EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.

HC Deb 11 June 1906 vol 158 cc707-807

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

Clause 2:—

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

moved to postpone consideration of Clause 2. He said that in moving the Motion which stood in his name, he was, of course, alive to the fact that enthusiastic supporters of the Bill naturally supposed that his attitude was hostile to the measure. That was quite true; he was opposed to the Bill, and he thought he would be right in saying that the Members behind him were opposed to it also. They would be glad to see the measure defeated, but that was not his object in moving the Motion standing in his name. He could not help thinking that if hon. Gentlemen opposite would consider what the position was with regard to the particular clause before them in relation to the substance of the Bill they would see there was at least considerable justification in the view which he and his friends took. Clause 2 might be said to be, at all events to a large exent, the operative clause of the Bill. It provided the method and procedure by which effect was to be given to Clause 1, and his main reason for urging his Motion upon the Committee was that until they knew what form Clauses 3, 4, 8, and 16 would really take, it was impossible for them to have a practical discussion upon Clause 2. Now, as it seemed to him—unfortunately he had not had the opportunity of being present at the debates, but he had followed them as they had appeared in the newspaper—if it were made perfectly clear what was to be the form of Clauses 3 and 4, and in a minor degree, 8 and 16, the discussion upon Clause 2 might be of the briefest kind. Clause 2 proceeded to enact the method by which Clause 1 should be carried out. Clause 1 having enacted that the term "public elementary schools" should no longer include non - provided schools, Clause 2 proceeded to provide what should be the method by which those schools were to be acquired, and it enabled the Local Education Authorities to acquire the schools, if they saw fit to do so, upon certain conditions. If it were not for the subsequent clauses, or if those clauses were in the form they would ultimately take, or if they had from the Government a clear and definite statement as to the views they held with regard to any alteration of those clauses, then Clause 2 would require very little discussion, but, in the absence of any such information from the Government and in the absence of any Amendments in their name showing what it was they proposed to do, it appeared to him, at all events, to be impossible to discuss Clause 2 without constantly having in their minds the effect which those clauses in the form they might assume when they were passed would have upon it. This clause, for instance, began by laying upon the local education authority the obligation to come to an arrangement with the local managers or trustees. If that arrangement was to be mutually satisfactory, or at all events reasonably fair, the two parties to it ought at the commencement of their operations to be on an equality, whereas, as a matter of fact, they would under this clause start on a manifest inequality. The education authority was already in a very much superior position in consequence of the legislation of 1902. By subsequent clauses of this Bill that position of superiority was rendered even more marked. And over and beyond the education authority there was the Commission, which, so far as they were able to judge, would be in an even superior position. Therefore, whether the arrangement between education authority and trustees or managers was likely to prove a fair one to the latter, must depend not upon Clause 2, but on Clauses 3, 4, 8, and 16. It was not for him to suggest what was the best course for the Government to take, but he had himself been responsible for the drafting and passing through the House of a great many contentious Bills. He did not suggest for a moment that the Government had deliberately arranged the clauses in order to mystify the Committee or to help themselves, nor did he suggest that the Bill was badly drafted. All he said was that, in the interests of business, if they would postpone this clause until subsequent clauses had assumed their definite and final form an immense amount of Parliamentary time would be saved. The clause contained only one condition which was made an imperative part of the arrangement between trustees and the education authority, and that consisted of the obligation on the local education authority to do all the repairs. That was a condition to the arrangement for which the advocates of voluntary schools cared least. The Minister for Education had taken him to task for saying that this obligation in regard to repairs was incredibly mean. He saw no reason to depart from that view, because to the voluntary schools this was not a matter of monetary consideration. It was not a question of whether the total cost of the upkeep of the schools was going to be great or small. The point was that they were asking the owners of these schools to surrender a sacred trust, and therefore they cared least of all for the one thing that was made clear in the Bill. Assuming that this clause and also Clauses 3, 4, 8, and 16 passed unaltered, what would be the effect? He would take the case of an ordinary country parish—a case that came within his own personal knowledge —in which twenty years ago there was an agitation in the district to establish a school board. A school board was established, and it decided to leave education to voluntary effort, and by voluntary subscriptions a school was established which was still in existence. In that parish—a. large parish containing a good many Nonconformists—there was at present no difficulty or feeling of any kind, and if local option was to obtain he believed the people would vote for the continuation of the existing condition of things.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I do not understand the bearing of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on the Motion.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he was arguing that if this clause remained as it was and Clause 4 was not made mandatory or generally applicable the result he had described would follow. Consequently until they knew what Clause 4 would be in its final form they could not profitably discuss the present clause.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman is now coming near the limits of order, but in his previous argument he merely gave instances without showing how they applied to his arguments.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he was anxious to keep within the limits of order. It was the limiting effects of Clause 4 which made it so extremely difficult to discuss Clause 2. Besides the case he had mentioned, he had also in mind that of a Roman Catholic school—an isolated school in a country district—in which both Protestants and Catholics were educated, and if they were to regard Clause 2 as standing by itself, that school would come to an end or have to be continued in a different form. He understood that the Government had power, if they had the will, to say "no" to the proposal, to adhere to their own arrangement of the clauses, and to insist upon taking this clause first, but he did not believe it would save time. He had had considerable experience of carrying Bills through the House, and he ventured to say that if they were going to discuss a clause the whole effect of which was dependent upon subsequent clauses without those clauses being decided, they must, ipso facto, add to the time of their discussion and waste a considerable part of that time. Therefore he based his appeal to the Government on general grounds. If the Government would not listen to that appeal and proceeded with the Bill as they had arranged, he asked them at all events to give further information with regard to the subsequent clauses. Under Clause 2 the local education authority were entitled to take over the schools if they thought fit, and a part of the arrangement was to be certain facilities, but those facilities were left in the vaguest form.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I think that is a question which ought not to be discussed till we reach the clause.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he had been to some trouble to try and grasp the full difficulties of the Bill, and he honestly believed that to approach a discussion of Clause 2 without fuller information as to the subsequent clauses would be to produce contusion. the Committee would be called upon to discuss Clause 2, which they on that side of the House did not itself oppose, but as to the effect of which, having regard to the clauses which followed, they could not judge until they had those subsequent clauses before thorn, or until they had a clearer statement from the Government as to their intentions. He did not, for the life of him, see how the debate was to be continued except with a considerable waste of Parliamentary time, and at the risk of repetition of arguments. He did not complain that hon. Gentlemen opposite should regard him as suspect, but he could assure them that he did not want to waste time by useless discussion. He was only trying to get information without which they could not possibly abbreviate the debate on Clause 2. He would venture to ask the Minister of Education whether he would, before they proceeded to the minute discussion of the clause, give them an answer to a few simple points.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly discuss other clauses now. I cannot allow a series of questions on other clauses. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to argue that this clause should be postponed, but he is not-entitled to argue other clauses.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he had hoped to obtain from the Government some information which would help the Committee in the discussion, but it was quite evident that that course could not be pursued, and he therefore confined himself to urging the Government to postpone their clause and take these clauses which alone could reveal what were the risks involved, and what would be the result of the changes about to be made. The Committee were asked to discuss the clause in absolute ignorance. There had been statements of a contradictory character. They were told that certain clauses were mandatory, when it was totally different. Without knowing the real meaning of the subsequent clauses they could not tell what would be the effect of Clause 2. He could only ask the Government to give a more friendly consideration to a demand made in perfect good faith, and which had behind it a much stronger feeling than the Government realised, because, apart from politics, they felt that they were asking for information essential to the adequate discharge of their duty to the great majority of the children in the schools. He was sorry it was not possible to carry his arguments as far as he would have liked, but he hoped the Government would avail themselves of the powers they undoubtedly possessed, and give the Committee some of the information they required if they were adequately and in a business-like manner to discuss the clause.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2 be postponed."—(Mr. Walter Long.)

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,) Bristol, N.

said he was sure the Committee were very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman back again and in such excellent, committee form. He had heard that he was very anxious to postpone Clause 2 in order to get to Clause 3, but he noticed that when they got to Clause 3 the first Amendment stood in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, and was to postpone the consideration of the clause. When the Government framed the measure, he had no other course in his mind than the natural course; nothing was further from their thoughts than to prepare a number of clauses, and then arrange them in such a manner as to give the minimum amount of information upon them. Clause 2 followed naturally upon Clause 1. Clause 1 provided that on and after a date named a school should not receive either State or rate aid unless it was a t provided school, and it followed from that that the local education authorities bad to provide accommodation for children within their area in schools coming within that category. They must therefore either build schools answering to that category or acquire by some means existing buildings to fulfil the conditions of their being provided schools. They had to face I the difficulty of having either to build I or to acquire. Clause 2 enabled them to acquire. It was not a compulsory clause: in any respect whatever, and its sole object was to enable the local authorities and the owners of such schools as the local authorities found it necessary to acquire or were desirous of acquiring to I come to terms, to strike a bargain between them, and to put as few difficulties as possible in the way of an arrangement being arrived at. He could not himself see what Clauses 3 and 4 had to do with the nature and character of that bargain. It had to be struck, obviously, and it must be struck, having regard to the terms of Clause 10. Unless hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to see new buildings erected in all the parishes of the country, it was absolutely essential that there should be the freest hand given to both parties to come to some arrangement, and the only absolute condition that the Government had inserted in the clause was sub-section (a), as to which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken very lightly, but which he, for his part, thought should be one of the terms of the bargain. That was the only term the Government imposed; every other term was left to the parties to arrange between themselves; and he thought, therefore, that if any one was anxious to come to Clauses 3 and 4—no human being was more anxious than he was—the best way was to get rid of Clause 2. The Government could not consent to the postponement.

*MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)

said the right hon. Gentleman absolutely refused to give them any light whatever with regard to the principles or details of the Bill. He relied upon his huge majority, and refused to give them any information at all. Clause 1 affirmed the general principle of the extinction of the voluntary schools, and Clause 2 provided that the local authority might, by a voluntary arrangement with the owners, take over those schools. But this was not a new proposal. It could be done under Section 23 of the Ant of 1870. He could not understand why Clause 2 was necessary at all. He assumed that the majority of the schools would not be taken over under a voluntary arrangement, because in many cases it would be impossible for owners of voluntary schools and the local education authority to come to terms. Then they must remember that many local education authorities had given out that they would refuse to give any facilities to the voluntary schools for religious instructions. Therefore, he considered that Clause 2 would be more or less a dead letter if it passed in its present form. Clause 8, as the Government must know, was unfair to the voluntary schools, and they had therefore put Clause 2 in the forefront, and had hidden away Clause 8 in the middle of the Bill to try and conceal from the people of the country the injustice of the Bill. Before they discussed Clause 2, they must have some information with regard to the very important question of rent.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said the hon. Member must take the Bill as it stood, and he could only argue on the Bill as it stood that Clause 2 should be postponed.

*MR. ASHLEY

said the question was a matter which was very deeply felt by the people of Lancashire, and he thought anyone who saw the meeting of the working classes of Lancashire last Friday must agree that the question touched them very deeply. They therefore ought to have some light from the Government as to what they proposed.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

said he did not think the Committee ought to be allowed to get into a discussion on the merits either of this or any other clause. They were not concerned with the merits of the Bill or any part of it, but merely with the order in which they should take the discussion. He thought the Minister for Education would see that in this particular case there was ground—he would not say necessarily for the postponement of the discussion of the substance of Clause 2, which was the machinery by which the voluntary schools were to be transferred to the local authority, but he thought they could discuss it more effectually and briefly and with much greater knowledge if they knew the policy of the Government as to the terms on which the transfer might take place. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the one thing desired by Clause 2 was that there should be absolute liberty to bargain between the trustees or owners of voluntary schools and the local authority, subject only to the condition that the local authority was to pay all the costs of maintaining the schools if they were transferred. That was a most inaccurate account of his own Bill. If there were to be that absolute liberty of bargaining, they would know where they were, but it was perfectly clear that there was no absolute liberty: it was circumscribed by all the subsequent clauses of the Bill. What they really wanted to know before they discussed that power of bargaining was, what were the true limitations in the minds of the Government on the powers of bargaining. Were the limitations in Clauses 4, 6, and 8 going to be modified or not? The Government had a perfect right to maintain a policy of taciturnity upon; this point, but it was always in the power of the Government to make a statement as to the policy they were going to pursue on any Bill. If the Government meant to adhere to the text of the Bill, obscure in many respects as it was, and rendered more obscure by the explanations given, he did not know that they could do more than utter a word of protest; but if the Government meant to modify the terms laid down, would they tell the Committee what those terms were really to be so that they might enter upon a discussion of the clause which permitted the power of bargaining, limited by subsequent clauses, much better provided with the means of really knowing what the policy of the Government was than they were at present? The position of the Committee was an amazing one. He did not think there was a single Member of the Committee, unless he had some special means of access to the Government not possessed by Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench, who knew what the Government intended to do with regard to this power of bargaining. His right hon. friend had moved the postponement of the clause and that, no doubt, was the best course: but if the Government refused, as he imagined they meant to do, they could at all events make that kind of statement which would put the Committee in possession of their real policy and intention with regard to the limits under which the owners of voluntary schools were to be permitted to bargain with the local authorities.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The Minister has been already asked to make such a statement, and has refused. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should, on a Motion to postpone the clause, spend much more time on asking questions which really arise on other clauses.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Of course if you rule that the Government cannot make a statement with regard to the policy of the Government, I accept it.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I do not say the Minister cannot make such a statement. All I meant to convey was that, the Minister having refused to do so, too much time was being occupied in asking questions on other clauses which are not now before the Committee.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the statement he desired was one with regard to the policy of the Government on the general subject of bargaining between the owners of voluntary schools and local. authorities, which was the subject of this clause, but which was also dealtwith in many subsequent clauses, and he suggested that it might be for the convenience of the Committee that without postponing the clause they should have a statement from the Government which would render any Motion or division upon the subject unnecessary.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I have already given my reasons against further time being given to this matter of a statement from the Minister.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes, 238. (Division List No. 109.)

