Commons Sitting of 21 October 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LONDON UNITED ELECTRIC RAILWAYS BILL [LORDS].
  Reported [Parties do not proceed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 12).
  Sir Lewis M'Iver reported from the Committee on Group 12 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned until Thursday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Petitions for abolition of restrictions: From Stirling; Hurst Brook; Higher Hurst; Kilbarchan; Barrhead; John-stone; Kelso; Huddersfield; Parkgate; Longwood; Paddock; Great and Little Bolton; Middlesbrough; Rochdale; Smallbridge; Handsworth; Woodhouse; Winnington; Winsford; Tow Law; Barnard Castle; York; Hindley; Epsom; Kirkby Stephen: Langdale; Bradford; Grantham; Harbury; Wood; Boston; Blakey Moor; Wellington; Barrowford; Colne; Walton-le-Dale; Nelson; Sabden; Aspatria; Crewe; Cromer; Sheringham; Tadcaster; Goole; Castleford; Buckhaven; Lochgelly; East Wemyss; Cowdenbeath; Anchor Co-operative Society; Wakefield; Carbrook; Kippax: Bebside; Reading; and Pudiham; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition against: From Crook; Aller; Isle Abbots: Fife; Sheffield; Todmorden; Kirkealdy; and Wilton: to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Stirling; Tow Law; Barnard Castle; Ashton-under-Lyne; Hurst Brook; Kilbarchan; Barrhead; Johnstone; Kelso; Bolton; Roch-dale; Smallbridge; Malmesbury; Wood-house; Winsford; Winnington; York; Hindley; Longwood; Huddersfield; Paddock; Waingate; Epsom; Kirkby Stephen; Langdale; Middlesbrough; Grantham; Harbury; Altrincham; Boston; Barrowford; Colne; Nelson; Bebside; Aspatria; Sheffield; Sabdon; Crewe; Sheringham; Cromer; Tadcaster; Kippax; Castleford; Goole; Padiham; Buckhaven; Lochgelly; Cowdenbeath; East Wemyss; London; Walton-le-Dale; Wakefield; Reading; and Wellington; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Worcester; St. Albans; Benson; Southport; and Southampton: to lie upon the Table.
  PLUMBERS REGISTRATION BILL.
  Petition from West Riding of York, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION IN TRADE.
  Petitions for legislation: From Stirling; Higher Hurst; Hurst Brook; Barrhead; Johnstone; Kilbarchan; Kelso; Park gate; Paddock; Longwood; Huddersfield; Little Bolton; Rochdale; Smallbridge; Woodhouse; Barnard Castle; Winsford; Winnington; York; Middlesbrough; Hindley; Epsom; Kirkby Stephen; Langdale; Grantham; Bradford; Harbury; Wood Green; Boston; Blakey Moor; Padiham; Barrowford; Colne; Bebside; Nelson; Sabden; Aspatria; Crewe; Sheringham; Tadcaster; Cromer; Goole; Kippax; Castleford; Buckhaven; Lochgelly; Cowdenbeath; Wakefield; East Wemyss; London; Brightside and Carbrook; Walton-le-Dale; Wellington; Reading; and Silsden; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Fulham and. Briercliffe; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copies presented, of Five Orders in Council of 11th August, 1902, entitled The Cyprus Courts of Justice Amendment Order, 1902, The Uganda Order in Council, 1902, The British Central Africa Order in Council, 1902, The East Africa Order in Council, 1902, and the Eastern African Protectorates (Court of Appeal) Order in Council, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870 TO 1895.
  Copy presented, of Order of Council, of 15th September, 1902, giving effect to a declaration, signed 26th June, 1901, supplementary to the Extradition Treaty of 3rd December, 1873, between Great Britain and Austria-Hungary [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copies presented, of Two Orders in Council of 11th August, 1902, approving Pilotage Bye-laws for the Ports of Cardiff and Waterford respectively [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  WINTER ASSIZES ACTS, 1876 AND 1877.
  Copies presented, of Seven Orders in Council of 11th August, 1902, relating to the ensuing Winter Assizes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
  Copy presented, of Statutes made by the University of Cambridge, and sealed on 27th May, 1902, amending the Statutes of the University [by Act]; to lie upon the the Table, and to be printed. [No. 359.]
  SOUTH AFRICAN (TRANSPORTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st April, Sir John Colomb]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 360.]
  ARMY (PAY, NON-EFFECTIVE PAY, AND ALLOWANCES).
  Copy presented, of List of Exceptions to the Army Regulations as to Pay and Allowances sanctioned during the year ended 31st March, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERES TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Poor Law Officers' Superannuation— Central Fund.
    MR. A. K. LOYD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he will consider the possibility of establishing a central fund for the receipt of all superannuation deductions, and the payment of all superannuation allowances under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, so as to prevent the whole superannuation allowance falling upon the union last employing the officer.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) There would be many difficulties in adopting such a scheme as that suggested, and I cannot at present give any promise to propose legislation to give effect to it; but I will not fail to give careful consideration to the whole subject.

    Voluntary School Trust Deeds.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether ho will lay upon the Table copies of the precedents of trust deeds for voluntary schools settled by the Education Department under the Revised Code of 1870 and previous codes.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) There is no objection to laying copies of the precedents of trust deeds for voluntary schools referred to in the Question. But it should be clearly understood that it was only in certain cases where building grants were applied for, that the Education Department are aware these trust deeds wore employed. Of the existing 14,294 voluntary schools only 5,347 received a building grant. "What proportion of these 5,347 schools actually accepted those trust deeds cannot be ascertained. Thus it cannot be concluded with confidence that the trust deeds of any large number of the existing voluntary schools correspond with the particular model deeds which will be laid in response to this Question. I may add in connection with the subject of building grants that a statement, showing the details of all building grants awarded and the regulations under which the awards were made, will be laid on the Table in the course of the next few days.

    Postal Servants' Grievances—Suggested Committee.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the recent changes in the administration of the Post Office, he is now prepared to consider the advisability of appointing a Committee of Members of the House of Commons to impure into the grievances of the postal and telegraph employees.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) This suggestion has already been carefully considered, and I see no reason for departing from the decision which I announced to the House on the 18th April last, on behalf of the Government.†

    English Postal Servants in Ireland.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether he can state how many English postal officials have been imported into Ireland within the past twelve months, and whether it is a fact that competent Irish officials were available.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I have no knowledge of the nationality of officers of the Post Office transferred to Ireland during the past twelve months. In every case of promotion the Postmaster-General endeavours to select the best qualified candidate.

    Indian Public Works, Railways and Irrigation—Revenue and Expenditure.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that £109,700,320 was spent on public works, railways, and irrigation in India between 31st March 1875, and 31st March, 1900, will he state the approximate revenue derived during that period from each of these three sources.
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The information will be found in the following Papers which have been presented to Parliament, viz.:—
    Parliamentary Paper, No. 172, of 1886, East India, Financial Statement.
    Parliamentary Paper, No. 217, of 1894, East India, Income and Expenditure.
    Parliamentary Paper, No. 93, of 1902, East India, Income and Expenditure.
    † See (4) Debates cvi., 731.

    Guardship and Naval Training School at Belfast Lough.
    SIR JAMES HASLETT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the position of Belfast as a manufacturing city and a recruiting centre for the Army and Navy, he will arrange to have a guardship visit Belfast Lough frequently, and a naval training school for boys established at Belfast Lough.
    (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) Belfast Lough is not considered suitable as a permanent station for a guardship, but ships of war will visit the Lough from time to time when the interests of the naval service permit. A detachment of the home fleet will visit the Lough shortly after the termination of the present cruise. The question of the desirability of creating a training establishment for boys in or near Belfast is under consideration.

    Slavery in Island of Pemba.
    MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the case of a female slave in the Island of Pemba (named Msichoke), who, on the 9th of August, applied to the Commissioner's Court for her freedom under the Decree of 6th April, 1897, but was refused on the ground that she was claimed by her master (Abderahim bin Rashid) as his concubine under Article V. of the Decree; whether, under that article, a slave owner may retain possession of any one of his female slaves by simply claiming her as a concubine, although the woman expresses her wish to become free, and brings evidence to prove that she has been J employed in ordinary domestic and field work, and is not a member of her owner's harem; and whether a slave so refused has the right of appeal tinder Article VI. of the Decree.
    (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The Committee of the Society of Friends have drawn the attention of His Majesty's Government to the ease, and a report has been called for from His Majesty's Acting Agent and Consul General at Zanzibar.

    Penrhyn Quarry Dispute—Suggested Official Action
    MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will follow the course adopted by (President Rooseveldt respecting the coal strike in America in the case of the Penrhyn quarry dispute.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The circumstances in the case of the Penrhyn quarry dispute are by no means similar to those in America, and I see no prospect that any official intervention would tend to promote a settlement.

    Royal Irish Constabulary—Lack of Barrack Accommodation.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the absence of barrack accommodation, a number of the Royal Irish Constabulary, from the depôt, Phœnix Park, are obliged to find lodgings in apartments rented from the Dublin Artisans' Dwellings Company; and whether it is intended to continue this condition of affairs.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Twenty-four married men are accommodated in the barracks at the depôt. Thirty-three married men reside outside in close proximity to the barracks, the majority of them in houses the property of the company in question. Accommodation cannot be provided at the depôt for these latter men and their families.

    Soldiers in Dublin—Lack of Barrack Accommodation.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that owing to the absence of barrack accommodation a number of soldiers stationed in Dublin are at present residing in buildings rented from the Artisans' Dwellings Company, he will consider the necessity of providing barrack accommodation.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Married quarters will be built under the Military Works Loan, which will relieve the existing pressure.

    Private Snowling, 2nd Norfolks— Cause of Death.
    MR. STEVENSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the assurance conveyed to him by the Hoxne Rural District
    352
    Council on behalf of their medical officer of health, that the disease of which Private Snowling, of the 2nd Norfolks, died at Fressingfield on the 29th June last, was typhoid fever, and that he was suffering from it at the time of his discharge from hospital at Aldershot, and considering that two other persons contracted the disease from Private Snowling at Fressingfield, he will cause further inquiry to be made into the circumstances of his discharge, with the object of preventing, in the interests of the public health, a repetition of similar incidents.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The hon. Member has apparently been misinformed. Private Snowling was invalided home for secondary syphilis, and was treated in hospital as a convalescent for this disease until he left on sick furlough on 22nd May.

  (2.15) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Barmaids in India and Burma.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, seeing that His Excellency the Viceroy of India has, in response to memorials from the proprietors of liquor bars in Calcutta and Rangoon, rescinded the orders of the local governors of Bengal and Burma, which prohibited the employment of women as barmaids, whether he can state what is the reason for this reversal.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The prohibition in Bengal and Burma has been withdrawn because there were legal difficulties in I maintaining it, but an amendment of the law, with the object of placing the legal powers of the local governments in this matter beyond dispute, is contemplated.

    Phthisis in the Rand Mines.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the prevalence of miner's phthisis in the Rand Mines, due to the inhalation of fine dust given off from the machine drills; if he is aware that the medical officers of Redruth,

    353
    Camborne, and other urban and district councils in Cornwall, frequently report the death of returned miners who have contracted this disease while working rock drills in South Africa; and if he will order an inquiry into the matter, with a view to the prevention or abatement of the cause of this disease.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,: My attention has been drawn to the matter, and I am in communication with the Governor on the subject.

    Colonial Cattle Trade.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether negotiations were entered upon with the various Colonial Premiers during their recent visit to England with respect to the admission of live cattle into this country; and, if so, what arrangements were made with the Premiers respectively of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand on the subject.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,: The question of the importation of store cattle was not raised, so far as I am aware, by the Governments of Australia or New Zealand. It was discussed between me and the representative of Canada, when I stated that the prohibition was universal, that it extended to the store cattle of all countries alike, and was not regulated by any order of the Board of Agriculture, but was compulsory under an Act passed so recently as 1893. It was then suggested on behalf of the Canadian Government that the period within which cattle arriving at the ports might be slaughtered should be extended from ten days to a longer period. I at once instituted an inquiry into the practicability of this suggestion, the results of which are now under consideration.

    Vaccination Exemption Certificates—Case of J. F. Back.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that Mr. John F. Back, on recently applying to the Lancaster bench of magistrates for a vaccination exemption
    354
    certificate under the Conscience Clause was refused, and subsequently summoned before the same bench of magistrates, and committed to prison for one month for not having a certificate of exemption; and, will he consider the expediency of calling for a report on the subject.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,: My attention has already been drawn to this case, and I have inquired into the facts; but I do not find sufficient reason for intervention on my part.

    Island of Lewis Schools.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that a Circular was issued by the Scottish Education Department several years since to the effect that school children should no longer be required to carry peats with them to school for the purpose of providing the class-rooms with fires, will he state why there are numerous schools in the Island of Lewis where that Circular is disregarded.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,: No complaint, with respect to the practice in question, has been addressed to the Department by the parents of any children, but my Lords will communicate with the School Boards, and call their attention to the terms of their Circular of January, 1894.

    Kenmare (Kerry) Port.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any applications for assistance under the Marine Works (Ireland) Act have been dealt with, and whether the claims of the port of Kenmare, County Kerry, have been favourably considered, in view of the needs of the port and of the continuation of the service of the Clyde Shipping Company's steamers, which has been secured to ports on the south-west coast of Ireland by the subsidy granted by the Congested Districts Board; and, if not, can he state what further steps should be taken in the matter.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,: A number of applications have been received and are at present under consideration.

    355
    I stated yesterday in answer to a question of the hon. Member for East Glare, that the Government hope to be in a position to give effect to the provisions of the recent Statute at an early date.

    Coercion Prisoners in Tullamore Gaol.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any of the men at present confined in Tullamore Gaol under sentences under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act are upon hard labour and required to do menial work; whether they have been placed upon bread and water diet and obliged to exercise in the ring with ordinary prisoners.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Three were sentenced to hard labour. One, Mr. Hogan, has been exempted on medical grounds from hard labour, and another, Mr. Lowry, exempted from completing a full task. No prisoners under sentence, except first-class misdemeanants, on application, are entitled to the services of assistants. None of the three are on a bread and water diet. All are in the "star" class, and accordingly are not exercised with habitual criminals. Full particulars will be found in Parliamentary Paper 129 of this Session.
    MR. DELANY: But does not the sentence of one month's imprisonment with hard labour involve, under the prison rules, three days on bread and water and fourteen days on a plank bed?
    MR. WYNDHAM: It does not oblige bread and water; but if the hon. Member will refer to a copy of the prison rules he will find a full reply to his Question.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Are we to understand that a sentence of hard labour does not imply bread and water for any period?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, if the hon. Member will look at the rules he will find full information.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is similar treatment imposed on political prisoners in any other civilised country?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ‡
    MR. DELANY: Is this a fair way to treat political opponents?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ‡

    Belfast Disturbances
    MR. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his intention has been called to the scandalous scenes enacted on the Customs House steps, Belfast, on October 19th, which almost culminated in a riot; whether he is taking stops to prevent a repetition of these occurrences; and whether he is aware that these gatherings are condemned by all respectable citizens of Belfast as the outcome of blasphemy and blackguardism which characterise the meetings every Sunday on Government property.
    MR. SPEAKER: These are not phrases which would be admitted on the Question Paper.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have had no report of the occurrences. The Government will, as heretofore, take all the steps which they think are best calculated to preserve the peace in Belfast and other parts of Ireland.
    MR. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the principal speaker at these meetings has declared that he intends to hold a series of meetings in the coming week? In view of the urgency of the situation will he take steps to have these things prevented?
    MR. NANNETTI:: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of railing these steps, as has been done in Dublin?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have nothing to add to the answer I have already given. I have said we shall take the steps best calculated to preserve the peace.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is it not the fact that these meetings, which have been condemned by Protestant clergymen and newspapers, are held on. Government property?
    [No answer was returned.]

    English and Russian Trade with Persia.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government have now any information relative to any agreement between Russia and Persia whereby British and Indian goods imported into Persia are to be unfavourably treated in respect of customs duties; and, if so, can he state generally the effect of such agreement upon those goods, and especially upon cotton manufactures and Indian teas; have His Majesty's Government any information relative to any recent agreement of a similar character between Turkey and Persia; what 1ms been the result of the communications on this subject with the Indian Government which were proceeding on the 8th August last; and, will the correspondence be laid upon the Table of the House.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I have to say that, so far as the Government are aware, no agreement between Russia and Persia has yet been concluded. An arrangement has been come to between Turkey and, Persia providing for the complete most-favoured-nation treatment in customs matters. As the result of communications with the India Office the opportunity was taken of the presence of the Persian Grand Vizier in this country to represent to His Highness the importance of British commercial interests receiving equitable treatment. There is no correspondence which can be properly laid on the Table of the House at this stage.

    Gibraltar Defences.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now say when the Report of the engineer sent to Gibraltar to report on the harbour on the eastern side of the Rock, recommended by the Gibraltar Committee in March, 1901, and whose Report was being drawn up on 6th June last, will be completed, and when it will be presented to this House; and are any steps being taken meantime to diminish the exposure to fire of the works on the western side, pointed out by the Gibraltar Committee and by the military authorities of Gibraltar.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Report to which my hon. friend refers has been received and is already engaging the attention of the Board of Admiralty. Both that and the question of the armament of the forts is receiving, and will receive, the careful attention of the Government.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Report be published in the course of the present sittings?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not sure, but I will inquire of my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Report is one which could, under any circumstances, be published. If my hon. friend will put a Question to me later on I will answer it. In any case, it cannot be published until we have given it more consideration than we have been able to do up to the present.

    Education Bill—Premier's Statements on Clause 8.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to place on the Notice Paper the Amendments to Clause 8 of the Education Bill which are needful to bring its provisions into harmony with the statements in his speech at Manchester, on Tuesday, 14th October.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose the hon. Gentleman refers to the statement I made at Manchester that the fundamental policy of the Bill was to give complete control to the education authority in matters affecting secular education, and that we would be glad to consider whether that fundamental policy could be more effectively carried out by amending Clause 8. We have already accepted one Amendment put down in the name of my hon. friend the Member for the Wellington Division of Shropshire dealing with that subject, and we were able to induce the House, with the aid of the closure, to add it to the Bill last night. There may be other Amendments pointing in the same direction which we may be able to accept, and, in any case, there is one put down in my own name which would make it absolutely beyond question that the education authority is to be able to deal effectively

    359
    with all questions of the management of schools so far as secular education is concerned within its area. If the hon. Gentleman refers, as perhaps he also does, to the question of pupil teachers, there is an Amendment down in the name of the Under-Secretary for Education representing the views of the Government on that subject.
    MR. BRIGG: There is also the question of grouping which will have to be dealt with.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that grouping could be dealt with in Clause 8, and, in any case, though it is important, I am glad to admit it is not a subject which I touched upon at Manchester.

