.
  (11.33.) Question put,
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 96. (Division List No. 290.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Flower, Ernest

  M'Govern, T.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Kean, John

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Bagot, Capt. Joseline FitzRoy

  Gardner, Ernest

  Milvain, Thomas

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn

  Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gorst, Rt Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute

  Beach, RtHn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gretton, John

  Myers, William Henry

  Bignold, Arthur

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Bond, Edward

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Brassey, Albert

  Harrington, Timothy

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Bull, William James

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Butcher, John George

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  O'Malley, William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  O'Mara, James

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Wore'r

  Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham

  Penn, John

  Chapman, Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Percy, Earl

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Plummer. Walter R.

  Claney, John Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cochrane, Hn. Thomas H. A. E.

  Kenyon Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kenyon Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Purvis, Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kimber, Henry

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Randles, John S.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Ratchff, R. F.

  Cox, Irvin Edward Bainbridge

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Reddy, M.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lawson, John Grant

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dalrymple. Sir Charles

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Delany, William

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Ridley, S. Forde(BethnalGreen

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lowe, Francis William

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lundon, W.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Fergusson, Rt. HnSir J. (Mane'r

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Field, William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Finch, George H.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East

  Ure, Alexander

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Smith, HC (North' mb. tyneside

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Wylie, Alexander

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Young, Samuel

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Younger, William

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Welby, Lt. Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Sir William Walrond and

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford

  Brigg, John

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Lambert, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Langley, Batty

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Burns, John

  Layland- Barratt, Francis

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Tennant, Harold John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n Gower)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen

  Lough, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Edwards, Frank

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  White, Luke (York, E. R.

  Elibank, Master of

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Whiteley, George (York. W. R.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Partington, Oswald

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Gladstone Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Priestley, Arthur

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Grant, Corrie

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wodehouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Rigg, Richard

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Mr. Brynmor Jones and

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

  Runciman, Walter

  Sir William Mather.

  Harwood, George

  Russell, T. W.

  MR. PRIESTLEY, in moving an Amendment providing that the local education authority should have the control of all secular "and physical" instruction, said that if justification for introducing this subject into the Bill was required, it would be found in the omission from the Bill of any clause dealing with a subject which to him, and, he thought, to many in that House as well as in the country, was one of some importance. In applying the term "physical," he thought it was essential that it should be differentiated from any form of military training. He did not think the education authorities would be justified in employing public funds for the purpose of
  214
  establishing in public elementary schools any form of military training. His object was to see the application of a system of scientific physical instruction that had for its purport the efficient development of the physique of the child, and the consequent higher standard of general health and vigour. It was an opinion held by many to whom the subject was one of interest that the physique of our town-bred population was, if not seriously deteriorating, at least not maintaining that satisfactory standard of capability which it is highly desirable it should possess. The English people were generally supposed to be a very practicable people, but in many respects we entirely failed, or refused to

  215
  attempt, to apply to the ordinary conditions of life many necessary and beneficial methods of action, and he thought that in the case of our neglect to afford physical as well as intellectual instruction to the masses of the children of the nation was found a forcible illustration. In Sweden, a country which possessed possibly the healthiest people in Europe, the question of the scientific physical education of the youth of the country was considered, and rightly so, most necessary to the general well-being and happiness of the people. In New Zealand also, only recently a Bill had been introduced into their Legislative Assembly, a Bill dealing with this question on the lines he had suggested. Amongst what was termed the upper and the wealthy classes in England, this question of physical development was considered to be a very necessary portion of the child's education, but so far as those in the future would form the large wage-earning classes of the community, we entirely ignored the necessity of affording them, during the years of their growth, the best guarantee from a physical point of view of future energy and efficiency. The State had taken upon itself the responsibility of providing to some extent for the intellectual and moral training of its children, and he thought that it should also recognise that it owed at least a similar duty to the bodily health and physical strength of those whose circumstances in life did not enable them to participate in those forms of physical training and recreation which others more favourably placed were enabled to enjoy. The industrial future of this country would possibly necessitate a greater display of energy and vitality on the part of the labouring classes in the country than had been the case during
  216
  recent years, and he thought the State would not be doing full justice to its future citizens if it neglected, as far as legitimately lay in its power, to equip them with every weapon intellectual, moral, and physical, to enable them to maintain that position among the nations which it was now our proud privilege to possess.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 35, after the word 'secular,' to insert the words 'and physical.' "—(Mr. Priestley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WHITLEYtrusted that the Government intended to make some reference to this subject. Possibly it might be better dealt with by a subsequent Amendment, or a clause might be introduced, dealing with it by itself—
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

  PAUPER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL [LORDS].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report progress; to sit again Tomorrow.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.