AYES.
Abraham, Willam (Cork, N.E.)	Fletcher, J. S.	O'Connor, John Kildare, N.)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Forster, Henry William	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Ashley, W. W	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	O'Dowd, John
Balcarres, Lord	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	O'Hare, Patrick
Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J.(CityLond'	Gordon, SirW. Evans-(T'rHam.	O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Haddock, George R.	O'Malley, William
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hammond, John	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Parker, SirGilbert(Gravesend)
Blake, Edward	Hazleton, Richard	Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington
Boland, John	Heaton, John Henniker	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'd	Power, Patrick Joseph
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury	Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Hills, J. W.	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hogan, Michael	Redmond, John E.(Waterford).
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hon.Col.W	Remnant, James Farquharson
Carlile, E. Hildred	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich,	Rothschild, Hon.LionelWalter
Cave, George	Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareh'm	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Cavendish, Rt.Hon. Victor C.W	Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin, S	Saunderson, Rt.Hn.Col.Edw.J.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lundon, W.	Scott, SirS. (Marylebone, W.)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Stanley,Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk.)
Cochrane, Hon Thos.H. A. E.	MacVeigh, Charles (DonegallE.	Starkey, John R.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Sullivan, Donal
Courthope, G. Loyd	M'Iver,SirLewis(EdinburghW.	Thornton, Percy M.
Craig, Charles Curtis(AntrimS.)	Magnus, Sir Philip	Turnour, Viscount
Craig, CaptainJames(Down,E.)	Meehan, Patrick A.	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Craik, Sir Henry	Middlemore,John Throgmorton	Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B.Stuart-
Delany, William	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Younger, George
Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galw'y	Mooney, J. J.
Dillon, John	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Faber, George Denison (York)	O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid
Fell, Arthur	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.)
NOES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Adkins, W. Ryland	Bramsdon, T. A.	Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.
Agnew, George William	Brooke, Stopford	Cooper, G. J.
Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)	Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)	Corbett, CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd
Armitage, R.	Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.
Asquith, Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Cremer, William Randal
Baker, JosephA.(Finsbury,E.)	Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Crombie, John William
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Crooks, William
Barker, John	Buxton, Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles	Crosfield, A. H.
Barlow,JohnEmmott(Somerset	Byles, William Pollard	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)
Barlow, Bercy (Bedford)	Cairns, Thomas	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Barnes, G. N.	Cameron, Robert	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)
Beck, A. Cecil	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.,
Bell, Richard	Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight	Dickson-Poynder, SirJohnP.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Cheetham, John Frederick	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Benn, JohnWilliams(Devonp'rt	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Dobson, Thomas W.
Bertram, Julius	Clarke, C. Goddard	Duckworth, James
Bethell, J.H.(Essex, Romford)	Cleland, J. W.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness.
Billson, Alfred	Clough, W.	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Elibank, Master of
Erskine, David C.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Seddon, J.
Everett, R. Lacey	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Seely, Major J. B.
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Shackleton, David James
Fenwick, Charles	Macpherson, J. T.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Ferens, T. R.	M'Callum, John M.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir. Henry	M'Micking, Major G.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Fuller, John Michael F.	Maddison, Frederick	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Fullerton, Hugh	Mallet, Charles E.	Snowden, P.
Furness, Sir Christopher	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Gardner, Col.Allan(Hereford,S.	Marnham, F. J.	Soares, Ernest J.
Gill, A. H.	Masterman, C. F. G.	Spicer, Albert
Gladstone, Rt.Hn.Herbert John	Micklem, Nathaniel	Stanger, H. V.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Molteno, Percy Alport	Stanley, Hn.A. Lyulph(Chesh.)
Gooch, George Peabody	Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Steadman, W. C.
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Morrell, Philip	Strachey, Sir Edward
Greenwood, Hamar (York)	Morse, L. L.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Murray, James	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Myer, Horatio	Summerbell, T.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Nicholls, George	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Hardie,J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil)	Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)
Hart-Davies, T.	O'Grady, J.	Tennant. H. J. (Berwickshire)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Palmer, Sir Charles Marie	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Harwood, George	Parker, James (Halifax)	Thomas, SirA.(Glamorgan, E.)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Paul, Herbert	Thomasson, Franklin
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Thorne, William
Henry, Charles S.	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Tomkinson, James
Higham, John Sharp	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Torrance, A. M.
Hobart, Sir Robert	Pirie, Duncan V.	Toulmin, George
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Price, C.E.(Edinb'gh,Central)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset,N	Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)	Verney, F. W.
Hutton. Alfred Eddison	Radford, G. H.	Vivian, Henry
Jacoby, James Alfred	Rainy, A. Rolland	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Jardine, Sir J.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.
Jenkins, J.	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Rees, J. D.	Wardle, George J.
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Rendall, Athelstan	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea	Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n	Waterlow, D. S.
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Rickett, J. Compton	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Ridsdale, E. A.	Whitbread, Howard
Jowett, F. W.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	White, George; (Norfolk)
Kearley, Hudson E.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire
Kekewich, Sir George	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)	White, Luke (York. E.R.)
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Kitson, Sir James	Robinson, S.	Wiles, Thomas
Laildaw, Robert	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Wilkie, Alexander
Lambert, George	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)
Lamont, Norman	Rose, Charles Day	Wilson, Hon.C.H.W.(Hull,W.)
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid	Rowlands, J.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Runciman, Walter	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington	Russell, T. W.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Lehmann, R. C.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland	Woodhouse-, SirJ.T.(Huddersfd
Levy, Maurice	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Lewis, John Herbert	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)]	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)
Lough, Thomas	Sears, J. E.
Lupton, Arnold	Seaverns, J. H.

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Dover was out of order.

† The Amendment referred to was as follows:— "In Clause 2, page 1, line 11, at beginning, to insert,—' (1) The parent of any child attending a public elementary school may require that religious instruction shall be given to his child during school hours for half-an-hour on five or any less number of days in each week, by any person selected by him and approved by the local education authority. And it shall be the duty of the local education authority to make or facilitate such arrangements as may be necessary for complying with any such request. Provided that the local education authority shall not withhold their approval because of the religious belief of any person so selected, and that, if their approval be withheld on any other ground, the parent may appeal against their decision to the Board of Education."

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)

said that the purpose of the Amendment standing in his name, with subsequent consequential Amendments, was to determine the machinery by which the voluntary schools might be brought into the category of provided schools. There could be no doubt that every one of these voluntary schools should have the chance of being continued as a transferred voluntary school, if the owners, or trustees wished it—always supposing that the requirements of the Board of Education as to the general conditions of the school and its structure were complied with. As the Bill stood, the local authorities throughout the country had the power to take over or to reject all the voluntary schools. He did not suppose that they would do the latter, on financial grounds. But it was always possible that hardships might be created here and there, if not on a large, possibly on a small scale, if the local authorities exercised their power to deprive the trustees on any terms of the continuance of their voluntary schools. If the liberty of bargaining was limited in this way, then the local authorities need not approach the owners of the voluntary schools, but might ignore them, and there would be no bargain at all. If that were so, then the voluntary schools which were desired in certain parts of the country where there was not a single Nonconformist might be superseded because the local authority was hostile to the voluntary system, or because it desired to possess its own schools. Or the local authority might approach the owners of the voluntary schools with an offer of such hard terms as could not be accepted. If there was no trust the whole matter would fall to the ground: and if there were a trust the Commission would come in and frame a scheme. He would wish to obviate that very possible hardship upon the inhabitants of various parts of the country, where voluntary schools were acceptable to the majority of the people, by requiring the local authority to take over the voluntary schools, always assuming that these were efficient. His Amendment did not impose any pecuniary liability on the local authority which was not at present imposed, for these schools were now maintained by them. He did not suggest that unfit schools should be taken over: but only such voluntary schools as were defined in the Act as public elementary schools such as were in receipt of Parliamentary grants from the Board of Education, and were therefore accepted as efficient. The Commission might come in very usefully for making schemes where there was a trust deed in accordance with which the voluntary schools might be taken over, but he should prefer to see the local authority and the owners of schools free to make their own terms. If they could not agree, the matter should be determined by the Board after holding a public inquiry, and it would then become one of public notoriety and the terms proposed by the local authority, and those put forward by the owners would be disclosed and public opinion could operate upon the transaction. The Bill, as it stood at present, gave the local authorities the power of obliterating the voluntary school system which was popular in many parts of the country. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Why?" and "It is cheap."] He did not think that cheapness was the consideration which prevailed throughout our educational system. He did not think it was the cheapness of our voluntary system which brought that recent demonstration from Lancashire. There were local authorities who, because they disliked the voluntary school system would endeavour to efface the schools. There were others who might from motives of economy say that where there were two schools there should henceforth be only one, whatever might be the hardship upon any parent who desired to have religious teaching of a definite kind such as was provided for in the subsequent clauses of the Bill. He regretted that they had not obtained an assurance such as they asked for many weeks ago, as to the extent of the facilities to be afforded by the Bill and the conditions under which they were to be given. They had had declarations from the President of the Board of Education and from the Chancellor of the Duchy on this question all in contradictory terms. This clause need not have been discussed to the extent to which it would be if the full policy of the Government had been disclosed, and if they had been told the policy of the Government in regard to the later clauses. They were at present to a certain extent in the dark unless it was understood that the facilities for religious teaching were to be secured in every area where voluntary schools existed, and the transferred voluntary school was to be allowed to continue to go on where it existed now. There should be some variety in our elementary school system in regard to the religious teaching provided, and they ought not to be all cast in one mould of religious teaching which was acceptable to hon. Members opposite. The wishes of the people in the district and the wishes of the owners of the schools should be so far considered that no voluntary school should be effaced under the provisions of the Bill. In using the words "voluntary school," he meant "transferred voluntary school," and wished to ensure that no voluntary school should lose the chance of being a transferred voluntary school and that every opportunity should be given to the owners of the school, to the population of the district and all parties interested, to enjoy the spiritual advantages of such definite religious teaching as might remain when Sections 3 and 4 had undergone that explanatory process they that had not yet received. He begged to move his Amendment, which with other consequential Amendments would make the clause read to the effect that a local education authority "shall" continue any existing voluntary school as a school provided by them, in cases where the owners of the schoolhouse desire that they should do so and "shall" make arrangements by agreement with owners of the school-house of the school for obtaining such use of it as was required for carrying on a public elementary school, etc.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, li e 11, to leave out the words 'for the purpose of continuing,' and insert the words 'shall continue.' ")—(Sir William Anson.)

Question proposed "That the words proposed to to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. BIRRELL

said the hon. Baronet had explained his Amendment with extreme lucidity, and it amounted to this, that while the local authority was to be required to continue any existing voluntary school as a school provided by them in cases where the owners of the school so desired, the owners could retain any school under their own control if they wished to do so. When there was a difference as to the terms, then the Board of Education was to step in. But the Board of Education had then only to settle the terms and had no power to deprive the owners of the schoolhouse of their rights. All he had to say was that, in the first place, that was a very one-sided arrangement, because the owners of a school might require a local authority to take their school while there was no corresponding obligation upon the owners to transfer their school if they did not wish to do so. It was a one-sided arrangement which really upset the whole scheme of the Bill. Therefore, although he was very much obliged to the hon. Baronet for the very clear way in which he had explained the Amendment, he did not think the Government could possibly accept it. Let them take, for instance, the case of the owners of private schools; there was no sort of compulsion which bound them under the Amendment to transfer their schools to the local authority, but the local authority was to be under an obligation to acquire every existing voluntary school, however unsuitable it might be for their purpose, if the owners wished to part with it.

SIR PHILIP MAGNUS (London University)

said he had an almost identical Amendment upon the Paper, and therefore wished to say a few words upon that now before the Committee. He very much regretted that the President of the Board of Education was unable to accept this proposal, as it would be a graceful concession. For his own part he must say, however, that now that Clause 1 had been passed, which determined the future position of elementary schools, and had been described as the backbone of the Bill, he thought their efforts should be directed to securing such Amendments as would make the Bill more generally acceptable to those who, while disapproving the principle underlying it, nevertheless desired to see a permanent settlement of the so-called religious difficulty. It must be plain to the Government that the Bill as it stood had aroused considerable opposition outside the House, among both the clergy and laymen, and that in its present form it was equally objectionable to Anglicans, Catholics, and Jews. For his own part, he regarded any measure which affected the education of the people as altogether outside the sphere of Party politics; and in supporting the Amendment now before the Committee he was actuated by no sectarian spirit, but only by the genuine desire to effect compromises which might lead to a peaceful settlement. Unless considerable alterations were made in the Bill that peaceful settlement would not be secured, and until they got rid of this constant discussion on religious teaching, it was useless to look for those improvements in elementary education which were so much needed. The time and attention of the Board were wholly occupied with questions of administration, and educational problems which press for solution are not even considered. He would appeal, therefore, to the President of the Board of Education to accept the Amendment. Unless it was accepted, Clauses 3 and 4would be illusory. They would be nothing more than the mere sham which no one, he was sure, would regret more than the President himself. Let them look at what it meant. Its object was to make Clause 2 mandatory, to take it out of the power of the local authority to refuse to take over on reasonable terms a school which the Board of Education had pronounced efficient both as regards constructive details and equipment. Cases might easily arise—indeed, he had one such a case in his mind—where a small denominational school now in receipt of State aid and grants from the rates was not far distant from efficient county schools with accommodation to spare. The local authority, on being asked to take over such a school, might in the interest of the ratepayers decide lo distribute the children among the neighbouring schools. In such a case the school would be entirely lost to the community, and so far as that school was concerned Clause 4 might be inoperative. The community would have no opportunity of taking advantage of the extended facilities provided under that clause, for the school would cease to exist. The Amendment was intended to prevent this. Its object was to put into the clause of the Bill what they had reason to believe was its intention. During these discussions they had heard a great deal about the "good intentions" of the Bill. All they asked was that those intentions should be embodied in its clauses. The object of the Amendment was to put it out of the power of the local education authority to refuse to transfer a school if required to do so. It was not for a moment suggested that the local authority should take over any school which was not efficient. If any school was required now they could only conclude that that school would still be required under this Bill. What was suggested was that if Clauses 3 and 4 meant anything at all the voluntary schools which existed now should have the right to claim that the local authority should transfer them. When the Jewish deputation, which had been referred to, waited on the President of the Board of Education, it was Mr. Montifiore who said— Hence it is that we ask that if our schools are pronounced by the Board of Education to be structurally suitable, that the local authority should be obliged to take them over. And it was Mr. Jessel who pointedly said— The suggestion we venture respectfully to put before you is that we ought not to be subjected to the chance of finding an anti-religions local authority in power who would refuse to take over one of the schools, because they were opposed to the four-fifths clause, or were in fact opposed to the denominational teaching altogether. It was quite clear that if provided schools only were to receive State aid or grants from the local authority the owners of the voluntary schools ought to have the right to claim that their schools should be continued with a view to the facilities to be granted under Clause 4. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education, in answer to that deputation, said— It is obligatary on the local authority to ascertain the facts. But having; established the facts, it is true that us the Bill is framed there is no obligation upon the local authority to go further. It may, if so minded, disregard the intention of the statute. This was very unsatisfactory. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding what he had already said, might be induced to accept this Amendment as his first concession. Another argument in its favour was that by taking it out of the power of the local authority to refuse to transfer a thoroughly efficient school, they would to a great extent prevent the introduction of the religious question into the municipal elections. It was quite certain that candidates in municipal elections would be asked whether or not they were favourable to the transfer of voluntary schools. Therefore he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

said he was afraid the hon. Member who moved the Amendment did not quite understand what it did. The Amendment said that the local authority must take over the buildings if the managers of the school wished, if the school was pronounced efficient by the Board of Education. The Board of Education was to be the determining factor. What would happen in that case? The London County Council in the city of London alone would be compelled to take over every voluntary school building which the managers demanded they should take over if the Board of Education agreed that it ought to be taken over. That was the meaning of the Amendment as he understood it. Very well. When the London County Council became the local education authority it ordered an inquiry into the condition of the voluntary schools that it might be obliged to take over. Twenty-nine of them were scheduled as unsuitable for the purposes of education. He would read the statements with regard to only four. The first was a school at Dept-ford— The infants' department is on the first floor, but this is really a conceit hall with a stage, procenium, and retiring rooms at one end; the approach is by two open, awkward stone staircases meeting in a common landing in centre, and the building cannot be regarded as safe against a fire occurring. That was a building the authority was asked to take over. The school had been passed by the Board of Education as efficient. The next was a school at Greenwich— ' The approach to the girls' (first floor) is by a winding store stair which is also the only exit from this department; the children in the end loom have to travel the whole length of the school to reach this staircase, which is in a dangerous condition and would prove disastrous in case of fire. A school at Hampstead was described as— Absolutely unsuitable. Cannot be recognised in any shape or form. The premises would be positively dangerous to children in case of fire. Finally, there was a school at Walworth, which was described as— A very dilapidated building erected about 100 years ago as a chapel. It is inconvenient, badly lighted, and with bad sanitary arrangements.'' With regard to all those schools—hon. Members might say there were only twenty-nine altogether—they were all efficient according to the Board of Education. What the Board of Education had been, doing not to have shut those schools up long ago he did not know. He hoped there would, be some alteration in the Board of Education now. Four hundred and thirty-eight schools, were examined by the county council inspector, all of which, according to the Board of Education, were efficient. Of. those schools sixty-four were passed as good, ninety-two were scheduled as unsuitable and in all 229 departments of schools were condemned right out as absolutely unsuitable for the education of children. So far as sanitation was concerned, the result of the test of the drains of the whole of the voluntary schools showed that in 342, or 78 percent, the drains were unsatisfactory. Eighty-nine failed under the water test, eighteen, under the smoke test, and 318 under both. Moreover, as many people; knew, the London County Council was in many eases met by an absolute refusal, when they asked permission to test. Were the London County Council to be compelled to take those buildings over from the managers? It was perfectly grotesque. But there was another phase which had not been dealt with, except incidentally. The hon. Member for London University thought it would be an unfair thing to merge these schools, into one great school.

*SIR PHILIP MAGNUS

Under the circumstances suggested by the hon.. Member for North Camberwell those schools would have no opportunity of taking advantage of the facilities under Clause 4.