    Martial Law Commission.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state when it is expected that the House will be in possession of the Report of the Lord Chief Justice, as head of the Commission recently sent to South Africa to review the sentences inflicted by the Martial Law Courts in that country.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Report has not yet been received. I am not, therefore, in a position to make any statement on the subject.

    The Dardanelles.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government have any information with regard to the statement made by Dr. von Koerber, the Premier, in the Lower House of the Austrian Reichstag, on Thursday last, that it is proposed to settle the question of the Dardanelles by arbitration; whether His Majesty's Government have made any inquiries or received any information as to negotiations between Turkey and any other Powers for alterations in the rules and obligations as to the Dardanelles embodied in existing treaties; whether they have any information of negotiations for an arrangement whereby the Dardanelles would be opened to the ingress into and egress from the Black Sea of Russian warships, but would be closed to the warships of other Powers;
    360
    and whether he is prepared to make any statement of the policy of His Majesty's Government in reference to such an arrangement.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the reported statement of the Austrian Prime Minister was founded on a telegraphic mistake and that no such statement was, in fact, made by him. In these circumstances, the later Questions of my hon. friend seem to fall to the ground. There are no negotiations going on.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what business it is intended to take this evening?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Expiring Laws Amendment Bill, the Patent Law Amendment Bill, and the Local Authorities (Bills in Parliament) Bill.

SOMALILAND.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any further information to give us with regard to events in Somaliland?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe no further information has been received.

NEW BILL.
  POOR LAW SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To provide for superannuation allowances to certain local officers and servants in Ireland, and for contributions towards such allowances by such officers and servants; and to make other relative provisions," presented by Mr. O'Malley, under Standing Order No. 31; supported by Sir James Haslett, Mr. Clancy, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Cogan, Mr. Joyce, and Mr. Harrington; to be read a second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 298.]

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper, that in the name of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs, has already been provided for by words inserted in Clause 6.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: What words are they which make this Amendment unnecessary?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That part of Clause 6 which says that the local education authority shall have the powers of the School Board under the Act of 1870. One of the powers thus transferred is that of the supplying from time to time such additional school accommodation as may, in their opinion, be necessary.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: May I point out that my Amendment covers considerably more ground. It provides that the local authority shall erect all such schools as may hereafter be required in its area.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Then the point should be raised on Clause 9, which deals with the provision of new schools. The next Amendment on the Paper—that in the name of the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs—is consequential.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomeryshire) moved an Amendment to the effect that all public elementary schools provided by the local education authority should "be conducted in accordance with the following regulations as to religious worship and religious instruction, namely: (a) The schools shall open and close with religious worship: (b) religious instruction, based upon the reading of the Bible, shall form part of the regular instruction in the school." His reason for moving the Amendment was the belief which existed that the religious education given in the board schools was of an inadequate and altogether unsatisfactory character. As a matter of fact, in the enormous majority of the board schools, religious instruction of an unsectarian kind was given in a most satisfactory way. He wished, therefore, to legalise the present custom in board schools of giving simple, undenominational teaching, which was
  362
  practically universal, and which was demanded by the great mass of the people. He would like to point out that in the board, Wesleyan, and British schools there were in average attendance a half-million more children than were to be found in the denominational schools—the Church of England, and the Roman Catholic; and so far as he could learn there had been no complaint on the part of the parents of the simple undenominational Christian teaching given in board schools. There were very few School Boards which deliberately abstained from giving any religious instruction; the majority of such Boards were in Wales, and their reason was their belief that religious instruction was not part of the province of the State. He fully sympathised with them, but, in point of fact, the great mass of the people would not be content with that, and required the simple teaching of morality based on the Bible. In our Colonies, and in many schools in the United States, there was the strongest hostility to sectarian teaching. Undoubtedly there was a widespread desire to have religious teaching based on biblical instruction. The theory of purely secular instruction in the schools had broken clown. Men and women who were really fond of education, and whose hearts were in the work, could not abstain from giving that elementary teaching which might best be derived from careful instruction in the Old and New Testaments. He moved his Amendment because he could not believe that it was possible for the schools to be carried on without moral and ethical teaching being given in addition to the ordinary subjects of education.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 6, after 'necessary,' insert, 'moreover all schools provided by them shall be conducted in accordance with the following regulations as to religious worship and religious instruction, namely:—

  '(a) The school shall open and close with religious worship.

  '(b) Religions instruction, based upon the reading of the Bible, shall form part of the regular instruction in the school.

  '(c) No person not being a member of the teaching staff employed by the local education authority shall either give religious instruction or conduct religious worship in the school, except with the permission in writing of the local education authority, and under such conditions as the said authority may impose.

  363

  '(d) No child shall be taken from the school in the hours during which the school is open to any other place for religious worship or religious instruction.'"—(Mr. Humphreys-Owen.)

  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not know whether the, hon. Gentleman was serious in his desire to lay down Parliamentary instruction as to the character of the religious instruction which was to be given in the board schools. It was a rash endeavour, and he certainly would not encourage the House to pursue any such plan. He might remark incidentally that the first provision in the Amendment was in itself a proof of the difficulty which would attend such an I effort—the school should open and close, said the hon. Gentleman, "with religious worship" What religious worship? The hon. Gentleman failed to define it. It might be teaching according to the English Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Mohammedan, the Mormon, or anything which the fancy of the education authority might suggest. He did not know that much was to be gained by a provision of that kind. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment said that religious instruction, based on the reading of the Bible, was to form part of the regular instruction of the school, but his speech was that ethical instruction, based on the Bible, should form part of the instruction. The hon. Gentleman, however, was perfectly aware that what the great body of the people of this country wanted was religious instruction, as distinguished from that instruction which excluded religion, and that it was quite impossible to have religious instruction which did not include some religious dogma. It might not be dogma that separated Christian sects, but it must be dogma that separated Christianity from other religions, or from no religion at all. If the Amendment were adopted they would be starting a controversy in which the hon. Gentleman's own friends and leaders were not with him. In his opinion it was absurd to occupy the time of the children with Bible teaching unless that teaching conveyed religion to them, and he did not advise the Committee to embark on the impossible task of laying down the foundation of a universal Parliamentary theology.
  MACNAMARAsaid the proposal was, in substance, if not in form, to make it compulsory to give undenominational religious instruction in all schools hitherto known as board schools. He believed that the form of religious instruction given under the Cowper-Temple Clause absolutely satisfied 90 per cent, of the working classes of the country. He was thoroughly intimate with it, and his own children had been under it. The syllabuses under it had been prepared by eminent Churchmen in conjunction with eminent Nonconformists, and the scheme had been praised by Bishops and Archbishops.
  MR. A J. BALFOUR: I never attacked, or intended to attack, the religious instruction given in board schools.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the purport of the Amendment was to make that system compulsory, and all he desired to do was to show how admirable it was. But whilst he personally agreed absolutely as to the desirableness of the Cowper-Temple form of undenominational teaching, he could not help recognizing that there were a great number of people who had very strong conscientious objections to it. He hoped that at this juncture they would be free from deciding on any proposal in regard to religious instruction rather than adopt a scheme which his hon. friend must admit was partial and would have to have added to it a dozen other things before it was complete. He believed that between them they could so agree on such a repeal, not of the essence of the Cowper-Temple Clause, but of the practice under it, as to secure full and free facilities for all those who desired something different for their children. He wanted to meet the views of those who desired something different. There were Amendments on the Paper, such as that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tunbridge, designed to secure facilities outside the school. That seemed to him to be a suggestion which, given public control of the schools, they could accept. There was no reason under the sun why such facilities should not be

  365
  given. He hoped that before they concluded these discussions they would come to a working arrangement of that sort, and he appealed to his hon, friend not to press his Amendment, which would fail to secure that liberty in the form of religious instruction which so many parents desired.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid the hon. Member who moved tin Amendment in such moderate terms had claimed that there were more children in undenominational than in denominational schools, and had urged that as an argument in favour of his proposal. He did not agree with him, but if the fact were as stated, surely they ought to have some regard to the rights and wishes of the minority. Undoubtedly there were more children in voluntary than in board schools, and he was certain that this proposal would not be acceptable to the great majority of the parents of the children in voluntary schools.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Amendment does not apply to the voluntary schools.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that fact only strengthened his argument. This was an entirely new departure in educational legislation. It imposed the duty, for the first time, of inquiring into and controlling religious instruction, and he was surprised at such a proposal, coming from the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who always professed a desire to vindicate on every occasion, and in every possible manner, the fullest and freest range of liberty as regarded religious instruction. The hon. Member had cited the example of America, but from what he could gather, the conditions there were not such as to encourage the people of this country to adopt a similar system. The same might be said with regard to Canada. The Amendment would not hold water. It did not meet the difficulties of the case and it would afford no assistance in satisfactorily solving this great controversy.
  MR. BRYCEsaid it was not necessary to discuss what had occurred in either Canada or the
  366
  United States. Let them confine their attention to the Amendment, the object of which was to make obligatory by statute a practice which already obtained in the great majority of the board schools. He entirely sympathised with his hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell in desiring to show that board schools could and did give excellent religious instruction; but the proposal of the Amendment was to make religious instruction universal and statutory in all public schools whatever. His hon. friend would no doubt remember that this question caused the greatest difficulty in 1870, when they had a party like the Birmingham League who desired to make public education entirely secular.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: "Where is that party now?"
  MR. BRYCEsaid that there were others who took exactly the opposite view, and after a while, as the discussion went on, the general sentiment of the bulk of the people declared itself to be in favour of trying the experiment of having the instruction—not dogmatic and denominational, but based on the Bible. This general desire, this general opinion of the country, by degrees overpowered both parties in this House, and hence arose a sort of negative compromise, the essence of which was that it did not throw on the State the duty of making provision for denominational education. The only direction which the State gave to the local authorities was that they should not introduce into the schools any formularies. Under that system excellent religious instruction had been given on which his hon. friend had dwelt—a system with which he believed the enormous majority of the laity and the people of this country were content. Why should that system be disturbed and the whole controversy of 1870 re-opened? He hoped that his hon. friend would not press his Amendment. Before he sat down he wished to take the earliest opportunity of referring to an extraordinary statement which fell from the First Lord of the Treasury. That right hon. Gentleman said that it would be absurd to occupy the minds of children with the Bible or Bible instruction except for religious purposes. He was astonished

  367
  to hear, from the right hon. Gentleman of all men, that the Bible was of no use except for religious purposes. Even if no religious instruction were given from the Bible, he would say that it should hold its place in our schools. The Bible was the only means by which a great number of children in our schools had any access to the ancient world, and the whole immense field of imagination, poetry, thought, and history. He would recommend the right hon. Gentleman—if he indeed meant what his words seemed to convey—to read the preface which Matthew Arnold wrote to his edition of part of the Prophecies of Isaiah, in which he indicated the enormous importance, for the purpose of training children, of giving them some knowledge of the Bible. He was sure that if the First Lord were to read that preface he would come to the conclusion that it would be the greatest pity in the world to exclude the Bible from our schools.
  SIR SAMUEL HOAREsaid he gathered that on both sides there was an agreement that at this time it was not desirable to go further into the religious question; but at the same time they could not ignore the fact that this was one of the many suggested Amendments which had been put before the country, in the Press and at public meetings. For that reason it was desirable that he should say a few words, more especially because the corporation which he had the honour to represent, which had very carefully and very temperately gone into this question, had suggested various modifications on the present Bill, and one of their resolutions was very much in the same words as his hon. friend had put into his Amendment. As to the question of religious worship at the commencement of school work, he, for one, had a strong feeling. If they desired that the children of the Church should be taught according to the tenets of the Church, they also equally desired that the children of parents of other religions should have similar advantages of worship and religious instruction. He was glad to think that in this matter the School Boards had, in the greater number of instances, carried out what, he believed, to be the public demand. But when they
  368
  came to put an Amendment to the Clause in the Bill, how many difficulties arose as to what kind of worship should be used at the opening of the school work. He was afraid that if the Amendment were adopted the religious controversy would become more and more acute. He wished to support the hon. Member for North Camberwell in his suggestion that facilities should be given to the children to attend the same worship, and receive the same religious education which was in harmony with their parents' religious views. He hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment, although he believed that the majority of the House agreed with the views he had expressed.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not help regretting that the spirit displayed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich in treating of the religious difficulty, could not also be imported into the sentiment in regard to the denominational schools. At the same time, he trusted that his hon. friend would not press his Amendment to a division, as it did not raise this religious difficulty to a clear issue. It was not a question as to whether they were for or against religious worship or teaching in schools. There were many Members of School Boards who would vote against this Amendment, because they would regard it as a kind of national instruction to every school authority throughout the country. The question was whether they were to give liberty to the local education authority to work out the religious difficulty in their own way? They could not go on giving directions to thirty-five millions of people as to whether they were to worship at the commencement of school, and as to how they were to teach religion. What they should do was to permit a number of people, who were neighbours, to meet together and thrash the thing out as to how and what they should teach the children. His experience was that there was no difficulty when the matter was left in that way. Some hon. friends said that undenominational education was Nonconformist education: but he asked anyone who had really had experience of the working of School Boards whether that was so? Was not a certain syllabus of religious instruction thrashed out round a table? I He knew the most Nonconformist valley in all Wales—the Rhondda Valley—

  369
  where the rector himself had told him that lie had the main hand in drafting the syllabus. In another mining centre where Nonconformists were in an overwhelming preponderance, the rector and two or three curates met the ministers of various denominations and agreed as to the kind of religious instruction which should be given in that district. Not only that, the rector and the curates took their turns with the ministers of other denominations in examining the children on the agreed-upon syllabus. After all, was not that the way to settle this vexed question? This difficulty was not a practical difficulty when the people met in a practical way. But hon. Members would insist on creating artificial difficulties, or in arranging their verdict before they heard anything of the case, or upon arranging the jury in such a way that only one verdict could be given. For his part he trusted the people. He could not quite see the contention of the Prime Minister about separating religion from ethics.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that what he had stated was that while religion implied ethics, ethics did not imply religion. That was surely a common-place.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was not sure but that the highest form of religion was ethics. Any other would be a thug religion. He was very glad to find that the Prime Minister had taken to study Dr. Clifford's utterances. There was some hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to understand the Nonconformist case if he studied Dr. Clifford's pamphlets. At any rate, he would find that the Nonconformists did not separate ethics from religion. In America they had tried to settle this difficult problem, and he thought that in the United States religion was much more prosperous than here, from the point of view that they taught the children in the schools, not dogmas, but religion, which they could understand. The Prime Minister was raising a false issue here. It was a question as to whether they were going to lay down, as a matter of law, what kind of religious instruction was to be given. He thought if they could not have an agreement in a district as to the particular kind of religion that was to be taught, they had better not teach it at all. Otherwise
  370
  religious strife was imported, and infinite harm was done to religion if they crammed every child with dogma. Therefore, it was pre-eminently a matter for concord and agreement, and one to be treated in that spirit of religion which Iron. Members opposite appeared so anxious to teach the children; but what they insisted was not religion at all, until they could get hold of something they could quarrel about.
  MR. WALLACEsaid he would not enter into the discussion which would take place later on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, but if the Committee were to pass the Amendment of his hon. friend they would shut out a great part of that discussion. Personally, he was in complete sympathy with the object of his hon. friend. If he were the dictator and the universal manager of all the schools in England, the system he would devise would be the system laid down in his hon. friend's Amendment. He believed in a simple unsectarian system of religion, especially in teaching children, as he thought they would derive the most advantage from it. But he was not the dictator or the universal manager of the schools; and he recognised that there was a vast number of persons who did not agree with his view of the matter. He sympathised completely with what had been said by his hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell, that if they had their way they would prefer the system set forth in the Amendment; but if they could get complete control of the secular part of the instruction—he meant real and complete control—then they would lie prepared to meet their hon. friends opposite and accept the point of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. He believed himself that having regard to the religious differences in the country the only system which could ultimately prevail was an united secular and separate religious instruction—that was to say, that the different denominations should be allowed to teach their own creed to their own children, and that afterward the children should unite for secular instruction. He did not propose to prolong the discussion on the Amendment, and only wished to say that when the Amendment of the hon. Member for

  371
  Tunbridge Wells was reached if, in the meantime, they had got what they were seeking for—control over the secular part of education, which they felt to be absolutely necessary—they would be prepared to support it.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid that although he thought that there were many reasons why it would not be desirable to press the Amendment to a division, he was still glad his hon. friend had taken that opportunity to emphasise the important fact that the prevailing sentiment of the country was in favour of some form of religious instruction in every school in the country. What they were aiming at was to arrive at a state of things which would enable one form of religion to be given in every public elementary school. It was a most unhappy circumstance in the educational life of the country that there should be a want of union in regard to that essential matter in the teaching of little children; but he felt that the Amendment would perhaps be the means of blocking the way to the most excellent settlement of the question proposed by the hon. Member opposite. If ever they did succeed in settling the difficult question of religious instruction, they should beware of doing anything which would stand in the way of coming near that ideal, which would make them, at all events, one in their efforts to teach the spirit of religion, not in discordant tones, but in harmony and union in every school in the country. He felt strongly that every effort should be made to permeate the atmosphere in every school in the spirit of religion, and he was glad the discussion had been the means of showing very clearly that both sides of the House were on that question united in their aim and ideal.
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid his hon. friend might congratulate himself on the discussion which had taken place. He felt, however, that the Amendment should be withdrawn, as that was not the moment to decide the question which it raised. He listened with very great pleasure to the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Norwich—because he thought, if the Committee considered this matter in the spirit indicated by the
  372
  hon. Member—they might come to something like an understanding in this matter. They on that side of the House were fighting for popular and complete control over every sixpence spent in the schools which was contributed from public funds, or local funds. If hon. Members opposite would apply their minds to that point, and meet his hon. friends fully and amply in that respect, as he believed the Prime Minister was to a certain extent trying to do, speaking for himself, he would be prepared to meet hon. Members opposite in a like spirit as to denominational teaching. In 1896 he had suggested an exchange of the Cowper-Temple Clause for complete, absolute, popular, universal, control. He did now bind himself to the words he had used in 1896, but given complete absolute and universal control, there would be much less difficulty than some hon. Member thought in dealing with the other matter. He hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment to a division and he congratulated him again on the interesting discussion which it had raised.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIESsaid he did not agree with the Amendment, which would do for Paradise but not for England and Wales. He was a man who be lieved in religion, and who desired to instruct children above all in religion but he thought in the present state of affairs they could not give religious instruction in popular schools by Act of Parliament. If they wanted the children taught religion, they must largely rely upon the teaching in the Sunday schools and from ministers of the Gospel, but he held that they would not be able to give the children proper religious instruction in the elementary schools. If they wished to attempt it they would have to see that the teachers were men of piety, and they could not do that. Would hon. Members support a State taught and aided religion in the schools? Parliament was already connected too much in religion by having a State Church, but we have not yet taught all Members of Parliament to be religious. He hoped that Parliament would not connect itself still further with religion by attempting to give State taught religious instruction in the schools. He did not believe Welsh