DR. MACNAMARA

said Clause 4 did not arise upon this quest on. Many of these denominational schools in the inner parts of our cities were built many years ago when the population surrounded them. The population had now gone to the suburbs, but the schools remained and stood for large accommodation and no doubt the managers would drive a very hard bargain. In Pimlico there was a school with accommodation for 928 children, and on the roll there were only 228. Were they to compel the County Council to rent that school on the basis of its accommodation? In St. Bride's a school had accommodation for 146, and there were eighteen on the rolls. In Smithfield there was a school with accommodation for 335 children, and only 133 on the rolls. He could give a number of other instances in the inner parts of London and other great cities in which the population had gone away and the authorities had been compelled to build schools in the outer parts. It would be perfectly monstrous to call upon the local authority to rent these schools at the figure of their accommodation, when the number of pupils actually in attendance was so small. When were they going to have some regard for the rates? It was not often chat he posed as the friend of the downtrodden ratepayer, but here was certainly an opportunity. They could at any time transfer 25,000 children in London from the denominational schools to the council schools and, effect a thoroughly good piece of educational work besides economising the public money. The proposition to compel local authorities to take over buildings which were confessedly ill-adapted and dilapidated was perfectly grotesque, and could not be entertained for a moment by a Government anxious to carry out a sound and reasonable scheme of education.

*MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston.)

said the position of the local authority under the Bill was that they could offer to take over a schoolhouse either at a nominal rent or without paving any rent and without giving any facilities for religious instruction. If that were refused by the owners, as it would be in most cases, there arose an option, not to the owners of the schoolhouse, but to the local education authority, either to apply for a scheme under which the schoolhouse could be made over to thorn or to say to the owners, "Very well, we do not want your school. You can keep it yourselves, we will build a school of our own." The effect would be that a schoolhouse which had been built under Parliamentary encouragement and sanction for the purpose of a public elementary school and was suitable for no other purpose, would be thrown upon the hands of the owners, who would have to sell it to the housebreaker at bricks and mortar value. He had never read anything more unfair or one-sided. Parliament had for thirty-six years past, and indeed for very much longer, encouraged the building of voluntary schools, and many millions had been spent on that object. Parliament was now making a change in the system, not because the schools were inefficient, but for public reasons, and surely it was not unfair to ask that the schools which had been built under Parliamentary sanction should be taken over if the owners desired it. It appeared to him to be only common justice to take them over, subject, of course, to reasonable terms being arranged. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had said that some of the schools were not in proper order. He himself know a good many, and he would not say they were all in perfectly good order, but he saw the hon. Member for Exeter in the House, and he was, he believed, to some extent responsible for a great number of these schools being certified as efficient.

SIR G. KEKEWICH (Exeter)

I think the Minister is responsible.

*MR. CAVE

said he would accept that. What he was going to say was that, of course, if there were defects in the structure of a school there was a very simple remedy. It could be made a term of the agreement that the school should, be put into proper order by the owners, or the local authority or the Board of Education could take those defects into account in fixing the rent or price. It was the easiest thing in the world, and was an answer, he thought, to the whole argument of the hon. Member for North Camberwell. Then the hon. Gentleman said— Oh, but if this Amendment is carried, the local authority would have to take over every school at a rent to be fixed according to the amount of accommodation in the school. The Amendment left it entirely open for terms to be fixed by agreement with the local authority, failing which, the Board of Education would fix the amount. Of course, if the accommodation were in excess of what was required by the local education authority, they would probably take that into account. All the hon. Gentleman's arguments might be met by some amendment to the Amendment. All that they were now asking for was that. Parliament should accept what he thought was a fair, reasonable, and honest principle.

LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)

said he differed from many of the premises of the hon. Member for Camberwell and from all his conclusions, but at least the hon. Member would allow him to thank him for having given serious attention to the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet. The President of the Board of Education had dismissed it in a very summary fashion. The fact that thousands of these schools belonging to all denominations and scattered all over the country had not only been in existence for many years, but had been deliberately encouraged by the State, entitled, the Amendment to a sympathetic reception. He thought the proposal of his hon. friend was less open to the charge of one-sidedness than the provision in the Bill. As the Bill stood, the local education authority was at liberty to enter into an arrangement, and when they came to consider the conditions mentioned in a subsequent clause which would be put into operation if the local education authority did not voluntarily enter into an agreement, then one-sidedness was a term of reproach applicable not to the Amendment but to the proposals of the Bill itself. As drafted this Amendment only applied to existing efficient schools, and he did not see why they should not be taken over. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had stated that it would be economy on the part of the local authorities to shut up a number of those schools, and that corresponded to the threat that had been repeated by the President of the Board of Education that the credit of this country had not fallen so low as to make it impossible to raise sufficient money by loan to build all the new schools that were required. If it was economy, why not buy the schools? He had not with him the particulars of those twenty-nine schools in the London area which had been referred to by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, but he thought many Metropolitan Members would agree with him when he said that the Inspector's Report was very much discounted by the local sanitary authorities, who considered it overdrawn and exaggerated for purely political purposes. Many of those schools were now in process of being brought, up to the required standard. A case had been mentioned of a school where there was danger from fire, but that danger was far greater in those lofty palaces built by the local education authorities than in the humble old-fashioned schools which were generally only two-storey buildings. He agreed that there were both good and bad schools, and they occurred not only amongst the voluntary group, but also amongst Board schools; but that was no reason why the local authority should not take the schools over and incorporate them under the now system. He thought that the conditions under Clause 8 would be more than adequate to enable the local authority to make terms. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had said that it would be much cheaper to wipe these schools out of existence, and build new schools to accommodate the displaced children. That might be so, but then there would arise the grotesque feature of introducing religious strife into local politics, and the local education authority might be tempted to refuse to act under Clause 2 as they were almost invited to, and come to no bargain at all with owners of voluntary schools. If that was going to be the policy of the local education authority' the immediate result would be to throw out of employment thousands and tens of thousands of teachers in voluntary schools, who, under Clause 7, would have no compensation except the ridiculous payment of one year's contribution to the superannuation fund.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said the Minister for Education, in his answer to the Jewish deputation, used words which had caused considerable alarm. The right hon. Gentleman said that under the Bill it would be open to the local education authorities to set at defiance the intention of the Act. He thought that was a very unusual statement which required an explanation. Amendments ought to be introduced which would give to minorities some assurance, or at least some ground for hope, that the protection promised would really be afforded. It had been said that under Clause 2 the bargain which the local authority and the owners of denominational schools were at liberty to enter into was an absolutely free one in every particular. Was that a true statement? In his opinion, it was a singularly inaccurate statement. Was the President of the Board of Education prepared to put into this Bill words that would make his statement accurate? At the beginning of Clause 3 it was laid down that certain things might be carried out affording facilities for religious instruction of a certain character. They were very strictly limited. Supposing the local authority desired in the case of a bargain with a voluntary school to give as part of the contract those facilities in Clause 4, to abrogate the intolerable conditions of Clause 6, and to make the provision that there should be the fullest facilities for religious instruction in school hours by the teachers of the schools taken over, would it be free to make such a bargain? [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] The local authority could not make any such bargain. There could be no manner of doubt that many of the local education authorities, if they were free under this Act, would, as a condition of taking over voluntary schools, give them all the facilities of Clause 4; and even go beyond that, and provide that the teaching should be within school hours, that being the only effective condition which would retain any form of religious teaching in the schools of the country. He wished to tell hon. Members on the Ministerial side that by supporting Clause 6 they were hunting the Bible out of the schools, and the freedom which was claimed for the Act was fettered and confined in regard to those very matters to which denominational schools attached the highest importance. He knew that Sub-section (a) put upon the local authority the duty of maintaining the schools in good condition and of making improvements, and to that he quite agreed; but he attached greater importance to the liberty of teaching, and the maintenance of the purpose for which the denominational schools were founded. Upon that subject the local authorities were cribbed, cabined, and confined within the narrowest possible limits, and therefore the argument used upon this point fell to the ground. He was not in favour of local option on this great question; the whole principle was against local option: but what he did complain of was that the limitations put upon the local authorities were one-sided, unjust, and unfair. The speech of the hon. Mem- ber for North Camberwell was, to his mind, a sinister one. He hoped the hon. Member would forgive him for saying so. He recognised in him a fair minded opponent, who had shown himself not unjust according to his lights and knowledge. His speech pointed to a wholesale refusal on the part of the local education authorities to recognise vast sections of voluntary schools. It was plain that that was the deliberate intention, purpose, and even anticipation on the part of the local authorities, and that the effect of the clause would be instantly to obliterate and destroy an enormous proportion of voluntary schools on some cruel pretext such as that the drains were out of order or that the buildings were not fit for the purpose. [Laughter.] Some hon. Members laughed, but did they imagine it was a pleasure for the poor Catholic parents of the country to see their children going to crowded and sometimes insanitary schools—poor, miserable schools compared with the palaces offered by the Board of Education? They consented to their children going to these schools and paid their pennies and sixpences to maintain the schools for conscience sake; and these circumstances ought to appeal to the generosity of men who called themselves Liberals. Was it just, was it wise, was it generous to take the results of their poverty, when that poverty had inflicted real suffering, mortification, and humiliation for conscience sake, and make that an excuse for denying them the modifications and concessions which they demanded? The Minister for Education told a Jewish deputation that the intention was that these schools should go on as before, but he did not mention the cruel wrong and mean device that would be resorted to to rob them of their schools. It was plain that under the clause as it stood all kinds of excuses could be put forward where a school was not wanted in a locality. He fully admitted that it would be wrong to have an Amendment giving a one-sided compulsion to owners of voluntary schools to force local authorities to take their schools, no matter what reasons there were on the other side: that would be unreasonable; and he would vote for a provision giving some check to the Board of Education. Every argument of the hon. Member for North Camberwell would be fully met by a provision requiring the fiat of the Board of Education wherever the local education authorities objected to taking over schools. That was not what they were afraid of. What they were afraid of were cases where local authorities approached the question with a bias against denominational schools, and would use the unlimited discretion given to them under this clause to boycott and starve out such schools either by re-distributing the children in other schools or by proceeding to build new schools at, the expense of the rates. In this way they would be able completely to defeat the intention of the Bill and to obliterate and destroy the denominational schools in their district. He was no irreconcilable enemy of the Bill, but he desired it so amended that those who spoke for voluntary schools could frankly accept, and even support it. It was high time that warning was given to the Liberal Party. If they left denominational schools to the mercy of local authorities they would be brought face to face with a most horrible situation, from his point of view. They would drag their Government into a campaign of persecution and even imprisonment against Catholic parents. If they threw the reins loose on the neck of every local authority they would leave it in the power of the local authorities to drag them along a path which would compel the Government to abandon one after another the great principles which were the life of their Party.

MR. BIRRELL

said he was sorry if the language which he employed was capable of the interpretation which had been put upon it. When he spoke of the freedom which parties enjoyed under Clause 2 he was thinking entirely of that clause, and not of the religious facilities to be given under Clause 3 or Clause 4. What he meant to imply was that the object of the Government in framing Clause 2 in the way they had done was to leave to the parties the making of the bus ness arrangement with respect to the voluntary schools which would be transferred to the local authority—the arrangements indicated in Sub-section (a)—and to leave them at liberty to make what bargain suited best the necessities of the locality. He certainly did not mean that the question of facilities, according to the extent and according to the guarantee which the Act would afford, would not enter into the mind of the parties when they came to make the bargain contemplated by Clause 2. When he formerly addressed the Committee he was specially thinking of the leasing of premises, and business arrangements of that kind; he was not thinking of what was a most important point, namely, the religious facilities accorded by subsequent sections at which they had not yet arrived. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment did not wish the local authority to have any option in the matter at all; he wished the local authority to be bound to acquire any premises which any owner chose to offer. That was an Amendment which it was impossible for the Government to accept in the terms proposed, namely, that they should impose on the local authority the obligation of taking over the schools. He did not share the feeling of the hon. Member for East Mayo, who seemed to think that the local authorities would be animated by a pa-sionate and most bigoted desire to get rid of the voluntary schools within their districts.

MR. DILLON

I am afraid some would.

MR. BIRRELL

said that when they were dealing with human nature it was always desirable to put in some saving clause of that kind. He did contemplate the possibility to which the hon.. Member referred. He had contemplated the possibility of local authorities being pig-headed, but he honestly believed that the history of local administration in this country tended to show that, when any body of men—elected for three years or so—behaved in a manner justifying such a harsh, epithet, they paid the penalty as all majorities, however composed, would, who acted in such a way. The majority would be judged by the country at large, and not by a minority who felt themselves affronted by being in that position. He believed the local authorities as a whole would be animated by a desire to stand well with their constituents, and their constituents were animated by a desire for economy. To suppose that a policy which would sweep out of existence admirable schools, now full of children receiving an education which met with the support of the Board of Education and earning the full grants which the Board gave, would be likely to be adopted by any public body out of a feeling of universal hostility to such schools was, he thought, unreasonable. He entirely agreed that, when the Committee reached Clause 4, if it could be shown that that clause did not properly carry out its obvious intention, it ought to be strengthened. But it was not the business of the Committee at that moment to assume that the clause was not sufficient for its purpose. He was anxious to listen with the friendliest possible mind to all suggestions intended to secure to the schools contemplated by that clause the protection to which they were entitled. But to accept this particular Amendment would put on local authorities an intolerable burden which they would have every right to resent and which would not have the soothing effects which, he hoped, might result from the passing of the Bill into law. He hoped the provisions of this clause might be so worked out in practice that a large number of schools which were doing excellent work would be transferred to the local authority, with the facilities provided by subsequent clauses. It would, however, be impossible to throw on the local authority the obligation of taking over all those schools, and therefore he could not accept the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he had been greatly struck both on that and on previous occasions with the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman to explain that there would be Amendments to the clauses in the Bill which would make it more satisfactory to his friends; but the hon. Member for East Mayo had just explained how few of the Amendments promised were satisfactory to the hon. Members from Ireland. It was in vain for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he did not desire to interfere with the voluntary schools. The hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, and even members of the Church of England, had the same claim to denominational teaching which the present Bill would not secure. He asked the Government to explain their views as to what should be the nature of their bargaining with the trustees of voluntary schools. The Government had refused the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman to explain their position on the matter, and now they did not know where they were. What they wanted to get was a general statement from the Government. Under Clause 2, taken by itself or in connection with other clauses, there was no obligation on the local authority to take over voluntary schools. If a local authority refused to take them over the possibility of dealing with denominational education in that area would be extinguished. Clauses 3 and would then be absolutely waste paper. The theory of the Government in introducing the Bill was that, not merely was there to be an opening in our; educational system for denominational teaching, but that the local authority should be required to give such an opening. What was there in the Bill to; compel an education authority to take over any voluntary schools at all? If an authority did not take them over, then the promise that there should be room for denominational teaching in our system vanished altogether. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent an authority from extinguishing every Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Wesleyan school in its area. What was the safeguard which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education thought existed and was sufficient to obviate the possibility of the danger which everyone seemed to admit—on paper, at any rate? He said, of course, that they were all animated with a love of economy, and that every local authority was so animated. Well, as a ratepayer he could wish that such a thing were more true than he feared it was. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the members of a local authority which wished to be extravagant would only hold office for three years, and at the end of that time the vengeance of their constituents would fall upon them, and they would all be turned out, another set of gentlemen of more economical minds being put in their places. That was all right, but during those three years the community would have been robbed, and the whole future of denominational teaching in the district risked, for there was the chance at the end of the three years that financial difficulties would render the authority incapable of reinstating existing conditions. The Roman Catholic and Anglican schools might be destroyed. He did not think the Government seriously believed they could maintain the position they had taken up; whilst they had pledged themselves by their speeches to maintain the privileges for religious teaching under Clauses 3 and 4 they were going to destroy that permission by the provisions of Clause 2. That those provisions were or might be destroyed under Clause 2 the Minister of Education had not pretended to deny. He earnestly begged a plain answer from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had given no hint as to how he intended to carry out the pledges he had given. When the right hon. Gentleman got up and said that all he desired was that they should not put a limitation on the local education authority which they did not put on the owners of voluntary schools, did he forget that by his own Bill three Gentlemen were to have power in all cases where there were trusts to require the school to come under the local authority?