  373
  Members would approve of the Amendment, and lie urged the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to withdraw it. It did not come from a Nonconformist, but from a Churchman; and he held that the hon. Member no more understood the religious feelings of Nonconformists than the Prime Minister.
  MR. HELMEsaid that the Amendment called attention to one of the most important and, at the same time, most difficult problems that surrounded the settlement of this great educational question. In the interests of an agreement on the religious question which could only be settled by consent, he merely wished to ask the Government (if it was not too late) to confer with the representatives of the great Nonconformist churches. It was well understood that they had consulted with, and, in some measure, attempted to carry out the wishes of the representatives of the great Anglican Church. On all sides there was a desire—and he agreed both sides were actuated by conviction that some way should be found to; secure a settlement and this only could be——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is speaking at large now. He must confine himself to the Amendment before the Committee
  MR. HELMEsaid that the Amendment proposed to secure in all schools teaching of an unsectarian religious character. There was a feeling in the country that that teaching should be universal, and he would content himself with asking the Government if they would take into account the opinions of the Nonconformist churches in regard to the question, without which no real settlement could be arrived at by inviting their representatives to a conference
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid he would be best consulting the feelings of the Committee if he acceded to the opinion which had boon expressed on both sides and did not press the Amendment. The remarks of the hon. Member for Norwich and the general spirit shown by the Committee gave him much pleasure, and he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid the object of the Amendment which he proposed to move, was to make clear on the face of the Bill the control of the authority, and he proposed to do that by moving to leave out the word "subject" and inserting the words "so long as." The effect of his substitution would be to make compliance with these conditions, in legal language, a condition precedent to the control of these schools and to obtaining the Parliamentary grant. Under section 7 of the Act of 1870, a public elementary school was one that was conducted in accordance with the conditions required to be fulfilled in order to obtain an annual Parliamentary grant, and, taking these Clauses together, if the school did not comply with those conditions, it ceased to be a public elementary school, and the local authority would no longer be required to maintain it. That point I was not quite understood even by hon. Members who had made a study of the subject, and the probability was it would not be well understood outside, therefore he submitted that the meaning of the Clause ought to be plain on the face of it. For that reason he desired to put in common language, in words which; would be clear to everybody, that if the: conditions were not observed, there would; be no obligation upon the local authority to maintain the school, and that as far as finances were concerned, the school would be practically closed. He could see no objection to words of that kind, if they carried out the common object they all had in view. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept it. He might observe that the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for North Birmingham as an Amendment to that which he now moved was, in fact, not an Amendment to the Amendment, but raised a different question which could be better treated at a subsequent stage.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 6, to leave out the word 'subject.'"—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'subject' stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said the Amendment moved by his hon. friend would have to be taken in conjunction with the subsequent Amendments the hon. Member proposed to move. He proposed to leave out the word "subject" and to insert words to make it quite clear that the compliance with the conditions was necessary in order to impose the obligation to support the school upon the local authority. He agreed that the Clause ought to have that effect, and under those circumstances the Government would be prepared to accept the Amendment.
  MR. BRIGGsupported the Amendment proposed, in-asmuch as he had an Amendment a little lower down on the Paper which proposed to effect the same object in a different way. The point it was desired to maintain was that the education authority should have a certain amount of control over the managers. Inasmuch as they would have to supply the money, they should have a certain amount of power over the managers. He congratulated the Government on having accepted the Amendment.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid that the discussion that had arisen would show the extraordinary way in which the Bill was drafted. The whole of these words were unnecessary, because it would be seen that the earlier part of the Clause said that the local authority should maintain and keep efficient all elementary schools, and elementary schools were defined by the Act of 1870 to be schools conducted under the conditions necessary to obtain a Parliamentary grant. If a school did not work under those conditions, it would not get its grant, and therefore would cease to be an elementary school. He had an Amendment lower down to leave out all the words from "subject" to the end of the Clause, and he would briefly explain why not only the word "subject" but all the rest of the words should be left out. Clause 8, as it stood, was complete in itself, and any words limiting the power of the management ought
  376
  to be incorporated in a new Clause, showing precisely what the powers of the managers should be. The Prime Minister had struck out Clause 7 as it originally appeared in the Bill, and therefore the Committee did not know what the initial duties of the managers were to be; there was no definition of the word "managers," and he submitted that they ought to commence the Clause with a definition of "managers," and that they should put in a sub-Clause which should extend or limit their powers as the case might be. Let hon. Members consider how absurd the Clause would be if this Amendment were accepted. Could any greater nonsense be conceived? If the Clause were allowed to stand as amended it would read—
  "The local education authority shall maintain and keep efficient all elementary schools … so long as … the consent of the local education authority shall be required to the appointment of teachers."
  They had had one badly drafted Act in the Workmen's Compensation Act, and ever since it was passed the Judges had been trying to construe an Act which no one could understand. The drafting of the present Bill was even I worse than that of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The remainder of the Clause ought to be omitted, a definition of "managers" inserted, and that definition limited in the case of non-provided schools as proposed under the existing Clause.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid the condition was obviously inapplicable to the present series of provisions, and its inapplicability would be emphasised by the insertion of the words "so long as." The intention was to create a statutory obligation, which would arise only in the event of certain conditions being complied with by the managers. The sub-sections ought to define the conditions, compliance with which was essential to the claim of the managers upon the local authority. But so far from defining those conditions, the subsections were general provisions in character, and some were declarations of right. As amended, the Clause would be utterly unintelligible; it was jargon. By sub-section (b) the obligation upon the local authority would exist only so long

  377
  as the authority had the power to inspect the school, and so on. He suggested that while the Clause was in the crucible it should be so amended that it would emerge in an intelligible form.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTreminded the Committee that Clause 7. as it originally stood, ran—
  "… and in the case of schools not so provided, by the persons who are the managers for the purpose of the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, and this Act."
  That seemed to recognise certain powers given to managers, such as they had under the Act of 1870. But that provision had been struck out (if the old Clause 7, and it did not reappear in the new Clause 8. He therefore asked the Attorney-General to state where in the Bill, as now drawn, there was a positive power given to the managers to appoint the teachers? As far as he could see, there was nothing but an inferential statement assuming such a power to exist. The managers no longer had the powers given them under the Act of 1870; there was no power given either to foundation managers or to elected managers other than that given in Clause 8. Some of the sub-sections in that Clause applied only to the foundation managers, others only to the elected managers. The whole plan of the Bill divided the managers into two classes, certain duties being given to one class, and other duties to the other class, but there was no section declaring the powers and duties of the managers as a whole. What were the powers, rights, and duties of the foundation managers which did not belong to the elected managers, and what were those of the elected managers which did not belong to the foundation managers?
  THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): I do not see where there is any distinction drawn between the functions of the different classes of managers.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Is it anybody except the foundation managers who are to find the money for the repair of the schools? I ask where is the definition of the powers of the managers within this Bill, beyond what we find in Clause 8?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the question of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be based upon a complete misconception of the effect of the section. There was no such distinction as the right hon. Gentleman supposed between the functions and duties of the foundation managers and those of the elected managers. The managers were one body, and every condition in the section, so far as the managers had to do anything, would have to be complied with by the managers as a whole. The effect of the section was perfectly clear, and until he heard his concluding remarks he did not appreciate the point of the right hon. Gentleman's question. What he wanted defined were the respective functions of two bodies of managers. All he could say in reply to that was that there were not two bodies. The whole of the managers, foundation and elected, would act jointly, by a majority.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: By a majority on matters concerning secular education?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: On all subjects. The Committee, after a prolonged debate, had determined the composition of the Board of Managers. That having been settled, the managers would act as one body with regard to all subjects relating to management.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: With regard to all subjects, including secular education and religious education?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: With regard to I all subjects, including secular education and religious education—of course, as regards secular education, under the control of the local authority. Turning to the complaints as to the drafting, the hon. and learned Member contended that all the sub-sections were perfectly consistent as they stood. As to (a), if the managers refused to carry out the directions of the local authority, they would fail to satisfy that condition, and would cease to be entitled to maintenance. The same with (b), if the managers refused to allow the local authority to inspect the school, or withdrew their accounts from audit, they would cease to be entitled to maintenance.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: Where are the words "if they refuse?" It is a mere declaration of right to inspect and audit.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYthought there ought really to be a limit to subtlety as applied to construction. The hon. and learned Member would never venture to urge in the courts of which he was so distinguished an ornament that the power of the local authority to inspect did not impose upon the managers the obligation to submit to that inspection. As to sub-Section (c), if the managers appointed the teachers without the consent of the local authority, they would not have fulfilled the condition.
  MR. M'KENNAasked whether the words should not be "so long as the consent of the local education authority should have been obtained?"
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid it was not in the least necessary. It really required great legal ability to perceive such difficulties, and he complimented his two hon. and learned friends on the skill they had shown in confusing that which was so perfectly plain.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the hon. and learned Member had failed to answer the principal question of his right hon. friend, viz., as to where this fresh grant of powers was made. As to the use of subtlety, they were indebted to the Attorney-General for an admirable display of that quality in twisting sub-Sections (b) and (c) into the form of conditions. Instead of debating this question at length would it not be simpler for the Government to admit words suitable to positive gifts of power? He suggested that if the Clause read "so long as the following conditions are complied with, and the following provisions observed "it would make no difference to the Bill from the Attorney General's point of view, and the objections as to the drafting would be met.
  Question, "That the word 'subject' stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment, to insert the words "so long as.'—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.
  Question proposed, "That the words ' so long as,' be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpressed for a statement as to where the words were to be found by which the managers were given the positive right to appoint the teachers.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: It is clearly implied. If we say that the consent of the local authority should be required to the appointment of the teachers, who else by any possibility can appoint except the managers?
  AN HON. MEMBER: The Education Department.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, on a point of order, submitted that the important question of the relations of the managers to the local authority, involved in the Amendment, could more properly be discussed on a proposal of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for the Morley Division. He therefore asked whether that Amendment would be in order, because, if not, the question would have to be discussed now.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYthought the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, and the reply thereto of the Attorney General, had opened up a very wide field of discussion. The hon. and learned Gentleman had declared that the managers were to be one body. He would have thought that to discuss that point on the present Amendment was out of order, but in any case the question would arise on the first words of sub-Clause (a).
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the relations of the managers to the local authority could very properly be discussed on sub-clause (a) which dealt with, that very matter.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That condition refers only to the non-provided schools.
  THE CHAIRMAN: All that follows after "subject" refers to the case of schools not provided by the local authority.

  381
  With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Morley Division, the provisions referred to are already included in the Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid they might be included, so far as the provided schools were concerned, but not in regard to the schools not provided. It was really a very important point.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL, speaking as a layman, thought that sub-Section 3 of Clause 18 would include the word "managers."
  MR. YOXALLsubmitted that the effect of the Amendment would be to undo the decision of the Committee that the local authority were to have the control of all secular education in public elementary schools, whether provided by them or not. By Clause 13 (2), only the Parliamentary grant of a school maintained by the local authority was to go to that authority, and by the Amendment it would be possible for the managers of a school to refuse to fulfil the conditions of Clause 8, withdraw themselves from the purview of the local education authority, and still receive the Parliamentary grant in respect of their school. If that was the intention it was one to be condemned.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that a ruling was given on exactly the same point yesterday.
  MR. YOXALLrespectfully begged a ruling on the point now. The Amendment dealt with a matter which was dis-
  cussed and disposed of yesterday, and he submitted that it was out of order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I do not quite follow the hon. Member's argument. It is a very simple matter to substitute the words "so long as" for the word "subject."
  MR. M'KENNAthought the Government should accept the Amendment.
  SIR. ROBERT FINLAYsaid it was desirable it should be perfectly clear that the rights set forth in the sub-Sections were conferred only subject to the performance of certain duties, and for that reason he thought the words should be introduced.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it appeared on the face of it that the control of expenditure was only to be retained so long as certain conditions were complied with. He would suggest that the Attorney General should consider whether, on report, he could not remove the words "control of expenditure" and make them a condition by themselves.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he did not think the change proposed by the hon. Member would be an improvement. It would be rather a pity to adopt the suggestion and make control of expenditure a separate Clause.
  (4.20.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 262; Noes, 102. (Division List, No. 400.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Aird, Sir John

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Burt, Thomas

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bignold, Arthur

  Butcher, John George

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasgow

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bond, Edward

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Boseawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Carew, James Laurence

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Carlile, William Walter

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bowles, Capt. H F.(Middlesex)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brassey, Albert

  Cavendish, V. C.W.(Derbyshire

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

  Brigg, John

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Balfour, Rt HnGerald W.(Leeds

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Percy, Earl

  Chamberlain, RtHn J. A. (Worc.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Chapman, Edward

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Helder, Augustus

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharpe

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Purvis, Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Randles, John S.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Corbett A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife. West)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridger

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoult, Joseph

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Robinson, Brooke

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Howard, John (Kent, F'versh'm

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rutherford, John

  Doughty, George

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Sackville, Col. S G. Stopford-

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kemp, George

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohn H.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Kimber, Henry

  Smith, JamesParker(Lanarks.)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Spear, John Ward

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Knowles, Lees

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Fergusson, Rt Hon Sir J (Manc'r

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Finch, George H.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Stewart, Sir Mark. J. M'Taggart

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawson, John Grant

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Stroyan, John

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Thomas, David Alfr'd (Merthyr

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Flower, Ernest

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Foster, PhilipS (Warwick, S. W.

  Long, Rt Hon Walter (Bristol, S.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Vincent. Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Walrond. Rt Hn. SirWilliam H.

  Garfit, William

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Walton, JohnLawson (Leeds, S.

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St Albans)

  Macartney. Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Welby, SirCharles G. E (Notts.)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds

  Malcolm, Ian

  Whiteley, H.(Asht'n-und. Lyne

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Mather, Sir William

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Maxwell, RtHnSirHE.(Wigt'n

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Middlemore John Throgmorton

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Groves, James Grimble

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Gunter, Sir William

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG (Midd'x

  Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wortle'y, Rt. Hon. C. B Stuart-

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Younger, William

  Harwood George

  Myers, William Henry

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. CharlesSeale-

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood, and Mr. Anstruther.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  384

  385

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Shackleton, David James

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jones William (Carnarvonshire

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Kinloch, Sir John GeorgeSmyth

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Bell, Richard

  Langley, Batty

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Black, Alexander William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Leng, Sir John

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Logan, John William

  Thomas, JA(Glamorg'n, Gower

  Caine, William Sproston

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Caldwell, James

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Tomkinson, James

  Cameron, Robert

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wallace, Robert

  Cremer, William Randal

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Crombie, John William

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Davies, Alfred, (Carmarthen)

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Wason, Eugene

  Davies, M. Vaughan-Cardigan

  Moss, Samuel

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Newnes, Sir George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Norman, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax

  Edwards, Frank

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Partington, Oswald

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk. Mid.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Wilson, John (Durham. Mid.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Woodhouse, Sir J T.(Hudd'rsf'd

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Grant, Corrie

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

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

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Mr. M'Kenna and Mr. Yoxall.

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Runciman, Walter

  MR. MIDDLEMORE(4.35.) MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.) moved as an Amendment to Mr. H. Hobhouse's Amendment, at end, to add "in their opinion." This Amendment, he hoped, the Prime Minister would be able to adopt. Its object was to establish equality between the two classes of schools which existed—to make the local education authority the judge, without an appeal to the Central Board, on questions which might arise between itself and the managers of the schools which were now to be given financial support. He believed that the Clause, as it now stood, was very liable, and was sure to place the local authority and the voluntary schools in violent antagonism to each other, and would constitute the Board of Education as the umpire in the conflicts that might arise. These conflicts, he was assured, would arise, and they would be mischievous to education, and that, in the long run, they would be deadly to the Church schools. Why should there be this antagonism? Every
  386
  dispute that might arise between the local education authority and the managers of the voluntary schools would be referred to the Board of Education for settlement. Now, what did that mean? It meant that whenever the voluntary school managers were backed up by the Board of Education, the managers would be supreme. The local authority was to control the expenditure, but, as he understood it, they would have no power to withhold expenditure—to refuse to finance the voluntary schools. If that were the case the managers of the voluntary schools would have the power of flouting the local authority. Clause 5, which originally gave an option to the local authority, had been withdrawn, and every local authority I was, once and for all, forced to maintain I the voluntary schools just as they were forced to maintain the board schools. Their control over the board schools was absolute, but their control over the voluntary schools was contingent on being supported by the Board of

  387
  Education. Did anyone think that that I would be satisfactory to the people? Did any one think that the local authority would submit to that? He did not think so, or that they ought to. Why should a great local authority, representing half a million of people, commit their local liberties into the hands of the Board of Education? The Board of Education had never been the special friends of these great local authorities. The Board of Education had never been specially free itself. It had often been subject to outside influences. This Clause and the two following Clauses appeared to him to be contrivances to belittle and even to derogate the local authorities. He did not want to use offensive words, or to use words in an offensive spirit, but he wanted to say that the aim of those Clauses seemed to reach up to a shameful and odious climax of Clause 9 under which ton ratepayers, who could be picked up at a shilling a piece at any gin palace, would have the right to stay the action of the local authority. That was putting centralisation in its most insulting form. Now, they were told that the Dissenters must pay the rates; that that was their business; but as well might the Bengal tiger be argued with. If the local authority was made contemptible in then own area, and among their own people—if any ten ratepayers who might be minors were to be made equal to the local authority—if managers of the voluntary schools were to be appointed who might not be ratepayers at all—he thought the local authority would not be too much blamed if they struck and declared their own freedom. He frankly thought that it would be very much better if those responsible for the Church schools would trust the local authorities. Why were they afraid of the people? Did they think that the people were against them? If that fear were well-grounded, then the Church had ceased to be national in the full and complete sense of the word. He did not believe that that was so, or that these fears were well-grounded. What did they think of the own form of Christianity being taught in the schools? As long as they believed in their own religion, it would be taught in their schools as efficiently as their belief was deep. But if they ceased to believe in their religion, if it degenerated in their
  388
  hearts into a half belief, if it was an open question, he did not consider that all the Clauses of this Bill, or any other Bill, would save it from extinction in the schools. It would become a parody and a caricature. He hoped he might receive from, the First Lord some indication of sympathy with this Amendment, which would remove some of the public risks and difficulties from his own way.
  Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment—
  "To insert the words 'in their opinion.'"—(Mr. Middlemore.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry my hon. friend has thought it necessary to import into this debate the controversial matter with which he has dealt in his speech, but he has appealed for some words of sympathy. If, by sympathy, my hon. friend desires me to express the wish of the Government that the dignity of the local authorities to whom is to be entrusted the whole secular education of the country should be maintained and augmented, he has my heartiest sympathy. My firm belief is that in supposing that this Bill will do anything to diminish the consideration in which those authorities are now justly held my hon. friend is profoundly mistaken. My belief is that this Bill will increase the dignity of the local authorities and induce many of the most public-minded of our citizens to devote themselves to municipal work which at present, for some reason or other, they do not do. Over and over again I have expressed my anxiety that so far as education is concerned the authority of these great bodies should be very great indeed. As regards the Board, no one has ever suggested that, so long as the State makes the great contribution it does towards education, the State, or some Department of the State, should be excluded from some share in the work of seeing that the money is properly expended. Apart from that controversy, I have always desired that the local authorities should have the greatest control. If my

  389
  hon. friend inquires, I think so far as the financial aspects of the Bill are concerned he will find that much has been done in the way he desires by the Amendment we accepted two nights ago. But my hon. friend explicitly stated that it would be in the power of the voluntary managers to flout the local authority, under Clause 8, as regards the details of management of secular education. I do not think the fears of my hon. friend are well founded, but, lest there should be the smallest mistake about it, if he will look at the White Paper at page 36, he will see an Amendment which stands in my name, in which the Government proposes that—
  "Where the managers of a school fail to carry out any direction of the local education authority under this section as to the secular instruction to be given in the school, that authority shall, in addition to their other powers, have the power themselves to carry out the direction in question, as if they were the managers."
  It would be, of course, quite improper to discuss that Amendment now, but, at all events, my hon. friend, after reading that, will, I know, acquit the Government of any desire to constitute the voluntary managers, so far as secular education is concerned, an independent body, who could hold their own in face of a hostile education authority. It must be perfectly clear to my hon. friend that, if this Clause passes in the shape in which the Government desires it to pass, there can be no question as to who it is who has supreme and absolute control in secular education over any and every elementary school in the country. I hope, therefore, that my hon. friend is content and happy in the matter of secular education, but he seems to think the control should go further, and that the voluntary schools should be placed under the control of the local authority—not only so far as secular education is concerned, but also religious instruction. He desires that the religious instruction also should be placed under the control of the education authority. That is not consistent with the policy of the Bill, and it is not a policy which the Government could possibly approve of. The Government frankly and avowedly say that the denominational character of
  390
  the voluntary schools must be protected. We could not accept any Amendment which would destroy that protection. My hon. friend seems to think that the appeal to the Education Department is without precedent, and that it is an insult to the local authorities. I deny that it is an insult to the local bodies. If it is an insult, then almost all the great Bills giving powers to local authorities convey the same kind of insult, and I really do not see that there is anything to complain of when the Government decides that there should be this appeal. The Education Department is bound to carry out the provisions of the statute, and I really cannot, for the life of me, understand why my hon. friend is so anxious that, in all these matters, the education authority should be the judges in their own cause. If my hon. friend lays down the abstract proposition that the people, meaning the ratepayers, are to have absolutely uncontrolled authority over not only the secular but the religious education in their district, then I am afraid my hon. friend has no alternative but to move an Amendment which would remove the restrictions of the Cowper-Temple Clause.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that if the education authority was not to be the judge in its own cause, what became of its independence? In other clauses of the Bill they were not even allowed to appoint their own Committee, and, indeed, through the whole Bill they were made subordinate and subject in all respects to the judgment of the Education Department.
  MR. A. J. BALEOUR: Nothing of the kind.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It was no use denying that sub-Section 2 of this very Clause gave the Department power to determine any question arising under the Section between the authority and the managers. The whole matter was to be referred to the Education Department. Why should they trust the Education Department? They were the authors of this Bill, and it was to them, and the spirit in which the Bill was drawn with reference to denomi-

  391
  national schools, that the local authority were to address themselves. The Department was to determine whether the majority of the managers was right, or whether the representatives of the education authority were right. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to an Amendment he had placed upon the White Paper. That could not, of course, be discussed now, but he (Sir William) would just ask whether that was dependent on Clause 8, sub-Section 2, which declared that differences of opinion on school matters should be referred to the Board of Education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not want to anticipate the importance of the debate which the right hon. Gentleman would initiate on sub-Section 2 of the Clause. But the object of that sub-Section was that the Education Department in London should decide any dispute as to demarcation between the powers which were reserved in respect of denominational education by the managers and the powers which were given by the Bill as to secular education under the education authority. The Education Department would have no power to reconsider the decision of the education authorities in the matter of secular education. It had the power to say that it was not secular education at all, but it had not power to override the education authority as regarded decisions on matters within the competence of that authority. All that the Bill laid down was the common-sense proposition that if there was a divided jurisdiction there must be some one other than the two powers who should decide the point in dispute.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Then there is a divided jurisdiction?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course there is. Have we ever denied that, as regards religious education, the local authority are not supreme? We have never concealed it. To that extent there is a divided jurisdiction, because there are two kinds of education—religious and secular.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: But sub-Section 2 governs the whole. That has
  392
  no relation whatever to religious education alone. It refers every question to the Education Department.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Let us wait until we get to sub-Section 2
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he had no hesitation in saying that he had no confidence whatever in the Education Department to determine these questions. It governed the question of secular education. Any dispute which arose upon the divided jurisdiction was determined by the Education Department as to what was secular education, and if this was so, what became of the authority of the county or borough council? Let the Committee picture to itself what would happen among these managers. There was the standing majority, and then the education authority, which gave certain directions through its representatives. The majority differed from the representatives, and then the dispute as to whether the majority or the representatives of the education authority were right or not was to be determined by the Education Department. The Department was therefore supreme, and the Committee had to consider whether or not, from what they had seen and learnt of the Education Department, it was likely to be favourable to one side or the other. Let the Committee look back on their past experience. Had the Education Department been in favour of School Boards or of the denominational schools? Hon. Members knew perfectly well what had been the animus hitherto, and there was nothing in the Bill which should; lead the Committee to have any confidence in the Education Department as the over-ruling authority over the county or borough councils. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Birmingham that it was a humiliating position to place the authorities of Manchester, Leeds, or even Birmingham, under the control of the Education Department in all matters which concerned Clause 8.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They are under the control of the Local Government Board for many purposes.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: But is that what we mean by decentralisation? There was never such a centralising Bill as this.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not the case.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that the same thing was seen in Clause 12. The authorities could not appoint their own committees or make their own schemes; they were subject to the consent of the Education Department. It was a humiliation to treat these great municipal bodies in such a way. In his opinion, there was no reason whatever, from anything they had seen in the administration of the Education Department, which should lead the Committee to give them this authority; and it was necessary to declare that the municipal authorities and their opinions should be those which should govern the education of the country when the Government constituted them as the education authority.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth had constantly expressed distrust of the Board of Education. He asked the right hon. Gentleman upon whom this attack was made. Was it an attack upon a branch of the Civil Service of this country? If it was not that, was it an attack upon the Parliamentary chiefs of that Department? If it was not that, it was an attack upon the Cabinet as a whole. If it was an attack on the Cabinet as a whole, was it not an attack on the House itself? What was the policy of the Board of Education, except that which the House had made it? Complaints had been made, and the House had given its judgment against those complaints. There was no escape from that dilemma. The Education Department was what the House made it, and it was the fault of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite if they had not more effectively pressed objections in the past. The right hon. Gentleman had found a stumbling block to trusting the people, who had made the House what it was. He was glad that the Government could not assent to this Amendment. If it were passed, it would practically wipe out all the conditions upon
  394
  which the local authority was to exercise its jurisdiction. It would make it impossible for town councils to exorcise their power.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that he did not understand the hon. Member for North Birmingham to raise the question of religious or denominational education at all, or any interference with the powers, whether right or wrong, proposed, to be given to the Board of Managers in that respect. The Committee were dealing with a sub-section which defined the conditions on which grants were to be made for the maintenance of schools. The Prime Minister said that the Clause denned the demarcation between the powers of the education authority and the managers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, not at all; what we are trying to do is to get rid of the fallacy which haunts the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire as to the relation of the Education Department to the general scheme of the Bill. It is not one of the control of secular education at all, but it intervenes to demarcate among other things the boundary between religious and secular education. It does not interfere in the matter of secular education.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that this was not the question raised by the hon. Member for North Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman's objection to the Amendment was that it would put the control of the denominational schools in the hands of the education authorities. That was the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and that was the issue upon which the Committee were going to divide. The issue involved the exercise of powers given by the Bill. There were two questions in which the local authority, according to the opinion of the hon. Member for North Birmingham, should be the final authority to decide, but with respect to which, according to the opinion of the Government, there should be delay and the trouble of appeal to an office in London. Sub-section (b) of the Clause said:—
  "The local education authority shall have power to inspect the school, and the accounts of the managers shall be subject to audit by that authority."
  Was the local authority competent or incompetent to say "Yes" or "No"

  395
  where that decision had been arrived at? Thou there was sub-Section (d), a vital pare of the Clause, relating to the keeping of the school in good repair. Did the Government mean that this question should be in every case a subject of appeal? How was the office in London: to decide? Were they to send down and inspect the schools? If the local authorities could not be trusted to decide whether the schools were not in a fit state of repair, a slur was cast upon them by allowing appeals from their decision on a simple matter of fact involving no question of principle. The principle that the local authority should have control of secular education—for which the Prime Minister had contended all along—was violated by this appeal to the Board of Education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Let us wait till we get to sub-Section 2.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid it would be a pity if this point were cumbered with religious controversy which did not arise on this Amendment, and which the hon. Member for North Birmingham did not intend to raise. The question he desired to raise was simply whether the decision of the local authority was to be final on matters of secular education. It was inviting the local education authority to say "We decline to carry on a system in which we shall not be trusted in these small and trivial matters." This was not similar to the control exercised by the Local Government Board. He knew something about the control exercised in this country over such bodies as these. It might be perfectly true so far as Ireland was concerned that the Local Government Board interfered with the administration, but this was unknown in Great Britain in regard to municipalities. All that the Local Government Board interfered with was the borrowing of money. Mr. Gladstone once said that the Local Government Board were the trustees for posterity. This Board, however, ought not to interfere in administrative matters. If Wolverhampton said they would repair their streets in a certain way, no other authority had any right to say "You shall make such improvements, and such you shall not." There was no question of that description arising at all on this Bill. It was simply a straight-forward question of administration, and he should support the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing back the Committee from a rather wide discussion which perhaps he himself, out of courtesy to the hon. Member for North Birmingham, had perhaps done something—quite unintentionally—to encourage. He was sorry he had done so. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right when he said that the matter before them was simply a question of administration. He should be perfectly prepared to fight it out on the single issue as to whether, in respect of sub-Section (d) the local authority should be the judge in its own case. They could deal with the other questions later on, but let them now say whether this was right or not right in respect of sub-Section (d) which the right hon. Gentleman specially referred to. The Committee knew what his views were, and he was not going to trespass on their attention any further. In the opinion of the Government, it would not be right to allow the local authority, without appeal, to impose any amount of expenditure on the voluntary schools.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid that the crux of this Bill now was sub-Section 2 of Clause 8, and it was no use providing that there should be full powers if under sub-Section 2 the local education authority had no power to enforce its own recommendations. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider that point.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid that upon this Amendment they had to judge whether the Prime Minister stood by what he said last week at Manchester. He said that the voluntary managers wore to be put in a similar position to those under the Act of 1870, but he drew the distinction that the religious powers of the managers should be distinguished from, the Act of 1870, and also the appointment of teachers. Outside those two questions the managers appointed under the Act of 1870 would have no appeal to the Board of Education. The right hon. Gentleman said they would have an appeal upon all matters relating to secular instruction The First Lord of the Treasury had again and again declared that the control of the local education authority was to be absolute

  397
  on all matters relating to secular instruction. He now said that there was to be a divided jurisdiction. If this Amendment were passed it would not prevent the managers appealing to the Board of Education as to whether the subject was one of secular instruction or not. If the Board of Education decided that it related to religious education, it would be removed from the power of the local education authority. The right hon. Gentleman was now refusing the local education authority absolute control over secular instruction. He had given the managers the power of appeal on matters relating to secular instruction from the local authority to the Board of Education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Following the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, I would beg hon. Members to confine themselves to the issue whether it is or is not right that there should be an appeal over these various subjects, and especially with regard to sub-Section(d).
  MR. M'KENNAsaid these sub-heads related one and all to secular instruction, and if there were any questions outside them the managers could have an appeal as to whether the controversial subject was a matter of secular or religious instruction. By objecting to this Amendment the First Lord of the Treasury was departing from the attitude he took up at Manchester, and was giving a right of appeal on matters of secular instruction. The right hon. Gentleman said it was only reasonable that the State should have control over the local education authority in dealing with the managers, because the State found the money. The Board of Education would always have control over the local education authority, inasmuch as that authority could only get the grant through the Board of Education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is precisely what I said.
  SIR EDWARDGREYthought the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury that they should devote themselves to sub-Section (d), had rather landed them into
  398
  a contradiction. He would say a word or two upon a different question of policy, which was how far it was desirable that the central authority should have any control over the local authority. The control of the central over the local authority should exist only for the purpose of keeping the local authority up to the full mark of its duties. But the control here proposed was in the direction, not of encouragement, but of restraint. Therefore, on the general ground of policy, it was just bringing in the central authority in the wrong direction. He understood the First Lord of the Treasury answer's was that the Board of Education would only be brought in to decide where the matter in dispute related to religious or secular education, and if the latter, the control of the Board of Education would drop. He understood the First Lord of the Treasury to contend that as far as secular education was concerned no local education authority, however enthusiastic or desirous to proceed, could be in any way curtailed or restrained by the Board of Education under this Section with regard to secular education. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to concentrate attention on sub-Section (d). An appeal was given, in the case of sub-Section (d), lest the local authority should, make too extravagant demands. But supposing the local education authority said that the school buildings and the class rooms were wanted for secular instruction, then, on the contention of the First Lord of the Treasury, the Board of Education would have to stand aside. He would have the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Birmingham accepted as a general proposition, and then, if it was really thought that there was a danger that the local education authority might require expenditure for religious purposes on the buildings, they could introduce the necessary limiting words. His contention was that as a general matter of policy the local education authority would not accept control upon these conditions. These limiting words were required and should be introduced, and he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North Birmingham.
  DR. MACNAMARAinstanced a case in which the local education authority called upon the managers of a voluntary school to put its buildings into a proper

  399
  state of repair. He understood that in such a case they would have a right of appeal to the Board of Education if they thought the demands were unreasonable, as the First Lord of the Treasury suggested that the local authorities might be extravagant in their demands. He wished to point out that if extravagant demands were made the local authority would have to find out of their own local funds an alternative building, and that was a check upon extravagance which would be of the most potent character. What was the outlook? The head of the Board of Education was the Marquess of Londonderry. He was now dealing with a point on which a great many appeals would be raised—he referred to the character of the fabric of the schools. Suppose the schools managers said "These demands are too severe; we will appeal to Whitehall." What was the position of the head at Whitehall on this matter? Within the last few days he had delivered himself on this point, and had told the chief inspectors of schools that there was really no need to carry out these building and sanitary laws with anything like precision or rigidity. What were they to contemplate in regard to these matters with a reactionary head at Whitehall? He could only foresee that the same bad old system would continue of allowing insanitary and unsuitable buildings to be used as elementary schools. He thought the Government would do well to leave the local authority to themselves on this matter. He did not think they needed to fear any extravagance, because that would mean that the local authorities would have to build new schools themselves, and he did not think those local authorities would be found tumbling over each other in their desire to erect new school premises. Therefore, having regard to what they might expect from Whitehall, he urgently asked the Committee to accept the words proposed by the hon. Member for North Birmingham.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEcontended that there was no such interference with corporations or county councils by the Local Government Board as would arise under this Clause from the Board of Education if it were carried in its present form.
  400
  Although there were ample precedents for this measure of interference as regarded the treatment which boards of guardians had received, there was, however, no precedent as regarded municipalities. The right hon. Gentleman should consider how far powers of interference had been exercised, and what was the probability of their being exercised. Every local education authority having these powers given to it would have to raise the question of the suitability of the school accommodation in a very large number of voluntary schools, and every hon. Member of the Committee knew that in every one of those cases there would be an appeal to Whitehall. Surely every member of this Committee must in his heart be perfectly aware that difficulties would arise, and by this Clause. Unless these words were put in, they would be handing over the government of the school business in the most essential features from the local education authority to the Board of Education. Therefore, the promise to give the local authority full control disappeared if they carried this Clause without the insertion of these words, for in every important matter that concerned the local authority the control would be transferred to the Education Department at Whitehall. That Department already had the deficiencies of these very schools before it, and it would be called upon to declare that the local authority must take a different view next year to the view which the Department took last year. The whole action of the local authorities would in this way be retarded and checked until the best men would refuse to serve, just as many men refused today to serve on boards of guardians on account of the control over them exercised by the central Government department. He hoped the Committee would insert these words.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONI said the Prime Minister had invited them to confine their attention to sub-Section (d). An issue arose clearly in regard to that sub-Section, and the question was whether the buildings were I in a good state of repair. The buildings might not be in a good state of repair in the opinion of the local education authority, but they might be in a good state