MR. BIRRELL

said that the powers these three gentlemen, whoever they might be, would exercise would be legal powers. It would be their business to consider whether, having regard to the offer made by the local education authority to take over a school on certain terms as to facilities or otherwise, that was the best way possible of ful filling the trust; and if they were of opinion that there was some better way which would more accord with the trust, they would be bound to say, "We cannot sanction the transfer to the local education authority, because that would not be the best way of carrying out the trust. They would have to administer the doctrine of cyprès. The law had come in and prevented the school from being carried on as a public elementary school. Therefore the Commission must consider what was the best and safest way of carrying on the educational trust; and where they thought that some other mode was nearer to the original trust than a transfer, they would be bound to say, "We cannot sanction the transfer, because some other scheme recommends itself to our mind as being nearer to the original trust."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that explanation made the case much worse than it was before. On his side of the House they had pointed out that there was no obligation on the local education authority to take over voluntary schools at all on any terms, and the right hon. Gentleman explained what Clause 8 did. Clause 8 made it far worse, because, even if an education authority proposed to take over a voluntary school, these three gentlemen might step in and say, "The education authority is anxious to take over the school, the trustees are anxious to hand it over; we think there is some other possible way of carrying out the trust." And so with a willing local authority and willing trustees—

MR. BIRRELL

In those circumstances the bargain would be struck and the matter would not come before the Commission.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that, in spite of these three gentlemen and anything else in the Bill, a bargain might be struck which broke the terms of the trust and threw the doctrine of cyprès to the winds. How much better the Committee would be situated if they really knew what the Government scheme was. However interesting and important the right hon. Gentleman's interruption might be, it did not help them in the least so far as the particular difficulty emphasised by the hon. Member for East Mayo and other hon. Members was concerned. What security did the Government mean to hold out that there should be the power of making a bargain at all? If schools were not taken over under Clause 2, Clauses 3 and 4 became illusory. What security was there that they must be taken over under Clause 2? Did the Government maintain the position that while they had pledged themselves to maintain the privileges under Clause 3 and Clause 4 for religious education, they were going to destroy that promise by the provisions of Clause 2? That those privileges might be so destroyed the right hon. Gentleman did not pretend to deny. He himself did not entertain the expectation that there might not be regions in the country in which the local authority would exercise to the full the licence given them by the Bill and deprive the owners of voluntary schools and those interested in the denominational teaching of all the promised privileges. Whatever the answer might be a plain answer should be given to the question by what machinery did the right hon. Gentleman. mean to avoid the manifest peril which threatened the interests of denominational education? The Government had made promises in favour of denominational education. What were the safeguards by which those interests were to he maintained?

MR. BIRRELL

said he had already stated more than once that the Bill did not impose any obligation on the local education authority to acquire any existing voluntary schools. The local authority had an option or a choice, and was not bound to acquire any existing voluntary schools within its area unless it was so minded. If that was so, he could not give any other answer to the right hon. Gentleman than that he had already given—namely, that the Government did not anticipate, in consequence of that choice or option, any disposition of any local education authority whatsoever to refuse to acquire existing voluntary schools under Clause 2; in fact, the only hope of the Government was that the owners and trustees would respond to the request that would be made by the local education authority in the same spirit in which the offer to acquire the schools was made.

*MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said only one answer to the Amendment had been advanced, and that came from the hon. Member for North Camberwell, who in his speech had pointed out what certainly was a real defect in the Amendment, because he said that under it a large number of schools which were insanitary and inefficient might be taken over by the local authority, and the Board of Education might not hare the authority or desire to condemn those schools and prevent their being taken over. That was a very logical argument and one with the spirit of which he agreed. He would be the last person in the world to say that the local education authority should take over an insanitary school, but he believed that under this Amendment the Board of Education had perfect authority to prevent such a thing occurring. The Government, moreover, had given no answer in reply to the question as to what would happen to the children if these schools were so inefficient and insanitary that they could not be taken over. Ho wanted to know what would happen to them as regarded their opportunities for definite religious, teaching, supposing these schools were not taken over by the local education authority. They had heard a great deal about the buildings, the drains and so forth, but he wanted to know what the Government were going to do for the children. They had agreed that parents who wished their children to have something more definite than Cowper-Temple teaching were to have it under certain circumstances. In what consisted the difference between the rights of the children who attended schools where, say, the drainage was bad, and the rights of the children who attended schools in a more sanitary state? He was not dealing with the report of the London County Council in this matter, because he was aware that the whole action of the London County Council with regard to education had been carried out under the strongest political bias. [Cries of "Oh."] Well, that was the statement he made, and he did not think anybody could contradict it. He thought that that was one of the reasons why the hon. Member for North Camberwell would like to see the control of education taken out of the hands of the London County Council. He agreed that there were a certain number of schools which ought not to be carried on any longer, but what concerned him was what was going to happen to the children in them. Were they going to be disfranchised, so to speak, and deprived of the rights which every child was supposed to have under this Bill? Surely the children in the large towns were entitled to more consideration because their parents could have sent them to other schools if they had not believed in the importance of having definite religious teaching in their own faith. He thought they were entitled to an answer from the right hon. Gentleman to this definite question. Was this clause going to shut out from any rights under Clauses 3 and 4 the children who had hitherto been attending voluntary schools which, owing to insanitary conditions, would not be taken over by the local authority?

COLONEL WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)

said he thought this clause ought to be a good deal more explained, and, if possible, altered in the direction aimed at by the Amendment which had been put forward. Many schools under this clause might be refused because they were considered to be insanitary, although the trustees had, done their best to fall in with the very unreasonable recommendations of the County Council. He knew of schools which had ordinary boarded floors better than those which existed in a good many houses, and yet they had been condemned and the owners obliged to put in block floors simply because it was the fad, of the local authority. They were taking over these schools compulsorily. Clause 1 put every one of these schools under the power of the local authority, and if they were taken over compulsorily the local authority ought to take over the liability as well. He should certainly vote for the Amendment.

MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)

said that, the Government being anxious that no injustice should be done, some of their supporters wondered why it should be left to the local authority to decide a matter of principle which Parliament was ready to decide, and on which it was practically unanimous. It seemed to him an entirely novel-doctrine that Parliament, having approved a principle, should leave it to a subsidiary authority to apply the principle or not as it pleased. He appealed to the Minister for Education to consider whether, if he could not accept the Amendment, he could meet the objections urged in another way, as, for example, by giving an appeal to the Board of Education where the local authority behaved, as the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that some local authorities might behave, in a pig-headed manner. Surely this was a most reasonable request. If subsidiary authorities were going to be pig-headed, surely the paramount authority ought to step in. He suggested to the President of the Board of Education that if he could not see his way to accept the Amendment he should at least give the Committee some indication that a light of appeal would be given to the Board of Education.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he hoped the Minister for Education would listen to the appeal which had been made to him from an hon. Member sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. This discussion might be considerably shortened if they could get some definite explanation of what the policy of the Government really was. It was now left optional with the local authority as to whether they would take over the schools or not. Under the clause as it stood cases of bitter hardship would occur in rural districts, and give rise to resentment and outcry of which the Government had no conception. They would not get rid of the passive resistor. He would be left under Clause 4, and a new passive resister would be created under this clause, who would be more indignant and more difficult to deal with than his predecessor. That predecessor was indignant because public money was being taken for a cause of which he did not approve. Now they were going to have schools, such as one which he had in his mind that had been in existence for seventy years, not taken over. ["Why not?"] He was assuming that it would not be taken over if this Amendment or some equivalent was not accepted. If he was to be taken to task for assuming that a local authority might not take over a school, why did they not accept the Amendment? Why refuse the moderate request of the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division? Were they going to leave this question where it was? Did they believe that this was likely to be a peaceful solution of the question? Did the Government imagine that the Opposition did not represent something more on this subject than a mere remnant of the voluntary schools movement? This difficulty would reappear during the debates on subsequent clauses unless the Government were prepared to make a definite statement now. Unless the Committee were treated fairly in this matter the question would have to be raised again. If the Government could not do the whole, would they do a part? Would the Government meet them in some way? Would they give them an appeal? Personally he would have asked for something more. He would have asked that if the Amendment of the hon. Baronet were open to all the objections urged by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, it should be modified so as to give the existing voluntary schools a sure hope that against their continued existence no prejudice and no partisanship would be allowed to prevail. He believed in the local authorities and that they were to be trusted; but if Parliament was not prepared on a great question of principle such as this to lay down definite and clear action, but was going to be swayed by emotions, whatever their origin was, it was no insult to the local authorities to say that where Parliament erred they were likely to err, and that where Parliament was afraid to come to a decision they would be afraid to come to a decision. Where Parliament had, as he believed, so predominant a view in one direction, it had no right to leave the matter to local option. How could we have a system of national education if it was to be conducted on one set of lines in one quarter and on a totally different set of lines in another quarter? Would it not be, in the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Louth, religious education by permission of the County Council? Was that according to the wishes of the House or the views expressed by the Minister for Education? It would be going in the teeth of everything said by the Government if the local authorities were to take a line which was hostile to the voluntary schools as a whole. That being so, and in the face of the debate being overwhelmingly on one side he asked the Government to do something more than meet them with kind words and generous sympathy, and to put in the Bill, either now or later, some words that would give not merely the assurance of a friend, but the definite assurance of an Act of Parliament, that justice, at all events, would be done to the voluntary schools.

MR. WALLACE (Perth)

said he had hoped that they would postpone consideration of this question until Clauses 3 and 4 had been considered, but he now realised that the important question which was in the minds of all did arise in connection with this clause. He could see that under its operation it would be perfectly possible for every denominational school in the country to be closed. He was not discussing whether that was a good or a bad thing. He admitted candidly that he was a supporter of undenominational education, but he was equally one of those who never insisted upon his own view if he thought it would act unfairly against other people. And he did think that if they were to pass this clause as it stood they would be inflicting a great injustice upon the denomination; who had spent so much and made such sacrifices for their schools. He was not quite sure that in the particular form in which it appeared he could support absolutely the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, which would make the clause read something in this way— A local education authority shall continue any existing voluntary school with the consent of the Hoard of Education. It entirely depended upon that. Let there be no misunderstanding. They were all anxious to arrive at a settlement of the matter. What he desired was that if a voluntary school existing to-day was in a fit condition to be carried on, the authority should be compelled to carry it on. He spoke perfectly frankly, and it was just as well that they should do so at the present moment. If they were going to attempt to carry on the two systems of schools, and to allow denominational schools to exist then an Amendment of something of this nature was necessary. If they were not going to do that, let them say so boldly and frankly. Ho was in favour of the undenominational system. If the people of the country would accept it, which was a large order, he would like to see it universal. But he was not going to obtain by any subterfuge that which in his heart he earnestly desired. He recognised the rights of other denominations and that this Bill professed to allow the denominational schools to be carried on. If that were so, let them make it a reality. It was necessary now that they should clearly understand where they were. He did not know what was going to happen with regard to Clauses 3 and 4, but he realised that if they passed this clause they would put into the hands of the enemies of denominational schools the power to close them all through the country, and he would never consent to that. He did ask his right hon. friend to accept this suggestion. He was perfectly well aware that he was giving expression to views which were not shared by many hon. Members on his side. He was not speaking for any one but himself. He was speaking on behalf of what he believed to be honesty. They had put forth the view that they were going to allow these schools to continue and to give them a fair opportunity to continue. He therefore protested that it would be grossly unfair under those circumstances, in spite of the suitability of the schools, to allow them to be closed. He consequently asked his right hon. friend to do something to meet the views of those who were anxious to reconcile the existence of both kinds of schools.

MR. BIRRELL

said his hon. friend proposed that the local authority should be obliged to acquire a voluntary school. Did he also propose that the owners of a voluntary school should be obliged to transfer it to the local authority?

MR. GUEST (Cardiff District)

thought this was a real difficulty, and that the Minister for Education felt it was one If the fears expressed by Members of the Opposition were realised, in so far as they were realised the whole intention of the Bill would be defeated and all the elaborate compromise of Clauses 3 and 4, which he approved of, fell to the ground. He did not believe it was possible to make it obligatory on the local authority to take over the voluntary schools, for this reason. If they were obliged to take over the schools the bargain which they would make with the owners must, of necessity, be a very one-sided affair. If the local authority were under an obligation, and the other side were free to do as they liked, it was clear the two parties did not enter into the bargain on the same terms. It was obvious, therefore, that that solution would not do. The Minister for Education relied upon two things—the reasonableness and fair-mindedness of the local authorities, and their love of economy. He had admitted that it might possibly happen that some local education authorities would be unreasonable. It was no consolation to the Catholics, for instance, to feel that if the local authority was pig-headed, and their chance of obtaining the facilities under Clauses 3 and 4 was destroyed, theirs was an exceptional case. This was one of the inducements that the Minister of Education relied upon. After all, would it be so much cheaper to hire the schools than to build new schools? In view of that, did not the argument of economy rather fall to the ground? Many local authorities which really wished to stamp out denominational teaching in their areas would plausibly argue that it was just as cheap to build new schools as to hire existing schools. He did not think there was much in the economy inducement at present. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill he was careful not to say exactly how the million he referred to was going to be expended. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to keep that up his sleeve in order to apply it as emergency might arise, to carry out in the best way the intention of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had a million of money at his disposal. If it was impossible to apply and distribute that money to strengthen economy inducements—which the right hon. Gentleman believed had such weight, and ought to have such weight with the local education authority —surely there might be some method by which the local education authority which had behaved reasonably should be treated better than the body which had behaved unreasonably. Here was the real difficulty, by which the intention of the Bill was jeopardised. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the matter his very careful consideration.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said in answer to the inquiry addressed to him by the hon. Member for Perth that the Board of Education already possessed powers under Statute and under the Code to ensure that no unfit or insanitary school was taken over by the local authority. In this clause as it stood the Board was introduced merely to settle the particular terms of agreement, without any reference to the structural or sanitAry condition of the schools. But he also thought that the Board of Education ought to hold an inquiry where the two parties could not come to terms. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the parties must be free to bargain. He wanted to ensure that there should be a bargain. Under the clause, as it stood, the parties need never approach one another at all. the right hon. Gentleman had promised facilities. He wished to know whether there would be any facilities at all, and particularly whether the clause would not close the door definitely against any facilities. An hon. Member opposite had stated that it would be a great hardship if they were bound to take over all these schools. The local authority was bound to provide the schools, and all he asked was that they should he bound to deal with the owners of existing schools and necessary schools which had already been recognised by the Board of Education as efficient. He did not think the local authorities should be allowed to pass those schools over and thus put the ratepayers to the expense of building new schools, at the same time placing those who desired definite religious teaching under a great hardship. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had quoted a number of schools that had been declared insanitary. He hoped the Board of Education would ensure in he future, as they had done in the past, that schools were not used by children which were unfit for their accommodation. There were two particular points which he desired to press upon the President of the Board of Education. The first was the great hardship of allowing a local authority the option of passing by and closing a school as a public elementary school upon which large sums of public money had recently been expended on the faith of the Act of 1902. He knew many such schools, and to allow local authorities to pass them over would be inflicting a very grave injustice. His second point was the larger question that the local authority might shut off every school in the area which had previously given definite religious teaching from giving it, and every child from obtaining it at a public elementary school. He knew there were many hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial side of the House who fully realised the danger of leaving to the local education authorities the power of inflicting such a great injustice, and he appealed to the Government to insure that some steps would be taken to render the facilities a reality and not a dead letter. If the right hon. Gentleman could not accept his Amendment in its present form, perhaps he would allow the owners to appeal to the Board of Education, and demand that their schools should be taken over, unless the Board of Education saw grave reasons against that course being taken.

MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

said that by the first clause of this Bill the voluntary schools would be probably wiped out as rate receiving providers of education, unless in the second clause they were taken over by the local education authority. They were already forsaking one party to this assumed contract, and they had practically starved out almost every voluntary school in the country. These schools which had been supported out of rates and taxes for the last few years and which had made large improvements under the direction of the local authority during those years, in order to comply to the more modern and reasonable requirements, were all practically starved out by the first clause, unless under the second clause they were taken over. There was the strongest safeguard provided against any unreasonable action on the part of the voluntary schools. If this question were to be considered on purely business lines, the advantage was almost entirely with the local authority which had its alternative, that of providing schools out of rates or of acquiring schools. But the voluntary school owners had no alternative whatever, except to submit to the terms of the local authority. All that was required was that the local authority should not be the absolute masters of the situation, but the local authority would be absolute masters unless some provision was made to limit and control any unreasonable exercise of the powers which had been created by the first clause. Further security was wanted in respect to the facilities given in Clauses 3 and 4. It should be treated as a business matter, and in that way the authors of this Bill would be more likely to achieve their object. If something of the kind were not done, there would be a danger of the voluntary schools being practically wiped out by the refusal of the local authorities to bargain with them at all. The scheme of this Bill was one. They could not separate it into water-tight compartments. This was clearly not a case which should be left to the individual and divided action of local authorities elected in different parts of the country to discharge duties not confined to, and not principally composed of education questions, and in which religious difficulties might arise. The Bill was said to effect, but as at present framed it would not effect, a great settlement of this difficult question, complicated as it was by the Bill of 1902, and what had taken place under that Bill. What was wanted was an assurance that the Bill would contain machinery under which substantially the voluntary schools would not be left at the mercy of individual local authorities, but that an appeal should be allowed to some central authority to see that justice was done. To neglect this precaution would be to sow the seeds of a renewed educational difficulty worse than that from which the Government were now seeking to escape.

MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)

said the Minister of Education must himself feel that the Committee, without distinction of party, was entitled now to an assurance from the Government on the lines indicated by the last speaker. [Cries of "No."] Not only was such an assurance wanted from the Government, but they should also give some clear indication of the methods by which they meant to make that assurance good. The Committee had received too many vague assurances from the Government, and hon. Members now wanted to hear how the pledges that had been given were to be carried out. The speeches of the Government's own supporters proved that they too had understood the pledges in the sense which the Opposition had attached to them. But those pledges would be broken, and the purpose of Parliament to safeguard existing rights defeated, if the clause were passed in its present form. The Minister for Education pointed to Clauses 3 and 4; but if they left it in the power of any local authority to build schools instead of taking over the existing schools, Clauses 3 and 4 would never come into effect. Ten days ago the Attorney-General, acting on the instructions of the Minister for Education, was occupied in securing a mandamus against a local authority for not acting fairly under the present Act; but now the Government wore going to give the local authority all control, while denying the small palliative of an appeal for justice when justice was not being done. The position was untenable. Even in some of the schools that were described as unfit, great injustice would be done in respect of the religious teaching desired by the parents, and some general provision was needed to deal with them. Thus where the local authority did not act in the spirit in which the Government intended it should act, they must either exercise control themselves or grant an appeal to authority, and where a local authority was engaged in building up an alternative system of schools, then in those places the Government must by some general provision see that their pledges were fulfilled and that the purpose of Parliament was not frustrated.

MR. MASTERMAN (West Ham, N.)

contended that this Amendment raised a vital point connected with the Bill and that it was not prudent to come to a premature decision upon it. He joined respectfully in the appeal which had been made by the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool that the Government should not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxford University, but that they should indicate the kind of provision which would enable supporters of the Government to vote loyally and heartily with them, conscious that through this provision the schemes and the intentions outlined in connection with the Bill might be carried into full effect. They could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxford University, because it would mean the abandonment of the whole principle of the measure. It would mean that the local authority would be bargaining with their hands tied behind them, and that they would have to take over inefficient as well as efficient schools. They all felt the enormous sacrifices that had been made by the Roman Catholics, but he thought that the demand made by the hon. Member for East Mayo that every voluntary school at present existing should be taken over would be to abandon the principle of the Bill, and to make for educational reaction.

MR. DILLON

said he did not make that demand at all. What he said was that there must be protection in the veto or the assent of the Board of Education.

MR. MASTERMAN

said he thought the hon. Member would agree with him as against the view put forward by the hon. Member for Dover.

MR. WYNDHAM

said his contention was that the hon. Member for Perth had not gone far enough, and that in cases where the local authorities refused to take over schools on grounds of sanitation, or because they were structurally unfit, some arrangement made on general principles must be brought into play to meet the rights of the parents of children, in those localities where denominational schools were abolished.

MR. MASTERMAN

said he accepted the explanation. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that some further provision should be made of a more general character. When they asked for that on a former occasion they did not get the support of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. He wanted to put the matter quite clearly. They did not want the local education authority to take over all the little voluntary schools if they were not suitable, or except under the condition that it was manifest to the local authority that the people of the district wanted under provisions Clauses 3 and 4 to have really religious teaching. But what were the actual probabilities under this clause? Let them take a district where there were one or two small Roman Catholic schools that had been outside the normal provided school system. The district had been the scene of the most desperate religious fighting during the past four years and there was a large section of the people in it who were determined that under no conditions would they allow anything like denominational teaching to be carried out. They could have settled that perhaps under Clauses 3 and 4, but they could not settle it now, because immediately this provision was passed a large section of the people in that locality would endeavour to induce the local authority to be entirely careless of Clauses 3 and 4 and to decline to allow anything except simple Bible teaching. There they would have in the midst of considerable municipal difficulties the bomb of religious dissension thrown in with such results in the local life of the district as he did not like to contemplate. That could be avoided by allowing the bargaining to continue under the scheme outlined in the second clause and by making it quite evident, that if the buildings were bad, insanitary, or unsuitable they would not be paid for. If it was manifestly apparrent that religious bias and animosity were endeavouring in a district to checkmate the beneficent schemes of the Minister of Education then there should be an appeal to the Board of Education. Knowing something of the enflamed condition of public opinion on this religious question, it was impossible for him to say that such a course would not be advocated in the elections of local authorities. He urged the Government to insert a provision of this nature in the Bill.

MR. BIRRELL

said nothing was easier for a Minister of Education pressed by a demand of this kind, than to accede to what seemed to be a very easy request, viz., to insert an appeal to the Board of Education against a local authority which declined to take over some particular voluntary school. But what power would he have ultimately behind him to compel acquiescence on the part of local authorities? Would an "inflamed" local authority, animated by the most unscrupulous determinations, be at once calmed and charmed into an attitude of religious toleration and peace by a letter from the Board of Education? Lot them suppose a local authority were of opinion that there being already school accommodation in the vicinity for all the children within the area, neither economy nor efficiency required them to take over a voluntary school, then there was an appeal to the Board of Education. On what principles was he, or the Minister of Education at the time, to act? Was he to consider the rates or secular efficiency, or was he to be animated by a love of denominational education? The school was not required numerically, it was redundant, and might easily be got rid of. Nothing demanded that it should be there except the desire of the parents that their children should be educated in denominational religious teaching. He should be perfectly prepared to carry out the injunctions of Parliament in that matter. But it would be a very undesirable thing to have a Minister of Education one year who was animated by such a desire, who thought denominationalism a good thing and should be encouraged, and that Roman Catholicism was a good thing and should be encouraged, and another year to have an Orangeman at the head of the Board of Education who might think that sympathy should not be extended or should be strictly limited to Roman Catholic schools throughout the country. Therefore it would be a most undesirable and a cowardly thing to deal with a matter of this sort simply by shoving it off upon a Minister of Education, leaving it to him to decide a question of such importance as that. The House of Commons could not get rid of its responsibility in this matter by the calm, easy suggestion that it should be handed over to the Board of Education. If the House of Commons thought a local authority should be obliged to acquire all the voluntary schools within its area, subject to the question of suitability, sanitary condition, and the like, that was a view which demanded that the voluntary schools should be required to hand themselves over to the local authority. What about the private owners? Were they to be deprived of the right of saying "We decline to transfer ourselves to the local education authority?" There must be reciprocal compulsion. He quite agreed that as the thing stood there was no obligation upon the authority to acquire these schools. He did not think a scheme of that sort was a wise one. In his opinion, the local authorities, striving after economy, would be as anxious to acquire the many admirable schools throughout the country, as the trustees would be to part with them, and when the Committee came to consider Clauses 3 and 4 he thought he would be able to show that the facilities to be afforded for religious education were true and genuine ones. He quite agreed that as the thing stood there was no obligation upon the authority to acquire these schools. He had said so three or four times. He believed that as a matter of fact there was no obligation, but the inducement to acquire such schools as were well fitted to be public elementary schools. It was impossible to consider any question of making it obligatory on the local education authority to acquire these schools without making a corresponding obligation on the owners of all schools, whether private owners or trustees, to hand them over.

MR. A. J BALFOUR

said the right hon. Gentleman had been perfectly candid and had admitted that under this clause there was absolutely no compulsion on any local authority, and no inducement on them except the desire for economy. [An HON. MEMBER: And efficiency.] That was what the right hon. Gentleman said. Then the right hon. Gentleman, having made that admission, conceived himself, if this Amendment were accepted, as Minister for j Education having to decide whether a particular school should or should not be taken over. He asked on what principles he was to decide. But had not the Government better decide it in accordance with their own pledges? Did they not lay it down in the most explicit way that these privileges for denominational education were to be given? Was that not a pledge to the House and to the country? And was the right hon. Gentleman now to shrink back from that pledge because he was afraid in his official capacity of coming into collision with some local authority? If that terror overhung the policy of the Government, if that was really going to be the governing consideration, must they not believe that the "may" which occurred in Clause 4 was intended to remain "may," and was not going to be converted into "must"? Was it not evident that a Government which were going to leave these matters, to the education authority, although they might talk as much as they liked about the good sense, the excellent intentions, and the economic aims of these local authorities, were in reality foisting a Bill on the-House under false pretences? The Bill the Government were trying to pass was not the Bill they introduced, it was not the Bill they had recommended to the country, it was not the Bill of which the-right hon. Gentleman spoke to the Jews, or of which he had spoken across the floor of the House—he dared say that would also apply to the Roman Catholics —and it was not the Bill which he was recommending to the Anglicans. Granted, if they liked, for the sake of argument, that the Amendment was one which for administrative reasons could not be accepted, it was the business of the Government to find a means of carrying into effect their own promises. Did the Government deny that the policy they on that side recommended was in accordance with their account of their own Bill? They could not deny that; and if they made the admission that there was this discrepancy between promise and performance, it was for them, rather than, the Opposition, to make the change in the Bill which would bring it into conformity with their own pledges. The policy of the hon. Member for West Ham was that it was quite right that the local authority should be obliged to take over fitting schools, but not unfitting schools. That policy, it had been pointed out, would make the education of some children depend not on the wishes of the parents, but on the state of the drains—a rather paradoxical result. But at all events the hon. Member's point would be met if the Amendment were to read as follows:—" The local education authority shall continue any existing voluntary school unless for some good cause, and with the consent of the Board of Education," etc. That would show that it was not to be left to the local authority to exercise the inquisitorial power of determining what religion should be taught to the children in each district. If the Government challenged him to make a suggestion, he threw that out for what it was worth. It met the only effective point which had been raised against his hon. friend's Amendment; it had the merit, which hon. Gentlemen opposite should appreciate, of retaining intact the honour of the Government which they were pledged to support; and it was a serious effort, though perhaps not the best, to make the Bill correspond with the promises which had been made. He earnestly suggested that such an amendment to the Amendment should receive the acceptance of the Committee.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid.)

said the Opposition seeing that their Amendment must be voted down by the majority of the Committee were now suggesting with more or less speciousness that something else might be adopted. He warned his right hon. friend the Minister for Education, as one who had had experience in Committee, against these tactics. A great deal of ground had been covered in the discussion of this Amendment and they had got more or loss into a Second Reading debate, but he wanted to get back to the discussion of the Amendment. It was said that they were bound to adopt the Amendment in order to support the honour of their own Government, but that was not so. The Amendment would mean that in the case of 14,000 schools, whatever their equipment or educational efficiency might be, the local authority was to be compelled to take thorn over. That was the meaning of the Amendment in plain English. Then came the question whether they were maintaining their pledges or whether they were trying to pass the Bill under false pretences. The principle of the clause was that the local authority was to decide in those matters, and the question for them was whether they were to turn their backs upon that principle or not. He hoped they would not do so, and if the Government were compelled by a feeble and distracted Opposition to take over every voluntary school, he did not know what their position would be in the country. That was not the issue the Government were sent to office for, and he took this opportunity very respectfully to urge the Government to have regard to their pledges and not to be induced to turn one hair's breadth from the principle they had adopted upon this clause, either in response to approvals from the Liberal side of the Committee or the accusations levelled at them by the Opposition.

LORD R. CECIL

said the hon. Member for Mid Glamorganshire had stated that this Amendment provided that the local education authority was to take over in every case and under all circumstances the voluntary schools. It did no such thing. All the Amendment, as moved, provided was to insert the words "shall continue." It was true, and it had been said over and over again, that the words proposed to be inserted eventually would have the effect of leaving it to the local education authority as to whether a school should be taken over or not. But it had always been the purpose of this Amendment to settle the question in that way. The hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan had said that if the Government gave way on this point they would be turning their backs on the pledges they had given, but unless some such clause as this wore inserted it was impossible to make Clause 3 compulsory. It was therefore impossible for the Government to keep their pledges without some such Amendment as this. They on that side were getting very tired of the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman. The Committee would remember the story of the "Walrus and the Carpenter." At the end of their historic walk the walrus and the carpenter sat down to eat the oysters— '"I weep for you,' the walrus said, ' I deeply sympathise '; With soba and tears he sorted out Those of the largest size. And that was the kind of sympathy they were offered by the right hon. Gentleman. The Committee was entitled to know whether the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy for the voluntary schools was real or not. If hon. Members opposite really wanted to do justice to the voluntary schools they would vote for some such Amendment as this

MR. BELLOC (Salford)

said that as a Member for a constituency in South Lancashire in which there was a dense urban Roman Catholic population, the large majority of which voted for the Government in the last election upon the distinct understanding that the rights that that community now enjoyed should be continued under the law, it was his duty to keep the pledges he made when elected. Unless they could get something more satisfactory from the Government than the declarations of the Minister for Education, he would be compelled upon this occasion, and with great reluctance, to vote in the wrong lobby.

MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, South)

said the Wesleyan Church wished to be left in a position of absolute liberty to deal with their schools as they thought best. It was perfectly obvious that the substitution of the word "shall" for "may" would render it obligatory for the local education authority to purchase denominational schools. Some of the schools of the Wesleyan Church were at this moment conducted in close connection with the church, in buildings which were part and parcel of the churches, in some cases underneath some of their oldest buildings. They might not want, and probably would not want to sell or lease those buildings to the local authority. In many towns they might find it wise not to deal with the education authority at all. They might find it reasonable and preferable to deal with their schools for the use of Sunday schools or to sell them in the open market. They were perfectly willing, while holding this position of perfect freedom, to trust to the justice of the local authority, and they knew they would deal far more fairly with them if they enjoyed this position of liberty.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you exactly where we stand on this Amendment. I wish to ask you how I could best amend the Amendment. Could I do so by adding the words "unless with some good cause, and with the consent of the Board of Education?" I do not argue the Amendment, but I should be glad to know whether it is possible to move it.

*THE CHAIRMAN

That can only be done if and after the words proposed to be left out are left out. The Question I shall put is that the words proposed to be left out stand part, and if they stand part that Amendment of the words proposed to be inserted cannot be moved.

MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)

said he felt very strongly upon this subject, and he desired to regard it not in the light of election pledges, but in the light of trying to deal fairly with the owners. They wanted first of all to find a fair basis of bargain. He maintained that the present position was not a fair basis, and the right hon. Gentleman had put it again and again that the owners would not be bound to get rid of their schools. As a matter of fact they would be bound to get rid of them. They were bound by the money question; they could not get the funds. Was it a fair bargain that the other party might pass them by or say, "You must come in or you will not get the money without which you cannot carry on?" He put it to the Minister for Education that this was a difficulty in regard to which it was the duty of the Government to find a way out. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the difficulty, but he (Mr. Harwood) said it was a matter that the Committee ought to settle for itself under the guidance of the Government and not hand it over to the local education authority. The right hon. Gentleman in his last speech had suggested another reason which ought to make the Committee think very seriously about this matter. Suppose there was enough accommodation in the schools which were undenominational, the local authority might refuse to take over the denominational schools and sweep the children into the undenominational schools. They certainly might do so, but it would be abominable tyranny. Suppose one-third of the parents of the children in a denominational school desired denominational teaching for their children, and suppose in the undenominational school there was accommodation for those children. They had only to throw over the denominational school and do nothing more, and the children would be driven into the undenominational school. Was it a wise thing to throw the apple of discord into all the local elections t Should not Parliament relieve the localities of that and settle the broad lines?

The Minister for Education had said it was difficult; they knew it was difficult, but he would like some word from the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government would consider the problem, provide for the difficulty, and lay down the conditions of a fair bargain.

*MR. STUART (Sunderland)

said he could not vote for this Amendment because he thought it incomplete, but the Bill from beginning to end was in the nature of a compromise, and he urged upon the Government, before this clause was finished, to take into account the fair and reasonable nervousness of Members opposite on this point. He thought the Minister for Education exaggerated the administrative difficulties connected with the proposal of the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division as a substitute for this Amendment, because it referred not to all time in the future, but to an existing set of schools which could be perfectly well dealt with. He urged that this measure, which in many points he did not approve of, should as a compromise not proceed on any hard and fast lines.