  401
  of repair in the opinion of the managers. That question should be determined by some authority. The question as to whether they should leave the local education authority to determine that issue, or whether the manager should have the right to refer the matter to the Board of Education, was an important one. The issue was very much complicated when they took into consideration, not sub-Section (d), but sub-Section (a), because there were a number of questions which might arise under that sub-Section, and they must make up their minds whether ail these questions, or any of them, were to be subject to the opinion of the Education Department. A dispute might arise, and the contention of the managers might be that they had complied with sub-Section (a). There might also be a question whether the managers had carried out the directions given by the education authority. In the next place there might be a question whether those directions came within the sphere of the power of the education authority. Under sub-Section (a) there might also be a question of whether the directions of the local education authority were reasonable or unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Was that question to be the subject of an appeal or not?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwas understood to say that there was not to be an appeal.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: Then, assuming a direction which is in the sphere of the education authority, it creates an imperative obligation on the managers to carry it out?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he hoped, then, that the Prime Minister would reconsider the phraseology of sub-Section 2, and limit the reference by the words, "If a question arises under this section, whether the conditions have been complied with or not." That would exclude the difficulty; but if these words remained in the present wide phraseology, "If any question arises under this Section," it would leave the managers of a school open to complain to the, Education Department that they were
  402
  being kept under the heel of the local education authority, and that they were being subject to the most oppressive and unreasonable directions, and to ask for some relief from that control, when it was not the intention of the First Lord of the Treasury that that should be a question which should be subject to appeal.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid this right of appeal was created for the first time, and was created, not for the purpose of protecting the power of managers over religious instruction, but of fettering the powers of the education authority over secular instruction, It was clear that in everything relating to secular instruction there would be a right of appeal to the Board of Education, and that the arguments the Prime Minister had used in the country were not really founded on the provisions in the Bill. It had been said that the School Boards were incompetent for the work they had to do. They gave no right of appeal against the incompetent bodies at present, but they gave the right of appeal when setting up what were to be the best and most competent bodies to deal with these matters. The important thing was to consider what were the subject matters which might give the right of appeal under the Section. He was going to confine himself to the points in relation to secular instruction. It was perfectly clear in his opinion that in everything relating to secular instruction there was an appeal to the Board of Education in London. If so, and it must be so under sub-Section (a), then it was perfectly clear that the contention of the Prime Minister in the country was wholly unfounded, and that the argument he laid before the electorate in order to get them to favour the Bill was an argument not founded on the provisions of the Bill itself. Sub-Section (a) was in these terms—
  "The managers of the school shall carry out any directions of the local education authority as to the secular instruction to be given in the school."
  That confined the matter to secular subjects, and he thought it must be admitted that, whatever the intentions of the Government might be, every question that arose as to the directions which might be given by the local education,

  403
  authority as to the secular instruction to be given in the school was a question subject to appeal. He wanted to discuss what these subjects might be. Sub-Section (b) set forth—
  "The local education authority shall have power to inspect the school, and the accounts of the managers shall be subject to audit by that authority."
  That must be the subject of appeal. He did not say that there would be a successful appeal on the matter. There might be great irritation between the local authority on the one hand and the managers on the other, which would have a very detrimental effect on the education of the children. Sub-Section (c) said—
  "The consent of the local education authority shall be required to the appointment of teachers, but that consent shall not be withheld except on educational grounds."
  That was a case which required great consideration. Supposing the local education authority refused their consent, there was the right of appeal in every case of that description, and the managars could come to the education authority in London. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division had posed as a high constitutional authority. He said "Whom are you attacking?" "When you attack the right of appeal," he said, "you are attacking the head of the Education Department." High treason ‡ That was a matter which he desired to hoar greatly discussed on the Education Estimates. Personally, if in the House then, he would have something to say on the utter incompetency of the Marquess of Londonderry to be head of the Department. Would the right hon. Gentleman deny that the education authorities in the counties—the combined wisdom of the great County Councils and the great municipal bodies—were rather better than the singular, solitary, and rather doubtful wisdom of the Marquess of Londonderry? Would; the right hon. Gentleman go down to Sheffield and say that Lord Londonderry was better able to decide on the matters set forth in the three sub-Sections he had
  read than the City Council? A few managers of a small school in a small village were to have the right to say "You are not fit to decide; let us put it before this great person at the head of the Education Department." That was a doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman might preach in this House, but it was not a doctrine which he would dare to promulgate before his constituents. Then the right hon. Gentleman came down from the noble Lord to the Secretary who in this House represented the Education Department and said, "You are attacking that gentleman." Were they to be told that the gentleman who was put, for some extraordinary reason or other, into that office was not to be attacked? He might be a convenient person to the Government; he might be less awkward for the Government than the last occupant of the office; he might be able to indulge in perfectly courteous language, and in sonorous sentences which might mean anything or nothing. For some of these reasons, or perhaps all, it might be necessary to put at the head of the Department a nobleman, whose presence made it essential that his subordinate should retire. Were they to say that the hon. Member for the University of Oxford was more competent to decide questions of this kind than the new education authority? The right hon. Gentleman said finally that in attacking this right of appeal, they were attacking the Government. He thought it was the function of everybody in the House, on both sides, to attack the Government. They asked not merely as a matter of right, but of justice, that the Prime Minister in regard to the matters referred to in these sub-Clauses, should at any rate not allow the control of the great county councils to be fettered by the Education Department in London.
  (5.57.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 137; Noes, 263. (Division List, No. 401.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Black, Alexander William

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Allen, CharlesP.Glouc., Stroud

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Brigg, John

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

  Bell, Richard

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Joicey, Sir James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kemp, George

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Caine, William Sproston

  Kinloch, SirJohnGeorgeSmyth

  Runciman, Walter

  Caldwell, James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Langley, Batty

  Shackleton, David James

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leese, SirJoseph F. (Accrington

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Leng, Sir John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cramer, William Randal

  Levy, Maurice

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crombie, John William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R.(Northants

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lloyd-George David

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Logan, John, William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Lough, Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Ellis, John Edward

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

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

  Emmott, Alfred

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tomkinson, James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Mather, Sir William

  Wallace, Robert

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Moss, Samuel

  Wason, Eugene

  Gladstone, Rt. HnHerbert John

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Weir, James Galloway

  Grant, Corrie

  Newnes, Sir George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. SirE.(Berwick)

  Norman, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Palmer, SirCharlesM.(Durham

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Harwood, George

  Partington, Oswald

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk. Mid.

  Hayler, Rt. Hon. SirArthur D.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Woodhouse, Sir J T(Hudd'rsfi'd

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Price, Robert John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reckitt, Harold James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Mr. Middlemore and Mr. Trevelyan.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Butcher, John George

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Aird, Sir John

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasgow

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chath'm

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Carew, James Laurence

  Denny, Colonel

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Carlile, William Walter

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dicknson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire)

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFr'dDixon

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Doughty, George

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Chapman, Edward

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cochrane, Hn. Thomas H. A. E.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Bigwood, James

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Bond, Edward

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Fergusson, RtHn. Sir J.(Manc'r

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Finch, George H.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Brassey, Albert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Bookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  406

  407

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Flower, Ernest

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Forster, Henry William

  Keswick, William

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S. W.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(monm'th

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Garfit, William

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

  Lawson, John Grant

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants, Fareham

  Rutherford, John

  Gore, HnG. R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isleof Wight

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Seton-Karr, Henry.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Greene, Sir. EW(B'rySEdm'nds

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew'

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Long. Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Smith, H. C(North'mb. Tyneside

  Gretton, John

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Spear, John Ward

  Groves, James Grimble

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Spencer, SirE. (W. Bromwich)

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Hain, Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Hall Edward Marshall

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  M'Iver, SirLewis (Edinburgh W

  Stewart, Sir MarkJ. M'Taggart

  Hamilton, RtHnL'rd G (Midd'x

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stroyan, John

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashfo'd

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E(Wigt'n

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'dUniv.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Valentia, Viscount

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Vincent, Col Sir CEH. (Sheffield

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Rt Hn. AGraham (Bute

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Myers, William Henry

  Walrond, Rt Hn SirWilliam H.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Parker, Gilbert

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

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Penn, John

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Hope. J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Percy, Earl

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Hornby, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Horner, Frederick William

  Pilkington, Lieut-Col. Richard

  Williams, Rt Hn JPowell-(Birm.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faversham

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  Purvis, Robert

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Randles, John S.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rankin, Sir James

  Younger, William

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Reid, James, (Greenock)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohn H.

  Renwick, George

  Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Anstruther

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Richards, Henry Charles

  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that the Clause as it stood did not point out where the powers of the local education authority came from, or what their powers were. He begged to move as an Amendement—
  Page 3, line 6, after "subject," to the provision of Section 15 of the Elementary Act, 1870," &c.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid if the hon. Member would look at Clause 6, he would see that the Elementary Education Act of 1870 had already been made applicable.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that that Clause only referred to one class of schools. He wanted to make the Elementary Education Act of 1871 applicable to both classes of schools.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that if the Amendment were put in in this place, it would only refer to provided schools, but as under Clause 6 the fifteenth Section of the Elementary Education Act of 1870 was made applicable to provided schools, it was unnecessary to put it in again. I must rule the Amendment of the hon. Member out of order. The next Amendments are chiefly consequential. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Halifax raises the question of renting schools.
  MR. WHITLEYexplained that he had put the Amendment down at an early period of the session, and upon the understanding that the First Lord of the Treasury would put one down which had the same object in view, he had withdrawn it. When, however, he found on the reassembling of the House that the right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt through inadvertence, omitted to place his Amendment on the Paper, he (Mr. Whitley) had reinstated it. He now desired to move it formally, in order to discover whether the understanding which had been arrived at between the right hon. Gentleman and himself was to be carried out.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had to make a personal apology to the hon. Member. It was true that through inadvertence he had not performed his promise. That promise had now, however, been carried out, as the hon. Member would see if ho looked at the top of page 25 in the White Paper, where he would find an Amendment in the name of the Secretary to the Education Department, which he thought carried out the object the hon. Member had in view.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that under those circumstances he would not move his Amendment, though at the same time he reserved his right to consider the proposed Amendment of the Secretary to the Education Department when the proper time came.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid the Amendment he now begged to move was one which proposed, he thought, to carry out the expressed intention of the First Lord of the Treasury to strengthen the power of the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman
  410
  had stated there could be no question as to the supreme authority; that was the phrase that had been used ever since the Bill was introduced, and the right hon. Gentleman could not complain if the Committee desired that the authority of county councils should be really supreme. He believed there was danger in saying all denominational schools should be maintained if they only complied with these conditions. When more money was required it was only fair that the educational authority should be able to increase its demands. It would be open to the Committee to add conditions when they came to discuss them, but at the same time he thought it right to move that the educational authorities should be allowed to lay down new conditions in future. The authorities were intended to have all these powers in the case of provided schools, and they ought to have them in the non-provided schools. The powers of the managers of the non-provided schools were only inherited powers, and he had never been able to discover how those powers had originally arisen; and if those powers were only derived or inherited, it was important that, as time went on, the authorities should be able to lay down the conditions under which these schools should be managed.
  Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment—
  "To insert the words 'such conditions as may be required by the local authority including the following.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Amendment would be absolutely destructive of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who proposed it must be aware that it was rendered unnecessary by the structure of the Bill. It was an essential part of the measure that the denominational character of denominational schools should be preserved. If the Amendment were adopted a local authority might lay down as one of the conditions that the denominational character of the school should not be maintained—that the teacher must belong to some other denomination than the denomination to which the school belonged. There was

  411
  no condition so absurd that the local authorities could not lay it down. If the hon. Gentleman replied that they would: not lay down absurd conditions he agreed with him, but they would very likely lay down conditions which would absolutely destroy the denominational character of a school—conditions absolutely destructive of the arrangement which the Bill was intended to establish.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that, admitting the contention that the denominational character of the schools must lie preserved, he did not think the First Lord of the Treasury was going the right way about to carry out what he had said were his intentions with regard to these conditions. It followed from what he had said that afternoon that, however arbitrary and absurd a condition the local education authority might require, that condition must be carried out by the managers of voluntary schools if it related to secular instruction. He thought the proper way of dealing with the matter would be to give a general uncontrolled power of requiring conditions to the local education authority in this place, and then, when sub-Section 2 was reached, to introduce a provision that if any dispute arose between; the local education authority and the managers as to whether a demand of the local authority related either in whole or in part to instruction other than secular, the question should be determined by the Board of Education.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONasked what would happen where it might arise that the arrangements of the management as to furniture, books, and apparatus were interfered with by the Code of the Education Department.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was quite clear that, where the Code and the Act of Parliament came into collision, the Code must give way. The power would rest with the education authorities, and not with the management, as to what were the books which were to be used in the school for secular education.
  SIR WILLIAM MATHERthought the Amendment raised a very large question which, notwithstanding the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman as to absolute control over
  412
  secular education, created considerable doubt in the minds of some of the Committee as to how the education authority could be considered to have absolute control over education. They had not heard from the right hon. Gentleman what was to be the characteristic of the denominational school. So far as he could make out, it was to be divided into two compartments—one for secular and the other for denominational teaching. But the managers were to manage the whole school. At the same time, they were told the education authority was to have full control over the schools, so far as secular instruction was concerned. Was such a state of things conceivable in practice? He desired to have a workable Bill, but that was absolutely impossible, unless the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the fact that this Clause created two bodies as the school managers. Let them clear the ground, so as to have one real authority for schools provided and not provided, and then face the question of retaining the denominational character of schools in such a manner that it would not encroach on a great public right.
  DR. MACNAMARAquite saw the reason why the Government could not accept these words, because they would permit the local education authority to interfere with religious instruction; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might be able to introduce, at some subsequent stage, words which would relate entirely to the secular character of the school. The London School Board had had managers for thirty-two years; they had had considerable experience of what was secular education, and they had a large volume on the subject; yet there was not a week passed that the question was not raised as to what was and what was not secular education—the use of the desk, for instance, for both purposes, and the letting the school for public purposes. They sometimes let it for dancing.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I don't think dancing is quite secular education.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the right hon. Gentleman had said that all education was either secular or religious, so that if dancing was not secular it must be religious education. He did not press the matter, but he would warn the right hon. Gentleman that if he confined himself to

  413
  the five specific points set out in this Clause, they would not cover the ground; and unless some words of a general character were introduced, interminable difficulties would arise.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked permission to suggest a few simple words which he thought would carry out the intentions of the hon. Member, and, as he understood, would also carry out the intention of the Government. He believed that the difficulty would be got over if they inserted after the word "conditions" in the Amendment the words "not relating solely to religious instruction." lie begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "After the word 'conditions,' to insert the words 'not relating solely to religious in struction.'"—(Mr. Samuel Erans.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought the hon. Member had made a sincere attempt to amend the Amendment, which, however, was hardly practical. The voluntary school buildings belonged, and would belong after the Bill passed, to the trustees of the school. The education authority would have complete control over the school for the purposes of secular education during school hours. The Government had never suggested carrying out a policy so drastic as that proposed by the hon. Gentleman, which practically took away the school altogether, even during the hours in which secular education was not being carried on.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid that if he followed the Amendment correctly, it simply enacted in another form something that was already in the Bill. It merely turned the phraseology of sub-Clause (a, but the Prime Minister was so little familiar with the language of the Clause that he failed to recognise his own offspring, and proceeded to strangle it by describing it as a hostile and destructive Amendment. The proposal was that the local authority should have the right from time to time to
  414
  make new conditions, subject to which their obligation to maintain the schools should continue, and that those conditions should be limited to the sphere of secular instruction. That was sub-Clause (a), because it was there provided that the local authority should have the right to issue directions from time to time to the local managers with regard to secular instruction, and compliance with those directions was a condition of the right of the managers to receive assistance from the local authority.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was glad to have the hon. and learned Gentleman's assent to sub-Section (a).
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid it was simply a question as to which phraseology should be adopted. If the Prime Minister acknowledged that the Amendment was sub-Section (a), there could be no harm in it.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid it was idle for them to pretend that the Amendment did not go beyond sub-Section (a). It did go beyond sub-Section (a), and they intended it to do so. Among other things, the words covered the right to use the schools for public meetings, and a most important principle was involved.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether in the opinion of the Prime Minister under sub-Clause (a) the county authority had no authority whatever over the schools, but that their authority was confined purely to the kind of instruction given. It seemed to be the view of the right hon. Gentleman that the county authority could direct the use of a particular book. If that was so, it would require to be made clearer later on. The question he now asked was whether they had any control over the fabric of the school or with regard to the evenings. If not, he failed to see where the control came in.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: They have no control after school hours.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought that was a strong argument in favour of the Amendment. Suppose a county authority wanted the use of a school in

  415
  the evening for classes or other purposes connected with education, but the managers wanted it for concerts or entertainments connected with the church, who would have the control then? Was that one of the matters to be referred to the, Board of Education? Was it the position that although the furniture might belong to the county authority they were to have no control over it after school hours. If so, sub-Clause (a) did not go far enough. With regard to books, if the managers declined to accept those selected by the authority, would there be an appeal from the managers to the Board of Education? If so, the control of the county authority was merely nominal, and to speak of them as having the sole or complete control of secular instruction was a perfect farce.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONdesired to enter a caveat against a too universal application of the principle that the authority should select the books. It might be extremely offensive if the text-books were in all cases to be the same as prescribed by the local authority. He thought it would be too much to say that the local authority should have the absolute choice of the text-books and the power of imposing them on a denomination.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Gentleman opposite had asked him whether the local authority was to have any control of the school buildings except for the purposes of secular education. His answer to that was in the negative. The local authority ought not to have the control of buildings which did not belong to them and for which they would not pay. It was right that they should have control over these buildings so far as secular education was concerned, for which they paid and over which they had control, but he saw no reason why they should go beyond that.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether the local authority would have command of the schools in the evening for the purposes of secular instruction, lectures, or evening classes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid if it was part of the elementary system he assumed they would, but he did not wish to answer that question offhand. He was sorry the hon. Member had raised the question about the text-books. He thought the hon. Member must have intended to irritate the religious susceptibilities of those who thought the education authority was capable of using historical books intended only for secular instruction without consulting the convictions of the managers of the schools. For his part, he thought the education authority ought to have the choice of books. He was perfectly convinced that there was no education authority in the country which would behave in such an outrageous manner as that feared by his right hon. friend. He could imagine cases, but ho did not believe those cases would arise. He rather deprecated going into all the niceties and subtleties which an ingenious mind might, perhaps, raise on the topic.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that this was rather a serious matter. He understood from the Under-Secretary that the local authority would have no control whatever of the buildings outside school hours. Would the managers be able then to use the premises for any purposes they liked, and would they be permitted to leave them in a condition unfit for the resumption of school on the following day?
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid there was one practical matter in connection with this question which he hoped the Government would consider. The evening schools in the country districts, which were now held by the county authorities, were for the most part held in voluntary schools, and he believed in almost every case the voluntary school managers now gave the use of their buildings to the county authority entirely free of charge. These schools so held were not elementary schools at all, they were technical schools in which metal-work, wood-work, and various other kinds of technical instruction was carried on. Whatever was done in the Bill, he had no doubt that in most cases the managers of these schools would continue to allow the county authorities to use them free

  417
  of charge as evening schools. But he should like the Government to consider whether, as this Bill was now being passed, the county authorities ought not to have some rights. As they had rights to use the schools in the daytime as public elementary schools, ought they not to have some right to use the schools in the evening as technical schools? He was quite aware that the right might not have to be enforced except in very rare cases, still it was for rare cases that provisions were put into Acts of Parliament.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he was glad to hear what had fallen from the hon. Baronet opposite. He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would give way on this point, because he thought the local authorities ought to have the power to demand these schools for evening classes. In large mining districts, such as he represented, lectures were given in the schools, and instead of this privilege being a favour granted to the locality, he thought the county authority ought to have the right to demand the use of the school for such purposes. He felt sure that unless some such power as this was given a difficulty would arise. He had known more than one case where the whole of the voluntary schools had experienced this difficulty simply out of pique, and the Committee certainly ought to be most particular in giving the local authority a right to use these schools for such purposes. He was pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to books. He could not see how any authority could have control of secular education unless it could select the books from which the education was given. He hoped his right hon. friend would, at all events, recognise the desire of hon. Members to have some words inserted which would carry out the views which had been expressed upon this point.
  LORD. HUGH CECILsaid if this question was discussed, they must have regard to all the circumstances. They had not only to deal with English County Councils, but also with Welsh County Councils. He had not the slightest doubt that English County
  418
  Councils would be quite incapable of using powers given with regard to secular education in order to destroy the religious education. But there was a particular virulence about the Celtic temperament which made no course too unreasonable, or too ill-natured, if he might say so, to be adopted. Therefore, in the ease of Welsh County Councils, he thought it possible that they would use both powers, the power over books and the power of using the schools for purposes of technical education, not for any bonâ fide purposes of education at all, but for affecting the religious character of the school, or merely in order to be disagreeable. His impression had been very greatly increased by the manner in which the agitation against this Bill had been conducted. If politicians could say in public things manifestly untrue, could excite prejudice to the utmost, and be restrained apparently by no considerations of decency whatever, how were they to suppose the Bill would be administered by persons of the same character? It was possible for a certain kind of mind to act as he had indicated, and the Bill ought to be framed with a view of guarding the religious character of the schools against that sort of attack. If the Bill were modified in the direction suggested, it must be under the strict control of some independent authority which would prevent the powers from being misused, particularly in regard to the choice of books. If the choice of books was taken advantage of, not for educational purposes, but in order to injure the religious character of the school, he thought there ought to be a power of interference.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he always experienced extreme pleasure when he saw the noble Lord rise in these debates, because he had the frankness to let the cat out of the bag, and to reveal the real secrets of this Bill. Now that the noble Lord had told them one of the secrets of the Bill, he himself was relieved from secrecy in regard to the confidential conversation which he had with one of the principal authors of the Bill. He had asked, "How can you insist, as you do, upon this extraordinary and unjust majority which you give to the managers?" "Oh ‡" was the reply, "it is necessary on account of Wales." That was the

  419
  cat which had been let out of the bag. A select number of Welsh Members sat behind the noble Lord, but he did not know whether they were grateful to him. He could only tender the noble Lord thanks on behalf of the Welsh Members who sat on that side of the House, for his speech would be an additional reason for the confidence which their constituents reposed in them. He was not very much surprised that the noble Lord insisted that the local authorities, especially in Wales, should not have the choice of books. Up to this time they had had the choice of books, and he did not know where the noble Lord derived the information that they would in future behave in the manner which he condemned. Welsh education stood in advance of this country, and, therefore, the charges which the noble Lord brought against it arose from want of information with respect to Welsh education. He could quite understand the feelings of the noble Lord on the question of books, however; what he would like, no doubt, would be that the Education Department should be constituted a Propaganda Fide, and he did not know any one who would more ably and zealously preside over such a body than the noble Lord. He was quite sure the noble Lord had already in his pocket an Index Expurgatorius which would lay down, for the information of Welsh County Councils, the books he disapproved of, which ought not to be admitted into secondary or elementary schools. He supposed that the noble Lord would exclude certain parts of English history. He supposed the history of the House of Tudor, with the exception, perhaps, of a single female member, would not be admitted. The reign of Henry VIII. would not be admitted, nor Edward VI. Probably there might not be objection to Edward VI.'s successor, but the reign of Elizabeth the noble Lord would perhaps not approve of. The speech of the noble Lord had made it essential on the part of Welsh Members to insist that on this question of the choice of books the rights of the local education authority should be guarded.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he was sorry to come between the Welsh
  420
  Members and the noble Lord, but he should like to refer for a moment to the Amendment and to two points which might be dealt with by the local education authority, namely, the choice of books and the use of the school buildings. He thought they must all agree with the Prime Minister that the less there was said about books the better it would be for the peace of the House now and for the peace of the local authority in the future. They were dealing now with the provision of elementary day schools, and what was demanded by way of use of the buildings was something quite outside elementary education, and consequently quite outside the range of the objects for which the schools were to be provided by the managers, subject to the local authority, and had nothing to do with this part of the Bill.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich was quite irrelevant to the Amendment. He was sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had not paid some attention to the point raised by his predecessor in office. He submitted that the hon. Member for Cambridge University had raised a point which at any rate was worthy of consideration. It was whether the county authority could use these schools for evening instruction or prize distributions. If the Bill, as suggested by the noble Lord, was to be made worse than it was in order to meet the case of Wales, the Welsh were quite willing to be left out of the Bill. If that would be for the advantage of the English Schools they were all perfectly willing to take that step. When the noble Lord spoke he always instilled into their debates the spirit of Christian charity, but it was so concentrated in his perorations that there was none to spare for the ordinary business of Committee. He was the light and the acolyte of a Party on the other side, and he might learn from some Conservative Members near him that as far as Wales was concerned the County Councils were perfectly harmonious in matters educational. There had not been the slightest friction or disagreement from 1899 until today. The real point was—were they

  421
  or were they not entitled to ask that the local authority should have control over the school buildings? He thought they were entitled to ask the Government to consider this point.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid it was essential, if they were to carry out the main objects of the Bill, that the local education authority should have power to decide what the character of the school building should he. As the Bill stood the local authority had not the power to decide whether they could use the school for evening classes. He did not think justice had been done to the language used by the noble lord who spoke of the virulence of the Celtic temperament. In Monmouthshire they were proud of claiming the noble lord as the descendant of an ancient Welsh family, and when he avowed that virulence was a characteristic of that race he was only describing an attribute of his own. It had been alleged over and over again that the local
  authority were to have control over the schools outside of religious instruction. If the local authority were to have absolute control over secular and primary education hon. Members were entitled to ask whether they were to have the power, if local needs required it, to declare that a voluntary school should be for boys or girls, or a mixed school, and if they were not to have that power they must ask the First Lord of the Treasury to qualify the statement that the local authority were to have complete control over secular education.
  Question put, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
  The Committee divided; Ayes, 132; Noes, 257. (Division List No. 402.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Grant, Corrie

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

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

  Newnes, Sir George

  Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Norman, Henry

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon Sir William

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Harwood, George

  Partington, Oswald

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Bell, Richard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Black, Alexander William

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

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Brigg, John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Price, Robert John

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Burns, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burt, Thomas

  Joicey, Sir James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Caine, William Sproston

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshr.

  Runciman, Walter

  Caldwell, James

  Kinloch, Sir John GeorgeSmyth

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Kitson, Sir James

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Langley, Batty

  Shackleton, David James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leng, Sir John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Levy, Maurice

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crombie, John William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Logan, John William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lough, Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore Cook

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen E.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Edwards, Frank

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Ellis, John Edward

  Mather, Sir William

  Tomkinson, James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wallace, Robert

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Morley, Rt Hon. John (Montrose

  Walton, John Lawson (LeedsS.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Moss, Samuel

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Wason, Eugene

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wilson, Fred W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Wilson, John (Durham. Mid.)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Woodhouse, Sir JT.(Huddersf'd

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hoult, Joseph

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFr'dDixon

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Aird, Sir John

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Doughty, George

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Arrol, Sir William

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bagot, Capt. JoscelineFitzRoy

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. SirWilliamHart

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Eiliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Kemp, George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Balfour, RtHn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W (Salop

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Fergusson, RtHn Sir J.(Manc'r

  Keswick, William

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Finch, George H.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bigwood, James

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lawson, John Grant

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bond, Edward

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Flower, Ernest

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Forster, Henry William

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Brassey, Albert

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S W

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale

  Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Butcher, John George

  Gore, HnG. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Lucas, Reginald J(Portsmouth

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G Ellison

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Greene, SirE. W (B'rySEdm'nds

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Malcolm, Ian

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

  Gretton, John

  Maxwell, RtHn SirH E. (Wigt'n

  Chamberlain, Rt HnJA(Worc'r

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Milvain, Thomas

  Chapman, Edward

  Groves, James Grimble

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hain, Edward

  Morrell, George Herbert.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hamilton. Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Murray, RtHn A. Graham (Bute

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Myers, William Henry

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Haslam, Sir Alfred, S.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Penn, John

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Percy, Earl

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Helder, Augustus

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Purvis, Robert

  Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Denny, Colonel

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Randles, John S.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  424

  425

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)

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

  Renwick, George

  Smith, HC. (North'mb. Tyns'de

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E (Notts

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. Stalybridge

  Spear, John Ward

  Whiteley, H. Ashton und. Lyne

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Spencer, Sir E (W. Bromwich)

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell(Birm.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Willoughby de Ereaby, Lord

  Robinson, Brooke

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Rutherford, John

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Tufnell, Lieut. -Colonel Edward

  Younger, William

  Seely, Major JEB (Isleof Wight

  Valentia, Viscount

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Vincent, Col. SirC. EH(Sheffield

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Walrond, Rt. HonSir William H

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  (7. 26.) Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

  It being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

EVENING SITTING.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  [SECOND READING]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [20th October], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  MR. FLYNNresuming the speech he was delivering on Monday when the debate was adjourned, said the Bill, at first sight, seemed a very small matter, but it was nothing of the kind. It was a hardy annual of the most improper character. The bringing in of the Women's Franchise Bill year after year could be understood, but this Bill was a most delightful example of the illogical nature of the British Constitution and the illogical nature of the British Parliament. Some of the Acts in this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill were good Acts, but there were some very, very bad ones. If there were good Acts in the Schedule they ought in a frank and honest way to be placed upon the Statute Book, while the bad ones should not be renewed. There was the Sunday Closing (Ireland) Act. That might or might not be a good Act, but it was an Act of enormous importance, and one which the majority of the Irish people believed to be a good Act. Why should a measure of that kind be held in
  426
  a state of suspended animation? If it was an Act good for Ireland, an Act of which the majority of the Irish people approved, it should have a permanent place on the Statute Book. At present they did not know whether it was going to be the law of the land from year to year, for an Amendment might at any time be moved by a clever and ingenious Parliamentarian to strike it out of the Schedule of this Bill. There were a number of Acts in this Bill which ought to be dealt with at once. There were Acts going back to 1855, with Amendments carrying them on to 1885. The Linen Manufacturers' Act of Ireland had been carried on by fragmentary and most unsatisfactory legislation of this kind. Would not the proper thing be to consolidate these Acts once and for all and bring them into one short Act, and make them the Statute law of the land?. There were many Acts to which he might refer, but there was one—the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act—1881, the continuance of which by the Government required some explanation. What was the position with regard to that Act? Rightly or wrongly it was passed twenty-one years ago. Certain arguments wore brought forward in favour of it, but would those arguments prevail now? It was not a Peace Preservation Act, but an Act relating to the carrying and possession of arms, and in Ireland it was commonly called the Arms Act. That Act remained in force in Ireland. As the outcome of the War, they had rifle clubs established in England and Scotland. Why should they not have rifle clubs in Ireland? With this Act they could not have rifle clubs, and could not even carry a revolver, sword, or dagger.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order. It is not open to the hon. Member to discuss the merits of the Acts. That can be done by moving an Amendment to omit them on the Committee Stage.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: There is a precedent in 1874.
  MR. SPEAKER: Whatever may have been done in 1874, it was not allowed in 1887.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The rule was broken by Mr. Disraeli.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the Arms Act might have been a good Act twenty years ago, but was it right that no one should be allowed to carry arms now without the consent of a magistrate? These Acts were passed as temporary measures in exceptional circumstances, but they had never been reviewed since, and had been carried on from year to year without any addition to the argument which gave them birth. In session and out of session they must raise their protest against this archaic method of legislation and this slipshod manner of dealing with the people. He knew the one thing a British statesman abhorred was that thing called logic, but, as a logician, he protested against the frame of mind which induced them to legislate in this haphazard manner. The measure he had last referred to worked great mischief, and ought to be altered, and he protested against an Act which prevented the people of Ireland as freemen having the right to carry arms, a right enjoyed by every freeman in every civilized country.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he had no intention of discussing the merits of any Act in the Schedule of this Bill, but he did think the time had come when the House should ask itself whether that Schedule ought not to be revised. He had risen with the sole purpose of pointing out that among the Acts in the Schedule of the Bill was the Ballot Act of 1872. The explanation of the inclusion of that Act in the Schedule was that an Amendment was moved in the House of Lords—an unconstitutional Amendment, in his opinion—which made the Act temporary; but to call the Ballot Act, which had been on the Statute Book thirty
  428
  years, a temporary measure was a monstrosity. Ho thought that the next time the Bill was brought in the Schedule should be revised, and such Acts as the Ballot Act be made perpetual. He hoped that the Government would give this matter consideration.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLTTwished to say a few words in support of the suggestion of his hon. friend the Member for Dundee, for this Bill was the means of constantly bringing before the House two classes of Acts-—one class which ought to be permanently on the Statute Book and the other a class of legislative lumber which ought to be cleared away as rapidly as possible. Among the Acts in the Schedule which ought to be made perpetual was the Poor Rate Exemption Act of 1840, under which personal property, such as stocks and shares, were exempted from poor-rate. That Act was the basis at this moment of our system of taxation, and it was astounding that for so many successive years it had only been kept alive by means of an annual measure. Among the lumber in the Schedule which should be removed was the Linen Manufacturers Act, which laid down regulations absolutely inconsistent with the present character of the business; the Promissory Notes Act, and the Militia Ballot Act, and another measure of an equally obsolete character, viz., the Act for the regulation of locomotives on the highways. Under it locomotives were restricted to a speed of four miles an hour in the country and two miles an hour in towns. If that meant anything it meant that the motoring of today was illegal. The fact was the laws of this country required consolidation and codification, and he earnestly hoped that the Government would take this matter in hand.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that Lord Carnarvon in 1873, in the House of Lords, entered an emphatic protest against this system of legislating by means of an expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The Bill to which Lord Carnarvon referred contained the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, and thirty-four other measures, exactly the same number as were contained in the present Bill. Since the noble Lord's protest was made in 1873 they had not got a bit further in the way of a reform of the system. It was

  429
  formerly the practice of this House never to pass a Bill of this kind except after it had been carefully considered in Committee. In 1873, Mr. Disraeli and Lord Salisbury were rather coquetting for the Irish vote, and Lord Salisbury also entered a strong protest against the inclusion in the Continuance Bill of the Peace Preservation Act. He said that he objected to the vicious practice of including so many Acts in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which afforded the Government an opportunity of smuggling Acts, against which there was very considerable objection, too quietly through the House. In the following year they had the pledges of Mr. Disraeli, Lord Salisbury, Sir Stafford Northcote, and Sir M. Hicks-Beach, who was then Irish Secretary, that the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act would not be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. When the Bill was brought in in 1874, Mr. Disraeli had taken office, and of course everybody remembered the protest that had been made by Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords, and how he had been answered by Lord Kimberley. Mr. Butt, who was a great constitutional lawyer, was allowed to move—
  "That in the opinion of this House it is inexpedient that when important Acts of Parliament have been passed for a limited period, any of such Acts, especially those conferring on the Executive extraordinary powers, should be included in a general Bill for the continuance of expiring laws, brought in at the close of the session, without affording any fair opportunity of considering the propriety of their discontinuance or their modification."
  Motions were afterwards made by Sir Stafford Northcote and Mr. Butt to omit parts of the Act which were objected to. He was well aware that since that time successive Speakers by successive rulings had attempted to restrict the right of this High Court of Parliament to discuss the Acts contained in the Continuance Bill, but with regard to the pledges which were given in 1874 by the Conservative Ministry as to Irish exceptional legislation, he maintained that the whole of the Conservative party were bound by these pledges. On July 25th, 1874, Captain Nolan moved that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill be read a second time that day three months. He would not go into the hon. Gentleman's argument, but it turned largely on the point that there was no crime in Ireland. Sir Stafford
  430
  Northcote in reply said, as reported in (3)Debates, ccxxi., 725—
  "That he quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member that care ought to be taken that measures should not be introduced unnecessarily by a Bill of the kind, which must lead to a discussion of various subjects. … It was possible that they might find that that system was carried rather too far, and that point he undertook to say should receive careful consideration."
  And then he went on to
  "suggest that hon. Members in Committee might very properly move Amendments for the purpose of striking out certain portions of the Acts to which they objected."
  The Attorney-General of the day justified the continuance of the Peace Preservation Act on the ground that a murder had been committed. Mr. Disraeli came into the House later in the debate and apologised for his absence. He said—
  "He would be happy to make a suggestion which he thought would meet the case. He remembered very well the remarks of his colleagues (Lord Salisbury and Lord Carnarvon) in the House of Lords, and he could not say that he disagreed with them. He was perfectly ready to say that those two Acts [the Arms Act and the Master and Servants Act] should no longer be contained in a Continuance Bill"
  It was twenty-eight years since that promise was made, and he was sorry to say that successive administrations had not adhered to it. Mr. Disraeli went on to say—
  "That if any continuance were wanted, which he should regret, they should be brought in separately at an early period of the session, when there would be an opportunity of discussing their merits."
  When the Bill got into Committee later on there was further discussion on it, and the Attorney-General for Ireland said on July;30th—(reported in the same volume at page 982)—
  "The Prime Minister had given a distinct assurance that if it should be proposed to renew these Acts in another session a separate Bill should be brought in to effect such renewal.… He was prepared to say that the whole of this subject ought to be reviewed, and every one of these Bills examined by the Government, with a searching inquiry into the different places at present proclaimed."
  There had been no such suggestion in regard to the present Bill, which the First Lord of the Treasury had moved by a simple nod of the head. Another promise was made by Sir Stafford Northcote, Chancellor of the Exchequer,