MR. ADKINS (Lancashire, Middleton)

hoped the Government would harden their hearts against a good many of the speeches they had heard in this debate. He knew of no precedent which placed upon local authorities compulsorily the duty and the difficulties which the Amendment would put upon them, and he hoped the principle of the Bill as it stood, which left and intended to leave a real discretion to the local authorities, would remain the principle of this clause. Hon. Members opposite must know well that the local education authorities throughout England were singularly free from political and party bias. That was an expression of conscientious belief founded on some experience, not only of some of those authorities but of their representatives in great municipal associations. He believed it to be impossible either for Parliament or for the Minister for Education to deal with every particular detail and possibility that might arise; and if they did not deal with all directly from that House or by a Government Department, they must sooner or later leave the real discretion to the local authorities. As an ordinary Member for an ordinary English constituency which would be affected by the passing of this Bill, he earnestly hoped the Government would not take away from the local authorities that discretion which was their due, and which was necessary if they were to secure to the local authorites the services of the best and the most energetic people.

SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)

said he was only going to make one more appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He desired to ask him, after all that had been said on both sides of the Committee, whether he would not say what was going to be done to meet the general wishes of the Committee; or was he going to tell them that he had said his last word upon this matter? The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the question of allowing some such Amendment as this would necessarily cause some reciprocal Amendment being brought to bear upon the owners and trustees of schools, and he stated in reference to that that there was no compulsion upon them under Clause 8. He entirely disagreed with the view, but would he give a reciprocal right to the owners of schools who were left out of those schemes? Or had he said the last word upon this occasion? He did not think anybody need apologise for continuing the debate for this simple reason, that if this were a debate as to whether or not denominational education should be continued in our national schools, then not one or two or three days would be sufficient to discuss that question. But the question was a much larger one. The question now was not whether the Imperial Parliament should abolish denominational education, but whether they would give the local authorities elected for entirely different purposes, the power to abolish denominational education. Would the Minister of Education tell them that he was not going to make any attempt to meet the difficulties which had been raised, and that it was the policy of the Government that the local educational authorities in this country should have the right to abolish denominational education?

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 313;Noes, 133 (Division List No. 110.)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Crooks, William	Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Adkins, W. Ryland	Crossley, William J.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Agnew, George William	Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.	Hutton, Alfred Eddison
Alden, Percy	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Hyde, Clarendon
Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Armitage, R.	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.	Jackson, R. S.
Asquith.Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Jacoby, James Alfred
Astbury, John Meir	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Jardine, Sir J.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Dobson, Thomas W.	Jenkins, J.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Duckworth, James	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight	Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Barker, John	Edwards Clement (Denbigh)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Kearley, Hudson E.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Elibank, Master of	Kekewich, Sir George'
Barnard, E. B.	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Kincaid-Smith Captain
Beauchamp, E.	Erskine, David C.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Beaumont, W. C.B. (Hexham)	Essex, R. W.	Kitson, Sir James
Beck, A. Cecil	Evans, Samuel T.	Laidlaw, Robert
Bellairs, Carlyon	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Benn, JohnWilliams(Devonp't	Everett, R. Lacey	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.	Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Lambert, George
Berridge, T. H. D.	Fenwick, Charles	Lamont, Norman
Bertram, Julius	Ferens, T. R.	Lawson, Sir.Wilfrid
Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lea, Hugh Cecil(St.Pancras,E.)
Billson, Alfred	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lehmann, R. C.
Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)	Fullerton, Hugh	Levy, Maurice
Black, ArthurW.(Bedfordshire)	Furness, Sir Christopher	Lewis, John Herbert
Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)	Gardner, Col.Alan(Hereford,S.)	Lloyd-George, Rt.Hon. David
Bottomley, Horatio	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lough, Thomas
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Gill, A. H.	Lupton, Arnold
Bramsdon, T. A.	Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Branch, James	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Lynch, H. B.
Bright, J. A.	Gooch, George Peabody	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Brodie, H. C.	Grant, Corrie	Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)
Brooke, Stopford	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)	Greenwood, Hamar (York)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Brunner, SirJohnT.(Cheshire)	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	M'Arthur, William
Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)	Grove, Archibald	M'Callum, John M.
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	M'Crae, George
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	M'Micking, Major G.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Maddison, Frederick
Buxton,Rt.Hon.SydneyCharles	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r	Mallet, Charles E.
Cairns, Thomas	Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Cameron. Robert	Hart-Davies, T.	Mansfield, H.Rendall(Lincoln)
Carr-Gomm, H.W.	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)
Causton, Rt.Hn.RichardKnight	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Marnham, F. J.
Cawley, Frederick	Haworth, Arthur A.	Micklem, Nathaniel
Channing, Francis Allston	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Molteno, Percy Alport
Cheetham, John Frederick	Hedges, A. Paget	Mond, A.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.	Helme, Norval Watson	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Clarke, C. Goddard	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Cleland, J. W.	Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.)	Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Clough, W.	Henry, Charles S.	Morse, L. L.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Murray, James
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Higham, John Sharp	Myer, Horatio
Collins.SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Napier, T. B.
Corbett, CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd	Hodge, John	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Gory, Clifford John.	Holden, E. Hopkinson.	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Holland, Sir William Henry	Nicholls, George
Cowan, W. H.	Hooper, A. G.	Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r
Cremer, William Randal	Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Crombie, John William	Horniman, Emslie John	Nuttall, Harry
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Verney, F. W.
Parker, James (Halifax)	Schwann, Chas.E.(Manchester)	Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Paul, Herbert	Scott,A.H(Ashton-under-Lyne)	Vivian, Henry
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Sears, J. E.	Walker, H. De. R. (Leicester
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Seaverns, J. H.	Wallace, Robert
Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk,Eye)	Shackleton, David James	Walters, John Tudor
Perks, Robert William	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)
Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Wardle, George J.
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Simon, John Allsebrook	Waterlow, D. S.
Pirie, Duncan V.	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Pollard, Dr.	Snowden, P.	Whitbread, Howard
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	White, George (Norfolk)
Price, RobertJohn(Norfolk,E.)	Soares, Ernest J.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire
Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)	Spicer, Albert	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Radford, G. H.	Stanger, H. Y.	Whitehead, Rowland
Rainy, A. Rolland	Steadman, W. C.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Raphael, Herbert H.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Wiles, Thomas
Rendall, Athelstan	Strachey, Sir Edward	Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)
Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n	Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Williamson, A.(Elgin&Nairn)
Rickett, J. Compton	Summerbell, T.	Wills, Arthur Walters
Ridsdale, E. A.	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Wilson, Hon.C.H.W.(Hull,W.)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Wilson, HenryJ.(York, W. R.)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)	Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Robinson, S.	Thomas, SirA.(Glamorgan, E.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr	Winfrey, R.
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Thomasson, Franklin	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Rose, Charles Day	Thompson, J.W.H.(SomersetE	Woodhouse, SirJT(Huddersf'd
Rowlands, J.	Thorne, William	Yoxall, James Henry
Runciman, Walter	Tomkinson, James
Russell, T. W.	Torrance, A. M.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley, and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Toulmin, George
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Searisbrick, T. T. L.	Ure, Alexander
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Harwood, George
Ambrose, Robert	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow	Hayden, John Patrick
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Courthope, G. Lloyd	Hazleton, Richard
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)
Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO.	Craig, CaptainJames(Down,E.)	Hills, J. W.
Ashley, W. W.	Craik, Sir Henry	Hogan, Michael
Balcarres, Lord	Delany, William	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Baldwin, Alfred	Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galw'y	Houston, Robert Paterson
Balfour, RtHnA.J.(CityLond.)	Dillon, John	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnH.
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hon.Col.W
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.	Du Cros, Harvey	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Duncan,Robert(Lanark, Govan	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Blake, Edward	Faber, George Denison (York)	Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareh'm
Boland, John	Faber, Capt W. V.(Hants, W.	Lockwood, Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.
Bowles, G. Stuart	Fardell, Sir T. George	Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Fell, Arthur	Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(DublinS.).
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Field, William	Lundon, W.
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Burke, E. Haviland-	Forster, Henry William	Macpherson, J. T.
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down,S.)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal,E.)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir. Edw H.	Glover, Thomas	M'Killop, W.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Haddock, George R.	Magnus, Sir Philip
Cavendish, Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.	Hambro, Charles Eric	Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hammond, John	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)	Meehan, Patrick A.
Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)	Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.	Hanison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton

Mooney, J. J.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Sullivan, Donal
Muntz, Sir Philip A.	Power, Patrick Joseph	Talbot, Rt,Hn.J.G.(OxfdUniv
Nolan, Joseph	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.	Thornton, Percy M.
O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid	Redmond, John E.(Waterford)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Remnant, James Farquharson	Walsh, Stephen
O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.)	Roberts, S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)	Warde, Col. C. K. (Kent, Mid.)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
O'Hare, Patrick	Salter, Arthur Clavell	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Younger, George
O'Malley, William	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
O'Mara, James	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Seddon, J.
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Smith, F.E.(Liverpool,Walton)
Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington	Star key, John R.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR G. KEKEWICH (Exeter)

, in moving an Amendment to require that the premises of a voluntary school before being taken over should be certified by the Board of Education to be efficient, said he was told that what he was proposing was already provided for in the Bill. It was absolutely essential that the schools taken over by the local education authority should be efficient. After the speech of the hon. Member for North Camberwell no one would doubt that there were still a large number of bad schools which were not conducive to the health of the teachers or the scholars. In rural districts in the old days landlords were allowed to put up any kind of schools they liked. When children were compelled to go to school the State was bound to ensure that the schools were healthy places for them to be in. He could give an instance of a school in Liverpool which ever since 1870 had been unsatisfactory, and which might have been closed any time during that period. That school was so bad that he would rather see the children running the streets than being taught in it. He was told that under the county council now everything was couleur de rose. He happened to be a member of a county council and of the education committee, and there was nothing so difficult as to make a county council take drastic measures with reference to the condition of the schools. If the real education authority was the county council they would have popular control, but under this Bill they had not got it, because the education committees were composed in large part of men placed there not for educational but for political reasons. Education committees were not popular control, and that was why he did not care to give them unlimited authority under this Bill in this particular. The Board of Education was the only authority that could set up a fair standard of buildings to prevail throughout the kingdom. In the past the Board of Education had certified premises which were quite the reverse of efficient, but if they gave them the duty of actually certifying the schools as efficient under the improved administration of his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education he really thought there would be a great improvement effected. He moved this Amendment in the interests of the teachers and scholars and also in the interests of education. It was not a fascinating or heroic Amendment, but it was educational, and if passed it would have the effect of making the lives of both children and teachers happier in the future.

Amendment proposed— ' In page 1, line 12, after the first word 'school,' to insert the words 'the premises of which are certified by the Board of Education to be efficient.'" —(Sir George. Kekewich.)

Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."

*THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,) Islington, W.

said he would give the Committee reasons why the Amendment was unnecessary, and why it would be redundant in the clause. Under the Bill as it stood it was optional for the local education authority to take over any school. In the second place, the consent of the Board of Education was necessary for the taking over of a school under this clause, and the Board would not give that sanction unless it knew the school to be efficient, and he thought that was a complete answer to his hon. friend who had moved this Amendment. The statement that the practice of the Board of Education with regard to the efficiency of schools had been greatly improved was quite correct, and this was largely due to the efforts of those who formed the late Board of Education. The standard of efficiency of the schools had been greatly raised since the year 1902. If under the present law an undesirable school were taken over that might happen if the proposal now made were adopted. Under the circumstances the Amendment was quite unnecessary and redundant. He hoped his hon. friend would not press it further.

LORD BALCARRES

said the terms of the Amendment were somewhat ambiguous. The word "premises" was indefinite, "schoolhouse" being the usual term. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had said the Amendment was superfluous because what was proposed was already provided for in the clause. He said that the substance of what the mover of the Amendment contended for was met in line 14. Did that mean that the Board of Education was under any obligation whatever, before agreeing to a transfer under Clause 2, to grant a certificate that a school was efficient as regarded structure and sanitation?

*MR. LOUGH

That is the law at present.

LORD BALCARRES

said it might be the law at present, but the hon. Member for Exeter had stated that in regard to drains, structure, and so on, it was a dead letter.

*MR. LOUGH

You may have a good law, but you may not have it carried out. The law compels the Board of Education to certify every public elementary school as efficient for the purpose for which it is used.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said it was important that they should know the precise meaning of the clause. The Board of Education had abundant powers to ensure that the sanitary and structural condition of a public elementary school was efficient. He asked the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether the words in the clause referred to the efficiency of the school or to the terms of the arrangement made.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)

said that no school could be a public elementary school at all unless certified by the Board of Education as efficient.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON moved an Amendment with the object of securing greater publicity and more careful inquiry when the local authority and the owners of a school failed to agree on terms. If the parties failed to agree, he said, the Board of Education had to determine, and if the matter went to Whitehall it would be determined in camera. He desired that before settling the matter the Board of Education should hold a local public inquiry. Public inquiries were a very useful means of ventilating the questions which arose from time to time before the Board of Education. If the owners of the schoolhouse and the local authority came to a dead-lock the result would be, he took it, that if the owners were trustees they would go before the Commission, but if they were not there was no tribunal to which they could appeal. His object was that a local inquiry should be held.

Amendment proposed— Clause 2, in page 1, lines 13 and 14, leave out' with the consent of the Board of Education.'" —( Sir W. Anson.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

*MR. LOUGH

said that the Committee had discussed very fully the substance of this Amendment in the earlier part of the day. He thought the words proposed to be on itted were most useful, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would not press his Amendment, which the Government could not possibly accept.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)

said that the Bill allowed a great deal of local option, which he thought in many respects was a very excellent thing, but it might be carried too far, as he understood the local authority could not bind itself in any contract except under seal. He thought that the clause as it stood was most unsatisfactory and would give rise to all sorts of litigation. His Amendment, he believed would avoid that litigation.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, Clause 2, line 15, after 'agreement,' insert 'under seal.'" —(Mr. Ashley.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR W.ROBSON

said that the local authority was a corporation, and no corporation could make any contract at all except under Seal.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. BRIDGEMAN

said that, on behalf of his hon. friend the Member for Finsbury, he wished to move the Amendment on the Paper in order to obviate any question which might alise as to whether the property transferred included not only the school-house but the teacher's house and the playground.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, Clause 2, line 15, leave out the words 'school - house of the.'" —(Mr. Remnant.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

SIR W. ROBSON

said that that point had been decided by the Education Act of 1870. There was no doubt whatever that the word "school-house" included the teacher's house and the playground. No doubt attached to the meaning of the word in the Law Courts.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he agreed with the hon. and learned Solicitor-General that the word "school-house" included teacher's house and the play ground, and he thought that the explanation of the Solicitor-General could be accepted as satisfactory.

LORD BALCARRES

said that up till now there had been some difficulty as to the definition of "school-house," and, notwithstanding his hon. friend's agreement with the Solicitor-General, he thought that now that the existing voluntary schools were to be transferred on unjust terms, it was necessary to have the most precise definition of what constituted a school-house. He did not think the proposal of the Government would work well, and, if the negotiations broke down, hardship would be inflicted. He thought attention should be given to the case of marine schools and other schools of that class. There were a great many public elementary schools which were run as part of orphanages chiefly under conventual management. These belonged to religious communities who picked up hapless waifs and strays and gave them a good home and education. These people lived within the school-house, and also within a convent, where the brothers or sisters also resided. Under the words of the Bill the structure of the school was to be transferred to the local education authority. But they could not, it seemed to him, transfer portions of a building containing fifty or sixty nuns or sisters of mercy, and in which 100 or 150 children resided, to the local education authority. Although these were boarding schools they were also elementary schools and received something from the public Exchequer. He wanted to know whether any special provision was made for such cases as these. He invited the Solicitor-General to say whether some general agreement could not be come to in regard to these marine schools or boarding schools conducted in connection with convents.

*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL,) Lanark, Mid

said that the hon. Member was not in order, as a subsequent portion of the Bill dealt with marine schools and boarding schools. He referred particularly to Section 38.

LORD BALCARRES

said that while it was perfectly true that under Clause 38 the Board of Education reserved the right to pay grants to marine schools, boarding schools in convents and such like institutions, including Dr. Barnardo's Homes and the Royal Hibernian Schools, still, that clause said nothing about the transfer of structures to the county councils or local education authorities.

*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

said the Amendment dealt only with the persons with whom arrangements were to be made and did not raise the question which the noble Lord wished to discuss.

LORD BALCARRES

submitted that the clause dealt with questions concerning the owners of the school and of the school-house. He was dealing with the definition of "school-house," and therefore he thought he was in order.

*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

said the owners of the school and of the school-house appeared to be the same for this purpose. The question as to who ought to be inserted as owners, whether the owners of the school-house or of the school, did not raise the question of the expediency of the merits of the agreement.

LORD BALCARRES

contended that the owners of schools carried on by religious bodies could not be treated in the same manner as the owners of an ordinary village school, or an ordinary urban school.

MR. BRIDGEMAN

said that Clause 3 of the Act of 1870 said that the term "school-house" should include the teacher's dwelling house and the playground, if any. That made it rather doubtful whether, when a teacher's dwelling house was not part of the school and was not within the circuit of the school premises, it could be treated as part of what was to be transferred under this Bill, and about which an agreement could be come to between the local education authority and the owners. There were a great many cases in which there was a house quite apart from the school for the use of the teacher, and he wanted to know, whether, under the Bill, the term school-house would cover the teacher's residence in such cases as these.

SIR W. ROBSON

said there was no doubt about the point. It was the propinquity of the teacher's residence to the neighbourhood in which the children were taught which brought it within the definition of the word "school-house." It did not matter if it were not part of the same building. If the teacher's dwelling house was required for the school it constituted part of the school-house.

*SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

said that Clause 7 of the Act of 1902 provided that the managers should furnish the "school-house" free of any charge except for the teachers dwelling house, if any. What would be the positions of owners and managers as regards this responsibility? In a school with which he was once connected, a house for the teacher was rented for £24 a year. That was really a substantial sum, and he wished to know whether it would be retained by the owners or would pass with the ownership of the school? If the latter the provision was something in the nature of confiscation. This was a matter of great interest to those concerned in the management of schools.

SIR W. ROBSON

said that Section 7 of the Act of 1902 did not in any way alter the definition of "school-house" laid down in Section 3 of the Act of 1870. What it did was to allow a denomination to occupy a teacher's house and to charge the rent upon it separately. This Bill did not affect that arrangement. It simply said that where the parties desired it the teacher's house might come within the meaning of the word "school-house" and be made part of the arrangement, and it was very much in the interest of the voluntary schools that it should be made part of the arrangement.

*SIR FRANCIS POWELL

That is my point.

SIR W. ROBSON

said it was very much to the advantage of the voluntary schools that the teacher's residence should be made part of the arrangement, because if it were not, the voluntary school managers would find that they had on their hands a house governed by a trust, and they might even be obliged to provide a new house, so that the Amendment would work with inconvenience to both parties.

MR. REMNANT (Finsbury, Holborn)

apologised for not being present when his Amendment was called on. As it had been been moved, however, he would only say that he thought it was not an unreasonable one. Everything he had heard since he came into the House led him to that belief, and the explanation given by the Solicitor-General had not removed his objection to the provision of the Bill as it stood.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BRIDGEMAN moved an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Huntingdon providing that the local education authorities might make arrangements with the owners of a voluntary school, not only for the use of the school-house for carrying on a public elementary school, but also "on three days a week free of charge for any other educational purpose." He said that upon this Amendment turned the whole question of the use of the voluntary schools for evening instruction. It was a most important Amendment, and it was a matter of surprise to him that neither the hon. Member in whose name it was on the Paper nor any other supporter of the Government had moved it. The great educational development of the future would be the development of the evening continuation classes in the rural districts, and he saw no provision in the Bill for the purpose of retaining evening school teaching. He thought this Amendment was an extremely important one, and if it was to be passed over and not inserted in the Bill then the Committee was entitled to ask what provision was going to be made in the Bill to allow the owners of these schools to have the use of them for continuation classes. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 17, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'and on three days a week free of charge for any other educational purpose.'"—(Mr. Bridgeman.)

Question proposed, "That those words: be there inserted."

*MR. HART-DAVIES (Hackney, N.)

expressed the opinion that under this Bill the local authorities were not getting sufficient for their money. The Bill had been described as a measure of rural emancipation. He thought it would not be satisfactory if the local authorities did not have a hall in every village in which opinions might be expressed and matters discussed and evening classes held. He considered that not only ought they to have control of the building before hours, when classes were not being held, but that they should have complete control of the building during the five days in which school was carried on in order that they might have complete control of the school in the evening. It was not an unreasonable thing to ask, because everyone knew what difficulty there was for anyone to get the use of the school buildings for the evening when they did not agree with the local clergyman and the local squire. A land reformer, for instance, in some parts of the country could not obtain the use of any building at all in the village for these reasons; he thought the Amendment was one which the Government ought to accept.

MR. LOUGH

said that under the Bill the local education authority would be free to make any arrangements it pleased with the owners of schoolhouses. The provision made under the Act of 1902 for the free use of schools three evenings a week was a set-off against cost of maintenance and other advantages accorded to voluntary schools. An entirely different arrangement was now substituted, and the Government must be just to the owners of schools as well as to the local education authority. The position might be put thus—the owners had the schools, and the local education authority wanted them. In some cases they would be wanted for the mornings and afternoons only, in others for the evenings. For whatever time they might be required stipulation should be made and payment accordingly. He resisted the Amendment.

*SIR FRANCIS POWELL

said he did not think it would be at all wise in the interest of education to be too strict or rigid with regard to this point. There was now so much educational life in our schools that they were constantly being wanted at night for one purpose or other, and from his knowledge of the local educational life in the part of the country with which he was connected it would, in his opinion, be a very great hardship on the owners of these schools if they had to give them up on three nights a week.

MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)

said he desired to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out the words "free of charge." The Bill proposed that the local education authority should have the use of the schools on three nights a week. He submitted that if it was thought necessary that they should have the use of them for that period it should only be given in return for proper remuneration. There was no ground for the use of these schools being granted to the local education authority free of charge on three nights a week. In this Bill the Government were going as far as they could against the owners of the voluntary schools and meting out to them under Clause II. all the injustices already meted out to other classes of the community. There was no precedent for such a clause as this. That being so, when money had been spent at the invitation of Parliament in the prosecution of a particular enterprise, and where for reasons of State the Government took that enterprise over, it was necessary that they should not add to that this extra injustice. The taking over of the schools for three nights a week free of charge was objectionable in the last degree, and if this Amendment was to be accepted at all it should be accepted with the words "free of charge" left out. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— To leave out the words 'free of charge.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'free of charge' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD (Leicester)

thought the words "free of charge" were quite unnecessary in the original Amendment. If the local authorities entered into an arrangement with the owners of the schools they would assuredly contemplate the use of the schools in the evening. He would therefore respectfully advise the mover of the Amendment to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Cambridge University.

MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)

said it might have escaped the attention of some members of the Committee that the clause only enabled a school to be acquired for one purpose, namely, the carrying on of a public elementary school. He thought those who were supporting the Amendment wished for a broader use of the schools. They knew how constantly schools were used with great advantage for other purposes as well. Under the clause as it now stood they would only be able to bargain for the use of the school for the one purpose of teaching children. He appealed for a broader and wider use of these schools out of school hours in the evening or at other times on three days a week.

LORD BALCARRES

pointed out that the Amendment asked for the use of the school on three days a week free of charge. Of course there were not three days available other than those already transferred to the local education authority. Three evenings a week was obviously intended, and the proposal was to carry out in this Bill the statutory requirements of the Act of 1902. The strict interpretation of the proposal would prevent that being done.

MR. BRIDGEMAN

said he was prepared to accept the Amendment to the Amendment.

Question, as amended, proposed,

LORD BALCARRES

said the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education stated that under Section 19 of the Act of 1870 provision could be made for evening schools. He submitted that the hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong. Section 19 of the Act made provision for public elementary education. Evening continuation schools were not public elementary schools at all. He would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider Section 22 of the Act, which stipulated that the expression "elementary school" should not include any school carried on as an evening continuation school under the regulations of the Board of Education. As the clause stood at present the local education authority would be surcharged if they made it a part of the agreement to use the schools for the purpose suggested. It was, therefore, imperative either now or at a later stage for the Government to give way on this point; otherwise it would be impossible to obtain by right the use of the schoolhouse on two or three evenings a week for evening continuation schools.

MR. ROGERS (Wiltshire, Devizes)

did not see why the rights already secured relative to the use of the schoolhouse should be taken away. If the Government would incorporate words in the Bill to maintain this right it would very much strengthen the position of the local education authority. He understood from the speeches made on the subject that the idea of the Bill was that the local education authority should have access to the building during the hours required for elementary education and that the trustees were to have the sole use of the building during other times. If that were the case, surely this Committee ought to define very clearly whether it was intended that the local education authority should have the use of the building for purposes of evening continuation schools or not. Evening schools were a very valuable part of education. If the education authority were going to pay rent partly for the use of the school during the day and partly for its use during the evening, they would have to apportion it between higher and elementary education. It would introduce a great comparison of book-keeping which might easily be saved by words such as those which were in the Act of 1902.

MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD

joined in the appeal to the Government to con- sider this matter. The Bill as drafted, he thought, did not give the local education authority power to make arrangements for evening continuation schools. If he were wrong in that belief perhaps he might be informed wherein the error lay. If he were right, surely it was necessary to confer such power on the local education authority. Those who had been concerned with the administration of educational affairs felt very strongly that in many respects these evening continuation schools were more important than day schools in many parts of the country. He trusted that the Government would meet them in this respect. He was bound to say, however, that he thought the wording of this Amendment was exceedingly awkward. If the Government would give them some assurance that at some subsequent part of the Bill or at the present stage they would provide that evening continuation schools could be arranged for, then the Amendment might very easily be withdrawn.

*COLONEL WILLIAMS

contended that evening continuation schools were already provided for. He objected to mixing up elementary and secondary education, for it was much better to keep them separate as they were at the present time. The county councils had the whiskey money, and they could draw upon the rates, and therefore they would always be able to hire the schools. He did not think they ought to force upon the owners of these schools the obligation of letting their schools for secondary education.

*MR. LOUGH

said the clause as it stood gave full power to make any arrangement with regard to elementary education. If the schools were wanted for other purposes the local education authority had powers under Part II. of the Act of 1902 to acquire them for evening schools and other purposes of higher education and so could deal with the matter. From every standpoint this Amendment was quite unnecessary.

*SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)

said it was no doubt clear that public elementary schools must be provided schools. It was quite a new thing, however, if the restriction was now to be introduced that continuation schools, in order to earn a giant, must be conducted only by the local education authority.

LORD BALCARRES

said he must press the President of the Board of Education to give an answer upon this point. They had been told that the proposal in the Amendment was already provided for in the Bill. The Secretary to the Board of Education had given them three explanations already, all of them different. They were aware that county councils had power to spend money up to a certain limit for the purposes of higher education and evening continuation schools. Consequently the local education authority had the right to hire rooms, but not the rooms in those particular school houses. The ordinary assumption was that the rooms in those school houses were the best equipped for the purpose, and in the Act of 1902 this power was given under Section 22. That section was now to be repealed and it was idle for the hon. Member to say that the local education authority could still secure the use of those school houses.

DR. MACNAMARA

pointed out that, under Section 2 of the Act of 1902, the local authority might take all steps necessary in the way of renting rooms for the purposes of night schools or continuation schools.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the hon. Member did not see that the whole structure of the Act of 1902 was destroyed by the fact that the Bill authorised the education authority to enter into a bargain with the owners of a voluntary school for the use of the school on five days only of the week, leaving the building at the disposal of the owners on two days and every evening. This Bill said that the local authority need not enter into any bargain at all.

MR. BIRRELL

said it was true that under Clause 2 the local authority might acquire, by bargain, the premises for use as a public elementary school. But that did not interfere with the power of the local authority, under existing legislation, to enter into other arrangements for the acquisition of the same premises for the purposes of secondary education. They had left this point at large, and they had left the local authority free to acquire the use of the same premises out of the public elementary school hours.

MR. WYNDHAM

That is not a system of national education, the only plea put forward for this Bill.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)

said the Amendment raised a very important point. He quite understood the point of the Minister of Education. Supposing then an agreement were come to that the local authority should take over a Church of England school in a village where it was the only school, the local authority would be able to use it only as a day school. If they wanted to use any room for continuation classes in the evening they would be able to do so only by making a second bargain with the owners. If the owners refused to make a second bargain the local authority would have to build a new school. In this clause there were not only conditions as to repair, but conditions which the local authority had to undertake in regard to new buildings. If the local authority undertook these conditions surely they ought to have the right to use the school two or three nights a week. It ought not to be left open to a second bargain whether a school might or might not be taken over in the evening for continuation classes for the benefit of the children. If a school was to be taken over in the daytime it ought to be part and parcel of the arrangement that it should be open two or three evenings in the week if the local authority desired so to use it. Under the clause as it stood the owners might refuse to rent the school in the evening, or they might charge an exorbitant rent.

MR. ADKINS

hoped the Minister for Education would be able to meet the views of hon. Members in regard to the matter dealt with in this Amendment. It was contemplated by Clause 2 that wherever a school was taken over by arrangement, those who owned the school should be able to insist on the use of the school two days a week for the special instruction in which they were interested.

All that the supporters of the Amendment asked was that the local authority should be able to use a transferred school on three evenings of the week. That ought not to be the subject of a special bargain. It was only by means of evening continuation classes that the youth in some places could get the better education which did not come under the definition "elementary," and it was absolutely vital that accommodation should be available.

*SIR HENRY CRAIK

said the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education had not answered the question he asked as to whether voluntary managers might receive

grants for continuation classes, or whether these grants were to be confined to schools provided by the local education authority.