  431
  who said that, in point of fact, the expressions he had used in regard to this kind of legislation were in strict conformity with the remarks made by Lord Salisbury and Lord Carnarvon in the previous year. He entirely agreed—and he spoke for his colleagues as well as for himself—that it was important that they should put a check on what appeared to be an abuse of their system, of renewing Acts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say—
  "There was a decided feeling on the part of the Government that a check ought to be put on that system of legislation. But with regard to those Irish Acts, his right hon. friend at the head of the Government had promised that they should not on any future occasion be put into an ordinary Omnibus Continuance Bill, but if it was desirable to renew them that they should be dealt with separately."
  Then Mr. Henley, the Member for Oxfordshire, who was the parent of the remark that when he could not argue against a particular Bill he would lie on his back and cry "fudge," said—
  "It was a grave question whether the list of expiring laws contained in the Annual Continuance Bill had not grown to an inconvenient length and did not contain many Acts which had better be left out of it."
  In the course of the same debate in Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "In accordance with the statement which he made early in the evening, the Government did not desire to carry this practice of continuing important laws by a mere Continuance Bill further than it has been hitherto carried, but rather to restrict it, and on proper occasions, at a future time, to bring laws which are of importance more directly and conveniently under the notice of the House."
  Sir Stafford Northcote wound up by saying that—
  "It was not the intention of the Government to propose a continuance of these Irish Acts again,"
  and he asked the Irish Members to believe—
  "that the Government were speaking in good faith."
  Were they speaking in good faith? Sir Stafford Northcote was dead, Mr. Disraeli was dead, and Lord Salisbury had retired from political life, but though the question had been reverted to again and again during the past twenty-eight years there, were still exactly the same number of Acts included in the Expiring
  432
  Laws Continuance Bill as there were at that day. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who got up on the hustings and swore by the memory of Lord Beaconsfield, when reminded of dicta of this description, would probably turn round and say that they were only speaking in an Irish sense ‡ Mr. Disraeli said the same thing over and over again, and on the Third Reading of the Bill in a speech reported in the same volume of Hansard, p. 1076, he dealt, first, with the question of the general policy of expiring laws, and next with the general policy of exceptional legislation for Ireland, and then went on to say—
  "Now, leaving the question of Continuance Acts, I come to the much greater question of Coercion Acts. The hon. and learned Gentleman has, I will not say pressed the Government for an expression of their policy on that subject, but he has very frankly announced that the time will come, and is not far distant, when we must, of course, express our opinions on the matter. When the time comes we shall express our opinion."
  And he gave a pledge again that these Acts should not be renewed. When dealing with Ireland, whose members must always be in a permanent minority in this House, he thought that if England could not keep faith with them at the time of the Treaty of Union, or the Treaty of Limerick, they might fairly expect the Conservative Government not to back out of the promises made twenty-eight years ago in regard to measures relating to Ireland, admittedly exceptional in character. By the ruling of the Chair it was impossible for them to discuss the merits of those Acts on the Second Reading of the Continuance Bill, and it was a denial of justice that Irish Members should be asked to discuss questions of great constitutional importance in a fragmentary way when a measure like the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was introduced. Lord Salisbury in a moment of darkness for this country two years ago recommended his fellow countrymen to form rifle clubs; the noble Lord did not say that Ireland was excepted; his general recommendation was that his fellow countrymen should be brought up to the practice of arms. He thought, especially when they knew that there was one particular corner in Ireland which had not been subjected to this particular form of legislation, although it was the most

  433
  turbulent portion of Ireland, where men had sackfuls of arms, and on 12th July had sometimes even fired cannons——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order‡ the hon. Member is not in order in making these observations.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that this was a portion of the great difficulty in which the Irish Members were placed. He respectfully said that the mere fact that such a ruling had been given by the Chair was the best condemnation of this class of legislation. They were not allowed to discuss the Acts embraced in the Continuance Bill, and he respectfully made his protest against this system of legislation, and against the practice of relying on those great constitutional authorities.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member has had a long Parliamentary experience, and he possesses great Parliamentary ability, but the task he has set himself to perform tonight is nothing more formidable or difficult than to show that our present system of continuing, from year to year, a large number of statutes which no human being expects or desires to see repealed, is by no means a reasonable or rational method of carrying on public business. I agree, and I do not believe there is a single Member of the House who dissents from that view. I cannot imagine, for instance, that anyone should suppose that the Ballot Act should really be regarded as a temporary measure, to be continued casually, year after year, or to be dropped if the passing mood desires it; for, manifestly, it has now become an essential part of the constitution of the country, not again to be changed except after mature deliberation and careful debate. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he knows well enough that the Parliamentary difficulties of successive Governments in long succession, lasting far beyond the memory of probably every man I am now addressing, have forced that course upon us. These Parliamentary difficulties are not diminishing, they are increasing. There are thirty-five measures included in this Bill, the greater part of them very
  434
  important, some of them very controversial. We have now been, I am afraid to say how many months, discussing seven clauses and a quarter of one single Bill. How is the business of the country to be conducted if it takes you so long to deal with a measure, controversial in its substance but very modest in its proportions, if, in addition to new legislation which from time to time the House may require to discuss, you are to have a controversial debute upon the thirty-five measures embodied in this Bill? The thing is not business, it is not practicable, it cannot be done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear ‡"] I gather from that cheer that hon. Members think the task would be easy if they were removed to a happier sphere, and were to have their own Expiring Laws Continuance Bill at College Green. It might be easier. I make full tribute to the contribution of hon. Members to our debates, but I do not think it would be easy even with a Parliament so relieved. The truth is, if you really mean in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to discuss the merits of the measures continued—and that is what the hon. Member means—not only the whole system of Parliamentary work would be dammed up, but you would have a stagnant lake instead of a moving and health-giving current. You would always go over the old ground, and you cannot carry on your work in that way. The problem which the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill raises is part of the larger problem connected with the codification and statute law revision and other matters; and with one of the objects, at all events, I have put down proposals for general acceptance in the new proposed Standing Orders which we have not yet had time to discuss. If the House is content to delegate some of its powers to a Committee of its own, and to restrict its own interference in its full corporate capacity to certain clear and definite issues not to be debated at great length, but to be divided upon, then this evil can be got over. But it cannot be got over at all if you are to go through the Bills seriatim, to state all that is to be said for and against them, added to suggestions to omit great portions of individual measures, and coupled with a general survey of the policy, as a whole, which they involve.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Why not make them perpetual?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You cannot make them perpetual. It would be easy to bring in a Bill to make them perpetual; but is the House prepared to do that without preliminary examination?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: "Some of them."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, but who is to select the some? Of course, there are some upon which we are all agreed; but you cannot deal with these matters in an off-hand manner, and certainly you cannot deal with them this session. Government after Government have failed to find the necessary time, and I say these matters can only be dealt with if the House consents to preliminary examination and consents not to revise clause by clause these thirty-five measures, or any large number or portions of them by subsequent discussion. I do not know that we have reached that period yet; the present session certainly is not available, and a plan for remedy cannot be found until the House is less occupied with first-class measures than it is at present. We cannot for some time to come attempt any remedy of the kind. We must follow the expedient, illogical, unjustifiable method adopted by our predecessors for carrying on the work of the country. This will not commend itself to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do not ignore the difficulties he has stated and I associate myself with condemnation of the system. I do not, however, see a remedy until some preliminary examination can take place and the House is prepared so to arrange the issues to be discussed that they shall not take too large a portion of any particular session. No Government with large measures to bring forward can give up a session to the subject. We must find a method, not yet discovered, for dealing with the subject, and I greatly fear, after the experience we had at the beginning of the session, in regard to the amount of opposition we met with in our attempt to simplify procedure—I greatly fear, even if I were able to find a remedy, I should not be able to got the House to adopt it without prolonged fighting, which painful experience has taught me may compel Members to sit at times when they would rather be on holiday—for dealing with measures in which the country at large is deeply interested.
  MR. FLETCHER MOULTONsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury had defended an abuse by the method known to lawyers as "confession and avoidance." He frankly admitted that it was quite impossible to avoid the abuse. He himself had a very strong objection to such a method of legislation, but he quite agreed that if they were to waste a large portion of the time of the House in each session in dealing with the matter, it would be a great hardship. If the Government would, however, only take the responsibility on its own shoulders, there was a very easy method of putting an end to the abuse. They ought to have two Bills, one an Expiring Laws Perpetuation Bill, and the other an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Such Acts as the Ballot Act, and a number of other Acts in the Schedule ought, on the responsibility of the Government, to be extended not for one year, but perpetually, until the House had changed its mind in regard to them and had repealed them. There would be no more difficulty in passing an Expiring Laws Perpetuation Bill than there was now in passing an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The Perpetuation Bill would include measures on which the country had from long use made up its mind, and the Continuance Bill would include measures on which the country was still in doubt, and which deserved only to be regarded as settled in a temporary way. He hoped that there would be a division on the Second Reading of the present Bill, as a protest against the slovenly method which heaped together in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill measures which ought to be rendered perpetual. The First Lord of the Treasury asked who was to decide; but what had they a Government for if it was not to decide such matters? If there were an Expiring Laws Perpetuation Bill, he was satisfied that it would be passed practically with the assent of the entire House, and even if there were some dispute, it would not be greater than that connected with the present Bill, and in this way work would be cleared for future sessions.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he thought the House would feel that they were justified in raising a debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. The Government would

  437
  not have put down the Bill as the first Order, if they had not expected a debate; and it was perfectly obvious that the question which had been raised was a very important one. The First Lord of the Treasury himself admitted the difficulty and importance of the matter, but he said that it was impossible to effect a remedy. His hon. and learned friend had pointed out a very simple remedy in regard to certain of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule to the perpetuation of which the House would unquestionably unanimously assent. There were two classes of Acts which he thought might be taken out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. There was for instance the Corrupt Practices Act, regarding which no less than five expiring laws were continued in the Bill. That was an Act which required codification; it was already practically the law of the country; and the House would pass it without any difficulty at all. Then there was another class of Acts which had been amended, some of them eight times and others five or six times, by subsequent Acts. One of their great difficulties as Members of Parliament was legislation by reference, which made it almost impossible to understand how a particular Act actually stood. In the schedule there were Acts passed fifty or sixty years ago, which were still referred to in Acts recently passed. Surely a very simple remedy for such a state of things would be to codify the various amending Acts in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and remove the difficulty of legislation by reference. He admitted that there was a third class of Acts which could not be dealt with in the manner suggested. He thought the House was not dealing fairly with such an Act as that which had been mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth in continuing it year after year. That measure was passed on a distinct pledge being given to the House of Commons that it would be a temporary Act, and it was not fair or just that an Act of that kind, which affected the personal liberty of the person, and which was passed as a temporary Act, should be rendered permanent. He was very glad that the Government had given the House an opportunity of discussing the matter, and
  438
  he hoped that the debate would lead to the removal of an abuse from their system of legislation.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he did not intend to unduly prolong the discussion, as he was especially anxious to please the Leader of the House, who, during the absence of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford, who was attending Irish meetings in America and receiving telegrams from the President of the United States—in Ireland it would have been the plank bed; in America it was the hospitality of the White House—had admirably led the Irish Party. The acting Leader of the Irish Party on the Treasury Bench made a speech which was quite worthy of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford, because it was a most admirable and well-conceived, though subtle plea for devolution and Home Rule. The right hon. Gentleman practically admitted the case against the present Bill. The Bill perpetuated a number of laws, which were obsolete and absolutely inapplicable to present-day conditions. It included measures which formed part of the indestructible and irrevocable law of the nation, and they were brought forward as if they were only temporary measures. Therefore the Bill had the double vice of perpetuating the obsolete, and of representing as temporary what was permanent. The First Lord of the Treasury admitted the case, but he made no reply to the main objection to the Bill from the Irish point of view. In addition to the obsolete laws which were perpetuated, and the perpetual laws which ought not to be represented as temporary, the Bill included fundamental and vital measures dealing with primordial liberties, which ought to be the subject of special legislation and duo discussion in this House. He was not going to discuss the merits or demerits of the peace proclamation measure, especially as they would have an opportunity of doing that in Committee; but he would say that an Act which was a restraint of the liberties of one part of the Empire in comparison with other parts of the Empire, was of such fundamental and supreme importance that it deserved butter than to be bundled among a number of obsolete measures. That was his point. He also

  439
  thought he was entitled to say that an Act which the leaders of the Conservative Party solemnly pledged themselves to exclude from such a measure as the Ex-piring Laws Continuance Bill should not be included, and that the pledge which was given ought not to be nullified or negatived. He held that the Government of the day was as much hound in that manner as the Government of yesterday, or often or twenty years ago. They would divide against the Second Reading of this Bill, not because they were opposed to some of the measures mentioned in it, but because they wished to protest against that method of dealing with measures in restraint of the liberties of the Irish people. Those measures should not be bundled with the flotsam and jetsam of the antediluvian rubbish of
  past legislation. The Crimes Act in Ireland, which was now in full operation, was a perpetual Act as far as legislation could make it perpetual. Supposing it was a measure which had been enacted for five years, would it be fair or tolerable that in the sixth year it should take its place among the other thirty-five measures in the present Bill. As he had said, in gratitude to the services which the Prime Minister had rendered to the Irish Party in denying them one day and giving them several, he did not propose to prolong the debate, but would content himself with voting against the Second Reading.
  (10. 20.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes. 98. (Division List, No. 403.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Doughty, George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawson, John Grant

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, George H.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lowe, Francis William

  Balfour, Rt. HnGeraldW (Leeds

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Banbury, Frederick George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Bignold, Arthur

  Flower, Ernest

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Bigwood, James

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Brassey, Albert

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh W

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Greene, SirE W(B'ry S Edm'nds

  Malcolm, Ian

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbyshire

  Gretton, John

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A. (Worc

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Murray, Rt Hn AGraham (Bute

  Chapman, Edward

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG (Midl'x

  Myers, William Henry

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf o'd

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Percy, Earl

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Colomb, SirJohn Charles Ready

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Heath, ArthurHoward (Hanley

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Purvis, Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Randles, John S.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rankin, Sir James

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Rasch, Major Frederic Came

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Denny, Colonel

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Renwick, George

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Ritchie, Rt. HonChas. Thomson

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Welby, SirCharles G. E. (Notts.

  Robertson, Herbert, (Hackney)

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Whiteley, H.(Asht'n-und-Lyne

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  William's, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Waller

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Willox, Sir, Jhon Archibald

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Stroyan, John

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Rutherford, John

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm Edw. M.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWillamH.

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

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

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Spear, John Ward

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Malley, William

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Shee, James John

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Joyce, Michael

  Pirie, Duncan N.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bell, Richard

  Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Black, Alexander William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brigg, John

  Leamy, Edmund

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Runciman, Walter

  Burns, John

  Leng, Sir John

  Shackleton, David

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cawley, Frederick

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR (Northants.

  Crean, Eugene

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Govern, T.

  Taylor, Theodore Cook

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Kean, John

  Thomas, Sir. A (Glamorgan, E.)

  Delany, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Delvin, Joseph

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas J. A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Moss, Samuel

  Tomkinson, James

  Edwards, Frank

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wason, Eugene

  Ellis, John Edward

  Murphy, John

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Gilhooly, James

  Norman, Henry

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Young, Samuel

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Holland, Sir William Henry;

  O'Dowd, John

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Cald-well)—put, and agreed to.

  PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered as amended.
  MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.) moved the following new Clause:—
  "An invention covered by any patent granted on an application to which Section 1 of this Act applies shall not be deemed to have been anticipated by reason only of its publication in a specification deposited in the Patent Office pursuant to an application made not less than fifty years before the date of the application for a patent therefor or of its publication in a provisional specification of any date not followed by a complete specification."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,said he had no objection to the Clause.
  Clause read the first and second time, and added.
  Amendments made.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid he desired to move the Amendment standing in his name. The effect of it would be to give the Board of Trade more power than they now possessed. Under the Bill as it stood, the Board of Trade had the power to dismiss a petition

  443
  or refer it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but that Committee was a very expensive tribunal, perhaps even more expensive than the High Court, and in the interests of small manufacturers especially, the Board of Trade ought to have power to grant a patent. He moved the Amendment in the interests of the small manufacturers, of whom there were several in his constituency, and he thought unless some Amendment of this nature was added to the Bill, small manufacturers would be left very much in the position they were at present. He moved principally in the interests of the aniline colour trade, and he thought it was necessary that the House should know something about how that trade had been conducted before they came to a decision on the matter. That trade was initiated in this country, the raw material came from this country, and most of the product was consumed in this country, yet nine-tenths of the trade was done on the Continent, principally by Germans. He thought it was a little humiliating to this country that we should allow a trade, of which the raw material was supplied in this country and the product consumed here, to go to Germany. He thought also it was some reflection upon the Board of Trade that they had not seen that English manufacturers were not placed at a disadvantage, as they had been. Out of every hundred pat cuts granted in this country forty were not applied for in Germany, and, if applied for, were not granted. The result was that Germans came to this country, got patents, manufactured the article in Germany, and the British consumer had to pay a very large price for it, because it could not be manufactured here, whereas the consumer in Germany could get it at half the price the consumer had to pay here. He wanted to show that if the Bill remained as it was the small manufacturers in this country would have no chance. Take a man with,£1,000 or £2,000 capital, who wanted to make a colour that was already manufactured in Germany. He wanted the ingredients for that colour, and he went to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade would say, "Oh, yes, make a primâ facie case out, and we will refer it to the Privy Council." What was the trader's remedy? He had to start a lawsuit before the most expensive tribunal in the country before he could get it. That was prohibitive to any small manufacturer, for the whole of his
  444
  capital might be swallowed up in law costs. Therefore, it would be well if the Board of Trade had power not merely to dismiss a patent, but to grant one. At present they had only power to dismiss and power to refer to the Privy Council. He wanted to see the Board of Trade take the small British manufacturer under their care, as against the foreigner who had been abusing our country for years and years, and if the Board would take our commerce under their care, we should not have so much to complain of as regarded foreign competition as we had had in the past.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 6, to leave out the words from the word 'Trade,' to end of sub-Section 2, and insert the words 'may either dismiss or allow the petitition, or refer it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
  "When the Board of Trade allows a petition, it may older the patentee to grant licences, or may revoke the patent, in the same manner and on the same conditions as the Judicial Committee is hereinafter empowered to make such order of to revoke a patent.
  "Any decision or order of the Board of Trade under this sub-Section, other than an order referring a petition, shall be subject to appeal to the Judicial Committee, who shall have full power to confirm, alter, or reverse the same.
  "When a petition is referred, or taken on appeal to the Judicial Committee, the Board of Trade shall make a report to the Judicial Committee setting forth such particulars as it shall think fit, and the same shall lie forthwith communicated to all parties interested.'"—(Mr. Cawley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. BRIGGsaid he wished to support the Amendment, the object of which was to simplify and cheapen, as far as possible, the means of obtaining a patent. Many small inventors were now prevented from obtaining a patent because of the expense. At present the Board of Trade had the power to dismiss a petition, but they should also be given power to grant a petition, with the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He did not know how far the Board of Trade would feel justified in taking on itself the duty it was now asked to take, but anything that could be done to help a small inventor ought to be done. The

  445
  Amendment deserved the consideration of the Board of Trade and of the House in order that the industry of the country might be helped as far as possible.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the particular modification desired by the hon. Member for Prestwich was very fully discussed in the Committee upstairs and rejected, as he thought, for excellent reasons. What the Bill proposed was that applications should, in the first instance, be made to the Board of Trade, who could then act the part of conciliator between the patentee and those who were seeking for a licence. If the parties were unable to come to an agreement with the assistance of the Board of Trade, the Board of Trade might, if in its opinion there was a prima facie case, refer the petition to the Privy Council, and the Privy Council decided at once and for all. Until the petition was referred to the Privy Council no expense of any kind was involved upon either of the parties, but he imagined that, in the case of the small manufacturers of whom the hon. Member spoke, it would be possible for the Board of Trade to bring the parties together, in the majority of instances at all events. But if it were not possible to bring them together, it was open to the patentee to appeal to the Privy Council against the decision of the Board of Trade if it were in favour of the applicant; and if that were done it was obvious that the small manufacturer would gain nothing, because he would necessarily have to appear before the very tribunal the expense of which was made the reason for recommending the hon. Member's scheme.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid that his idea was to throw the onus on the patentee, instead of on the applicant. If the onus were thrown on the foreign patentee, it would be a very different case altogether.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the hon. Member was mixing up two things. Under the Bill as it left the Committee, if the patented article were manufactured abroad, the onus would
  446
  lie on the patentee of proving that the reasonable requirements of the public in respect of the invention had been satisfied. The Bill did throw that onus on the patentee, but the effect of the hon. Members scheme, if it were carried, would be this—the Board of Trade would not accept the task of deciding upon matters in which very great pecuniary interests were constantly involved without referring them to a tribunal constituted ad hoc. There would be an arbitrator whose expenses would have to be paid, and there would be the expenses of counsel, and the result would be that, where a case was carried from the decision of the Board of Trade to the Privy Council, so far from the expenses being diminished, they would be doubled. In the first place there would be the expense of the arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade, and in the second place there would be the expense of a trial before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The object of the Amendments which the Government introduced into the Bill in Committee was to diminish the expenses as far as possible, and with that view they had arranged that there should be only one trial of these matters before a court, and that from that court there should be no appeal, and it was obvious that if there was to be no appeal the court should be a strong and a satisfactory court. He believed they could not get a better court for the purpose than the Privy Council, and it was for that reason the Government substituted the Privy Council for the High Court. His own belief was that under the procedure which the Bill now contemplated, namely, a petition in the first instance to the Board of Trade and an attempt to bring the parties together, and, if that attempt failed, leaving it open to appeal to the Privy Council, they would get at once the cheapest and most satisfactory procedure available.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that a great deal had been said in favour of the Amendment. He was afraid that the President of the Board of Trade thought that the Board of Trade was not a very suitable tribunal for trying matters of the kind mentioned in the first instance.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the hon. Member was entirely mistaken. He might remind him that the Committee on whose Report the Bill was founded expressly recommended that the Board of Trade should not be entrusted any longer with the decision of these important cases.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid the point was simply to determine whether any invention was being worked in such a way as to comply with the requirements of the Act. That was really a matter for the Board of Trade, with their experts and means of examination. The proposal of the Amendment was that when a primâ facie case was made out the Board of Trade should take upon itself the responsibility of giving a decision on the matter. It was no use the Board trying to bring the parties together unless they had the power, in the event of the parties not coming to an agreement, to give a decision subject to appeal. If that power were given the probability was that the parties would come to an agreement.
  MR. WHITLEY MR. WHITLEY moved the omission of sub-Section 2, in order that the Act should come into operation as soon as it received the Royal Assent.
  MR. G. W. BALFOURaccepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BILLS IN PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N. R., Thirsk),
  448
  in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it proposed to effect certain changes in the law which for many years had been urged upon successive Governments by private Members on both sides of the House. The County Councils had no power under the Act of 1888 to oppose private Bills in Parliament, but they had no power to promote such Bills, although the smallest boroughs in the country were able to do so. Much inconvenience sometimes resulted from this lack of power, as it was impossible to have a great county scheme for any purpose if a Bill in Parliament was required to carry it out. Clause 1 gave to the County Councils the same power to promote Bills as was possessed by borough and urban district councils. The second part of the Bill dealt with some Amendments of the Borough Funds Act of 1872. Under that Act a borough or urban district council had to obtain the consent of a mooting of owners and ratepayers to the promotion of, or opposition to, a private Bill in Parliament, and a poll might be demanded by a single ratepayer or owner at the meeting. If a poll was demanded it was taken, not in the manner in which polls were usually taken in this country, but by means of voting papers left at the houses of the electors, and subsequently collected. These were defects in the law which the Government proposed to amend. They proposed to continue, but in a form more suitable to modern ideas, the requirement of the consent of the electors as a check upon the desire to promote Bills. There was to be a public mooting of the parochial electors—the widest franchise in the country—at which the chairman might be required to put the Bill in sections, instead of putting it to the meeting as a whole, as at present. It was also proposed in the Bill that a poll might be demanded within ten days by not less than 100 parochial electors, or one-twentieth of the electors, whichever might be the smaller number. It would no longer be possible for one man to put the borough or district to the expense of a poll. With regard to the opposing of a Bill, it was possible that at very short notice opposition might require to be taken up, and with the present complicated machinery, requiring twenty-one days notice and a meeting of the owners and ratepayers, it was sometimes difficult for a council to

  449
  oppose a Bill which they thought ought to be opposed in the interests of their constituents. The Government proposed that, as the opposing of a Bill was not a very costly matter, the meeting of owners and ratepayers, or of the parochial electors, should be dispensed with. The Bill gave no additional subjects for private Bill legislation, and did not increase the prospects of a large amount of money being spent on the promotion of private Bills, but would really reform certain defects in a somewhat antiquated method of procedure.
  Motion made and Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  MR. CALDWELLcongratulated the hon. Member on the clear manner in which he had described the Bill. The measure would undoubtedly effect a great improvement in regard to the County Councils. It had always been the Unionist Party that had objected to the county councils having the power to promote Bills, and he was glad they had at last recognised the fact that these bodies were almost equal to having the power already possessed by the smallest borough in England. There was a good deal of advancement required in these matters, and he welcomed this advance because it: was in the right direction. In the case of boroughs the ratepayers were all interested, and it was inconceivable that there should be a Bill promoted for a particular locality applicable only to one section. In future the consent of the parties would have to be obtained before the Bill was proceeded with. A County Council had often to deal with matters which did not relate to the county as a whole. Obviously in such a case it would not be covnenient to have a poll of the electors of the whole county, and there might be a difficulty in getting a poll for a section. He congratulated the hon. Gentleman opposite upon the lucid manner in which he had explained the
  450
  provisions of the Bill, and also the Government upon the advancement they were making, and he hoped they would be encouraged to bring forward other Bills of a similar character.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITthought the local authorities were very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for effecting this real reform in local government. He was glad the Bill retained the principle of holding a public meeting, and it made this check much more real and effective than it had been in the past. Occasionally differences of opinion had impaired the effectiveness of public meetings, but now they would have the advantage of the poll being demanded by a substantial number and not by one single individual, who from personal reasons might cause an expenditure of something like £1,000. In Liverpool one individual demanded a poll, and the cost amounted to between,£2,000 and £3,000. Another advantage of this Bill would be a reform in the system of voting. Under the Borough Funds Act voting papers had to be delivered at each house, and they had to be marked by initials. This led to great confusion, because many voters put crosses, and consequently they did not get the real opinion of the community. One of the great advantages of this measure would be that exception might be taken to only one part of an omnibus Bill without jeopardising the whole Bill. At the present time the question put to the public meeting was the whole Bill, whereas the new practice would be to divide the Bill into parts and then the opinion of the community could be taken upon any part or Clause of the Bill without sacrificing the remainder. The right to oppose Bills was an inherent one, but this Bill would put the matter beyond doubt, and that would be an improvement. He disputed the contention of the hon. Member for Mid, Lanark, that those sitting on the Ministerial Benches were unwilling to promote

  451
  measures of this kind for the welfare of the communities to which they belonged. He was glad to see that in regard to this measure both sides of the House were agreed, and he believed that this Bill would effect a real reform in local government.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid he wished to say a word or two about the first part of the Bill. He desired to thank the President of the Local Government Board for enabling County Councils to promote Bills in Parliament. This power had already been conferred upon small towns in the country. Many hon. Members some time ago endeavoured to get a second reading for a Bill of this character, and they were thankful to the Government for achieving that which had now become impossible for ordinary private Members to do. No matter how zealous hon. Gentlemen opposite might profess themselves to be in regard to legislation of this kind, it was an unfortunate fact that when Bills of this character were promoted by hon. Members on the Ministerial side extending the powers of County Councils, they were apt to be objected to by hon. Gentlemen opposite on some mysterious principle. It was only when the responsible Government from time to time introduced Bills of this character that they could get those reforms carried.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that in the case of private Members' legislation the Bill went through very often without any discussion, and he should always object to that course.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEreplied that the House was perfectly competent to discuss a Bill without objecting after
  452
  twelve o'clock, but it had now become impossible to carry such measures after twelve o'clock owing to objections raised by hon. Members opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: What about Banbury.] He was glad to think that the practice of throwing on private Members the risk of having to promote Bills was no longer to continue.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he wished to join in the congratulations to the President of the Local Government Board in regard to this Bill, but he did not think the speech which had just been made was quite fair. Bills had been objected to just as often on the opposite side of the House, and very near to the Treasury Bench, and it was not fair to make that sort of accusation apply to one side of the House. With regard to the poll, he thought the number, fixed at 100, ought to be reduced to a more reasonable figure. He was willing to put absolute confidence in the elected representatives, but he did not think it ought to be such a difficult matter to demand a poll as this Bill would make it. To get 100 signatures would be a very difficult thing, especially before the ratepayers had been educated on the subject. He suggested that 25, or at the most 50, signatures would be ample.
  MR. POWERasked whether the Bill applied to Ireland.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): No.
  MR. POWERthought there were many provisions in the Bill which would be

  453
  very useful in Ireland. He did not see why the Bill should not apply to that country.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. Member knew that legislation of this kind had always been confined to that part of the country affected by the Acts it was proposed to amend. He had no objection to the extension of the Bill to Ireland, and if the hon. Gentleman proposed it, he should consult with his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary and be guided by his views. He thought the hon. Member for Lichfield rather misunderstood the situation in reference to the number of electors being fixed at 100. The object in view was that County Councils and corporations should be allowed to carry out their wishes unless a substantial number of parochial electors were opposed to their proposals, and to reduce the number as suggested by the hon. Member would not help this object at all. As the hon. Member for Islington had said, boroughs were often put to great expense and inconvenience by polls demanded by one person, who very often was a cantankerous member of the community. He was glad to find that there was agreement on both sides of the House in regard to this Bill.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover)said he felt it his duty to say one or
  454
  two sentences upon this Bill. As Irish Members were aware, the fisheries of Ireland were a great national asset. At one time they were worth £400,000 a year, and though at the present time they were not worth so much, they were getting back to their former value. Therefore this Bill dealt with a subject of great importance to Ireland. In recent years in this country, and perhaps more particularly in America, scientific investigations had proved that regulations for the protection of fisheries had an immediate effect in increasing the value of this great national asset. The Bill provided in place of the complicated set of provisions now in vogue that the cost of legal investigation should be borne in future by moneys voted by Parliament, and this was only limited by some very slight safeguards to prevent frivolous cases being brought forward. The Bill also contained precautionary provisions, in regard to those persons who claimed rights because they exercised their right of fishing three times a year. He had already referred to the great value of scientific investigation. Some people pretended that they were conducting scientific investigations who were really doing nothing of the kind. In the third Clause precautions were taken to see that those who were making scientific investigations were doing so, in order to search for truth and not for profit.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." Debate arising.
  MR. POWERsaid this Bill dealt with questions of vast importance, and if, in the past, more attention had been given to affording proper facilities to fishermen, the fisheries might have been made a

  455
  source of great income to Ireland. But both inland and sea fisheries had, like everything else under English rule in Ireland, dwindled away. While he admitted that this subject was one of very great importance, he wished to enter his protest against legislation of this kind being taken at the fag end of a debate, without proper opportunities being given for considering the pros and cons. He was not at present in a position to say whether this Bill would work out in the interests of the fisheries of Ireland or not. All the legislation which the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors had brought forward, with regard to the inland and sea fisheries of Ireland, had always been brought forward at the fag end of a sitting or a session. Last year the Chief Secretary introduced a Bill dealing with the fisheries of Ireland, which they were asked to pass with little or no opportunity for discussion. They ought to be given a fair opportunity of discussing the merits or the demerits of such measures, and Bills ought not to be thrown at them under that system with which the name of the Chief Secretary had become identified with regard to Irish legislation. The question raised by the Clause 2, so far as his constituency was concerned, was of considerable importance to the not fishers on the river, and, if that observation applied to his constituency, it applied with greater force to the constituency represented by his hon. friend the Member for one of the divisions of County Cork. If he recollected properly, a Committee of his colleagues was asked to investigate the merits and demerits of this Bill last year. They went over the Bill carefully, and he understood they submitted certain Amendments to the right hon. Gentleman which they thought were
  456
  necessary to be inserted. He was informed that the right hon. Gentleman met these suggestions with a non possumus, and said they could not be acceded to. If that was the case, the situation had not altered since then, because he believed the gentleman who investigated the Bill had knowledge of this subject, and they decided that if the Amendments they suggested were, not adopted, the Bill, so far from doing good, would do harm to Ireland. Under these conditions, he did not think it was reasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to expect them at this hour to go into the merits of the Bill, which, he said, might be of great advantage, or the contrary, to the interests of the fisheries. It might appear a small matter to Members of this House, but it was a matter of great importance to Ireland, and it was for Irish Members to insist on better attention being given to their business, and that, at any rate, if the Government did put it down, it should be done at a time of the session and at a time of the day when they could fully consider the matter. As far as he could remember the opinion of his hon. friend and Leader the Member for Waterford, it was, that if the Amendments recommended by the Committee which was asked to consider the Bill were not accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, they were bound to oppose the Bill. He would expect some of his friends to move the Adjournment of the debate in order to give them an opportunity of considering a matter fraught with considerable importance to the men who ply the fishing industries. These industries were capable of large developments, but they must be careful how they did it.
  MR. SHEEHANsaid he fully endorsed the remarks of his hon. friend. He also fully endorsed the remark of the Chief Secretary that this matter was of great national importance and value to Ireland. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make it of value by developing the fishing industries? The right hon. Gentleman said there was at present an income of something like £400,000, but if the Government paid proper attention to the development of the industries by means of State subsidies, there would be an income of millions. The Chief Secretary had referred to a sub-Section of Clause 1, which gave the Board of Agriculture the power to decide whether objections were frivolous or otherwise. That meant that it was to be in the power of this Board, which represented the land-owning class of Ireland, to refuse applications made by the poorest people of the country who were most concerned in the promotion of the fishing industries. He maintained if they were going to appoint a tribunal to decide whether an objection was frivolous or otherwise, it should be a tribunal representative of the people, and possessing their confidence. Such a tribunal would be found in the County Council or the District Council. According to the recent report of the Local Government Board these Councils had discharged their duties faithfully and well. This Bill had been submitted to the House without proper explanation as to its scope. They did not know how far it went, and how far it would benefit the fishermen class, but they did know that it was aimed at preserving the rights of the land-owning interests in Ireland. The statement about frivolous complaints and the denial of expenses was not directed against people who were wealthy and able to pay
  458
  their way, but against poor people who were supposed to make their living out of the industries. The Irish Members had not been given proper time to consider the Bill.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid hon. Members for Ireland whose constituencies were interested in the fishing industries along the coast and in rivers, considered the Bill last session and suggested certain Amendments which were put down on the Paper. The Amendments were all rejected by the Chief Secretary, and the Bill for the time was dropped. Now they were asked at this late hour, and with little or no opportunity for preparation, to discuss this very important question, and to deal with a Bill which included in its scope the repeal or alteration of all the Acts of Parliament relating to the Irish fisheries passed between 1842 and 1901. It was ridiculous; it was impossible. One of the most important Amendments suggested to the right hon. Gentleman gave to the County Councils of Ireland, which were directly responsible to the people, and were most anxious to develop the fisheries, representation on the Board that managed the fisheries. That Amendment was not accepted, and until the County Councils got some representation on the Board, the Nationalist Members would persist in opposing the Bill, even though they might feel that a great change was necessary—and that the fisheries could not be developed until there was an alteration of the law. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Thomas O'Donnell)
  MR. JOYCEseconded the Motion. He said that during the past two sessions the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had on many occasions drawn attention to the practice of introducing Bills at a late hour, and trying to run them through, the House in a hugger-mugger fashion. That would not be allowed without severe and just criticism on the part of the Irish Members. The Chief Secretary, in his most honeyed accents, had stated that this was a very good Bill, but when, on a former occasion, a committee of Irish Members, who presumably knew something of the fisheries, submitted some reasonable Amendments, the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accept them. Well, the Irish Members could not see their way to let the Bill pass at this hour of the night, when it could not receive due and adequate discussion. That portion of the Bill in regard to hatcheries was very good, but the portions relating to close time were too ambiguous altogether. They feared very much that the close time provisions were aimed more at the hardworking, poor men who had to make a livelihood by fishing, than at the riparian proprietors in whose interest, he believed, this Bill had been brought forward. What did the Board of Agriculture know with regard to the inland or coast fisheries of Ireland? Surely it was a reasonable thing for the Irish Members to ask that the County Councils and Borough Councils should have due representation on the Board which managed the fisheries. The Chief Secretary would accept everything put forward in the interest of a certain class in Ireland, whose interest was inimical to that of the people. He represented a constituency interested in the greatest salmon and trout industry in Ireland, and he believed that this Bill, instead of
  460
  serving the interests of the poor fishermen on the Shannon, would be destructive of them. It would decrease rather than increase their earnings. They had been harried and hunted off the river enough already, and the legislation now proposed would hunt them further. He would oppose the Bill so far as in his power.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

  SUPREME COURT JUDICATURE BILL [LORDS].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CALDWELLobjected to the second reading of the Bill being taken at this hour, and pointed out that it did not come within the category described by the Prime Minister as urgent. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
  MR. SPEAKER,in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at Three Minutes before Twelve o'clock.