MR. BIRRELL

said that question did not arise on this Amendment. Evening continuation classes were not part of elementary education at all. The Bill did not propose to alter the conditions in any way except in regard to public elementary schools.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes, 335. (Division List No. 111.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood,RtHnSir Alex.F	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central
Adkins, W. Ryland	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Remnant, James Farquharson
Allen, A.Acland(Christchurch)	Gill, A. H.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Glover, Thomas	Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall)
Balcarres, Lord	Haddock, George R.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hambro, Charles Eric	Rothschild, Hon. LionelWalter
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester	Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Barnes, G. N.	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hart-Davies, T.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Bertram, Julius	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Shackleton, David James
Bowles, G. Stewart	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Hervey, FW.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds	Smith, F.E.(Liverpool,Walton)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Snowden, P.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)	Steadman, W. C.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Hodge, John	Summerbell, T.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Cheetham, John Frederick	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Clough, W.	Jowett, F. W.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Kekewich, Sir George	Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark
Cooper, G. J.	Kennaway, Rt.Hon.SirJohn H.	Thorne, William
Courthope, G. Lloyd	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Thornton, Percy M.
Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Verney, F. W.
Craig, Captain James(Down,E.)	Lee, Arthur H(Hants.,Fareham	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Crooks, William	Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham	Walsh, Stephen
Dobson, Thomas W.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Whitbread, Howard
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Marks, H. H. (Kent)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Du Cros, Harvey	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton	Younger, George
Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Govan	Morpeth, Viscount
Faber, George Denison (York)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Bridgeman and Mr. Hutton.
Fell, Arthur	Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Forster, Henry William	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
NOES
Abraham, William (Cork.N.E.	Atherley-Jones, L.	Beauchamp, E.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)	Beck, A. Cecil
Agnew, George William	Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Bell, Richard
Alden, Percy	Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight	Bellairs, Carlyon
Ambrose, Robert	Barker, John	Benn, John Williams(Devonp't
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Barlow,John Emmott(Somerset	Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.
Armitage, R.	Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Bennett, E. N.
Asquith, Rt.Hn.HerbertHenry	Barnard, E. B.	Berridge, T. H. D.
Astbury, John Meir	Beale, W. P.	Bethell,J.H.(Essex,Romford)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Lynch, H. B.
Billson, Alfred	Field, William	Macdonald, J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs.
Birrell, Rt.Hon. Augustine	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Maclean, Donald
Black,ArthurW.(Bedfordshire)	Fuller, John Michael F.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Blake, Edward	Fullerton, Hugh	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Boland, John	Furness, Sir Christopher	Macpherson, J. T
Bolton,T.D.(Derbyshire,N.E.)	Gardner, Col.Alan(Hereford,S.)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsay)	Gibb, James (Harrow)	MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal, E.
Brace, William	Gladstone,Rt. Hn. Herbert John	M'Arthur, William
Bramsdon, T. A.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Callum, John M.
Branch, James	Gooch, George Peabody	M'Crae, George
Brigg, John	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Killop, W.
Bright, J. A.	Greenwood, Hamar (York)	M'Micking, Major G.
Brodie, H. C.	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Maddison, Frederick
Brooke, Stopford	Grove, Archibald	Mallet, Charles E.
Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Brunner, Sir John T.(Cheshire)	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln
Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)	Hammond, John	Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Marnham, F. J.
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Meagher, Michael
Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)	Meehan, Patrick A.
Burt,'Rt. Hon. Thomas	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Micklem, Nathaniel
Buxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Byles, William Pollard	Haworth, Arthur A.	Mond, A.
Cairns, Thomas	Hayden, John Patrick	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Cameron, Robert	Hazelton, Richard	Montgomery, H. H.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hedges, A. Paget	Mooney, J. J.
Causton.Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Helme, Norval Watson	Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen
Cawley, Frederick	Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen.W.	Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Chance, Frederick William	Henry, Charles S.	Morse, L. L.
Channing, Francis Allston	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Higham, John Sharp	Murray, James
Clarke, C. Goddard	Hobart, Sir Robert	Myer, Horatio
Cleland, J. W.	Hogan, Michael	Napier, T. B
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Holden, E. Hopkinson	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth	Holland, Sir William Henry	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hooper, A. G.	Nicholls, George
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r
Corbett,CH.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd	Horniman, Emslie John	Nolan, Joseph
Cory, Clifford John	Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Norman, Henry
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cowan, W. H.	Hyde, Clarendon	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Cremer, William Raudal	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Nuttall, Harry
Crombie, John William	Jacoby, James Alfred	O' Brien, Kendal(Tipperary,Mid
Crosfield, A. H.	Jardine, Sir J.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Crossley, William J.	Jenkins, J.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Delany, William	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.	O'Hare, Patrick
Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway	Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Kelly James (Roscommon.N.
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	O'Malley, William
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	King, Alfred John(Knutsford	O'Mara, James
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Laidlaw, Robert	Paul, Herbert
Dillon, John	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Lambert, George	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Duckworth, James	Lamont, Norman	Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid	Pease Herbert Pike(Darlington
Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Perks, Robert William
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Leese,Sir JosephF. (Accrington)	Philipps, Col.Ivor (S'thampton)
Elibank, Master of	Lehmann, R. C.	Philipps,J. Wynford (Pembroke
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Erskine, David C.	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral	Pirie, Duncan V.
Essex, R. W.	Levy, Maurice	Pollard, Dr.
Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lewis, John Herbert	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Everett, R. Lacey	Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Lough, Thomas	Price, Robert Jn. (Norfolk, E.
Fardell, Sir. T. George	Lundon, W.	Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Fenwick, Charles	Lupton, Arnold	Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford.E.
Ferens, T. R.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Radford, G. H.

Raphael, Herbert H.	Silcook, Thomas Ball	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Simon, John Allsebrook	Wardle, George J.
Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Rees, J. D.	Smith, Hon. W.F.D. (Strand)	Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)
Rendall, Athelstan	Soares, Ernest J.	Waterlow, D. S.
Renton, Major Leslie	Spicer, Albert	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th	Stanger, H. Y.	White, George (Norfolk)
Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Rickett, J. Compton	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Ridsdale, E. A.	Strachey, Sir Edward	Whitehead, Rowland
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Robertson, Rt.Hn.E.(Dundee)	Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf'd	Sullivan, Donal	Wiles, Thomas
Robertson, J. M.(Tyneside)	Talbot.Rt HnJ.G. (Oxf'dUniv.	Wilkie, Alexander
Robinson, S.	Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset,W.)
Rose, Charles Day	Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)
Rowlands, J.	Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.)	Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)
Russell, T. W.	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr	Wills, Arthur Walters
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Thomasson, Franklin	Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)
Samuel, S. M (Whitechapel)	Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset, E	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	Tomkinson, James	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Torrance, A. M.	Wilson,J.W. (Worcestersh. N)
Schwann,Chas.E. (Manchester)	Toulmin, George	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Scott, A. H. (Ashton-und.-Lyue	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Winfrey, R.
Sears, J. E.	Ure, Alexander	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Seaverns, J. H.	Villiers, Ernest Amherst	Yoxall, James Henry
Seddon, J.	Vivian, Henry
Seely, Major J. B.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)	Wallace, Robert
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Walters, John Tudor

MR. REMNANT

said he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment standing in his name. At present arrangements might be made one day and changed the next, and his Amendment was designed to obviate, as far as possible, any hardship which might be inflicted on the owners of the schools.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 17, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'for a period of not less than three or more than seven years.'" —(Mr. Remnant).

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. BIRRELL

said he could not agree that the hands of the local authorities or of the trustees should be tied in this particular manner, as the policy of the Bill was that they should have a perfect opportunity of making their own bargain as they thought fit, either for a long or short period. They could make their own arrangements for three, four, five, six or seven years, and he did not see why any restriction should be put upon them.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 84; Noes, 377. (Division List No. 112.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood.Rt Hn Sir Alex. F	Carlile, E. Hildred	Faber, George Denison (York)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Castlereagh, Viscount	Fardell, Sir T. George
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Cave, George	Fell, Arthur
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cavendish.Rt, Hn. Victor C.W.	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.
Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Fletcher, J. S.
Ashley, W. W.	Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Forster, Henry William
Balcarres, Lord	Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)
Balfour.Rt Hn A.J.(CityLond.)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham	Haddock, George R.
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester	Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A.E.	Hambro, Charles Eric
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Courthope, G. Loyd	Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim S.	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.
Bowles, G. Stewart	Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Hervey, FWF(Bury,StE'munds
Boyle, Sir Edward	Craik, Sir Henry	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Hill, Henry (Staveley (Staff'sh)
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Du Cros, Harvey	Hornby, Sir William Henry
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan	Kennaway,Rt. Hn. Sir John H.
Kenyon-Slaney,Bt. Hn. Col.W.	Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield	Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf dUniv.
King,Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)	Nield, Herbert	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich;	Parker,Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)	Thornton, Percy M.
Lee,ArthurH. (Hants.,Farehm	Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington	Valentia, Viscount
Lockwood, Rt. Hn Lt-Col.A.R.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Long, Rt. Hn Walter(Dublin,S)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Magnus, Sir Philip	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter	Younger, George
Marks, H. H. (Kent)	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Remnant and Mr. Claude Hay.
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Morpeth, Viscount	Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Muntz, Sir Philip A.	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork.N.E,	Burke, E. Haviland-	Everett, R. Lacey
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Faber, G. H. (Boston)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Fenwick, Charles
Adkins, W. Ryland	Buxton, Rt. Hn.Sydney Chas.	Ferens, T. R.
Agnew, George William	Byles, William Pollard	Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Ainsworth. John Stirling	Cairns, Thomas	Field, William
Alden, Percy	Cameron, Robert	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Ambrose, Robert	Causton.Rt.Hn.Richard Knight	Fuller, John Michael F.
Ambrose, Robert	Cawley, Frederick	Fullerton, Hugh
Asquith, Rt. Hn.Herbert Henry	Chance, Frederick William	Furness, Sir Christopher
Astbury, John Meir	Channing, Francis Allston	Gardner.Col.Alan (Hereford, S.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Cheetham, John Frederick	Gibb, James (Harrow)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Gill, A. H.
Baker, Joseph A(Finsbury, E.)	Clarke, G Goddard	Gladstone.Rt.Hn.Herbert John
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Cleland, J. W.	Glover, Thomas
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight	Clough, W.	Goddard, Daniel Ford
Barker, John	Cobbold, Felix Tornley	Gooch, George Peabody
Barlow, Jn. Emmott (Somerset	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Greenwood, G. Peterborough)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Collins,SirW. J. (S.Pancras, W.	Greenwood, Hamar (York)
Barnard, E. B.	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Barnes, G. N.	Cooper, G. J.	Grove, Archibald
Beale, W. P.	Corbett, A Cameron (Glasgow)	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Beauchamp, E.	Corbett,CH.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne	Cory, Clifford John	Hammond, John
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis
Beck, A. Cecil	Cowan, W. H.	Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)
Bell, Richard	Cremer, William Randal	Hardy, George A.(Suffolk)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Crombie, John William	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r
Benn, Jn. Williams (Devonport	Crooks, William	Hart-Davies, T.
Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.	Crosfield, A. H.	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Bennett, E. N.	Crossley, William J.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Davies,David (MontgomeryCo.	Haworth, Arthur A.
Bertram, Julius	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Bethell, J.H. (Essex,Romford)	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Hazleton, Richard
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Delany, William	Heaton, John Henniker
Billson, Alfred	Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway	Hedges, A. Paget
Birrell, Rt.Hon. Augustine	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Helme, Norval Watson
Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff.)	Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Henderson, J.M(Aberdeen, W.)
Blake, Edward	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Henry, Charles S.
Boland, John	Dillon, John	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.	Dobson, Thomas W.	Higham, John Sharp
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Hobart, Sir Robert
Brace, William	Duckworth, James	Hodge, John
Bramsdon, T. A.	Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)	Hogan, Michael
Branch, James	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Holden, E. Hopkinson
Brigg, John	Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)	Holland, Sir William Henry
Bright, J. A.	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Hooper, A. G.
Brodie, H. C.	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Brooke, Stopford	Ellibank, Master of	Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.
Brunner,J.F.L. (Lancs. Leigh)	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Horniman, Emslie John
Brunner,Sir John T.(Cheshire)	Erskine, David C.	Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Essex, R. W.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Hyde, Clarendon	Nicholls, George	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster	Shaw,Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)
Jacoby, James Alfred	Nolan, Joseph	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Jardine, Sir J.	Norman, Henry	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Jenkins, J.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Nuttall, Harry	Snowden, P.
Jones,David Brynmor (Swansea	O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)	Soares, Ernest J.
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Spicer, Albert
Jones,William (Carnarvonshire	O'Connor, James (Wicklow.W.)	Stanger, H. Y.
Jowett, F. W.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N)	Steadman, W. C.
Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Kekewich, Sir George	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Stewart-Smith, D.(Kendal)
Kincaid-Smith, Captain	O'Dowd, John	Strachey, Sir Edward
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	O'Grady, J.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Laidlaw, Robert	O'Hare, Patrick	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Lamb,Edmund G. (Leominster	O'Kelly,James(Roscommon, N.	Sullivan, Donal
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	O'Malley, William	Summerbell, T.
Lambert, George	O'Mara, James	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Lamont, Norman	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid	Parker, James (Halifax)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclliffe)
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Paul, Herbert	Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)
Lea, Hugh Cecil(StPancras, E.)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Leese,SirJoseph F.(Accrington)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Lehmann, R. C.	Pearson, Sir W. D.(Colchester)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan.E.)
Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich)	Perks, Robert William	Thomas.DavidAlfred (Merthyr)
Lever,W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)	Philipps, Col.Ivor(S'thampton)	Thomasson, Franklin
Levy, Maurice	Philipps,J. Wynford(Pembroke	Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset E.
Lewis, John Herbert	Philipps,Owen C.(Pembroke)	Thorne, William
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Tomkinson, James
Lough, Thomas	Pirie, Duncan V.	Torrance, A. M.
Lundon, W.	Pollard, Dr.	Toulmin, George
Lupton, Arnold	Power, Patrick Joseph	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lutterell, Hugh Fownes	Price, C.E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Ure, Alexander
Lynch, H. B.	Price, Rbt. John (Norfolk, E.)	Verney, F. W.
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)	Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)	Priestley,W.E.B. (Bradford, E.	Vivian, Henry
Mackarness, Frederic C.	Radford, G. H.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Maclean, Donald	Rainy, A. Holland	Wallace, Robert
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Walsh, Stephen
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Walters, John Tudor
Macpherson, J. T.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S	Rees, J. D.	Wardle, George J.
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Rendall, Athelstan	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
M'Arthur, William	Renton, Major Leslie	Wason, Jn.Cathcart (Orkney)
M'Callum, John M.	Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th	Waterlow, D. S.
M'Crae, George	Rickett, J. Compton	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
M'Killop, W.	Ridsdale, E. A.	Whitbread, Howard
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	White, George (Norfolk)
M'Micking, Major G.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire)
Maddison, Frederick	Roberts, John H.(Denbighs.)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Mallet, Charles E.	Robertson.Rt.Hn. E. (Dundee)	Whitehead, Rowland
Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Robertsou Sir G.Scott (Bradf'rd)	Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)
Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln	Robertson, J. M.(Tyneside)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)	Robinson, S.	Wiles, Thomas
Marnham, F. J.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Wilkie, Alexander
Meagher, Michael	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Meehan, Patrick A.	Rose, Charles Day	Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)
Micklem, Nathaniel	Rowlands, J.	Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)
Mond, A.	Runciman, Walter	Wills, Arthur Walters
Money, L. G. Chiozza-	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Montgomery, H. H.	Samuel,Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Mooney, J. J.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough
Morgan,J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	Wilson,J.W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Morrell, Philip	Schwann, Chas E (Manchest'r	Winfrey, R.
Morse, L. L.	Scott,AH (Ashton under Lyne)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Murray, James	Sears, J. E.	Yoxall, James Henry
Myer, Horatio	Seaverns, J. H.
Napier, T. B.	Seddon, J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Seely, Major J. B.
Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)	Shackleton, David James

Question put, and agreed to.

*MR. CAVE

said he would not detain the Committee long. The Bill proposed that wherever an arrangement was made the local education authority might make 'fresh arrangements'. He desired it to be made perfectly clear that when an arrangement was coming to an end it might be merely renewed, and that it would not be necessary to enter into a different arrangement. It was with that object he moved the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed— Page 1, line 17, after the word 'requires,' to insert the words 'renew any such arrangements or.'"—(Mr. Cave.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. BIRRELL

said there was no objection to the Amendment if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it an improvement. He did not think, however, that it was necessary.

LORD BALCARRES

said that under this Amendment the question of renewing arrangements came up for the first time. Would the right hon. Gentleman say if in the text of the Bill there was any limitation placed on either the local education authority or the trustees or owners of the schools with regard to the frequency with which these arrangements could be drawn up. Under Clause 4 the local education authority might refuse the special facilities until six months notice had been given. But under Clause 2 as it stood, there was nothing to prevent a local education authority which wished to act in a vexatious manner from saying, six weeks after an arrangement had been arrived at, that they would refuse to continue it. Was that the case—because, while he trusted that the bulk of the local education authorities would act fairly, nobody knew better than the President of the Board of Education, who was at the present moment in conflict with one of them, having put the law into force against the local education authority of the West Riding of Yorkshire, that there were cases whore local authorities did act harshly and capriciously towards the owners of the voluntary schools. As the clause now stood there was nothing to prevent the local education authority tearing up an agreement six weeks after it had come to an arrangement. They would never have any ordinary lease drafted upon such terms as were laid down in Clause 2, and he should like to know whether an agreement under this clause could not be capriciously destroyed within a few weeks of its completion.

MR. BIRRELL

said there was no such possibility. If they came to such a bargain by what means could the local authority calmly say that they considered the agreement at an end? The agreement would have to be carried out according to its terms, and after the expiration of the term agreed upon a new arrangement might be made. That was why he said that there was no substantial difference between the clause as drafted and the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

agreed that this was not a question of great substance, but of appropriate drafting. He hoped the Minister for Education would not feel that any insult was being directed against him when he suggested that his own intentions would be more fully carried out if he accepted this Amendment which he had admitted made no difference in the substance of the Bill.

*MR. CAVE

said he gathered from the remarks of the Minister for Education that he had really no objection to this Amendment, and he trusted that he would, accept it.

MR. BIRRELL

said he thought perhaps the Amendment was a slight improvement upon the drafting of the Bill, and he had no objection to accepting it.

*MR. THORNTON (Clapham)

proposed further to amend the clause by inserting the words, "such arrangements, including agreement to pay annual and substantial rent to the owner or owners, of the schoolhouse." His object was to make sure that the owners of the schools would not be put off with a mere peppercorn rent. He was aware that the word "arrangement" was said to include rent, but in order to make the matter perfectly clear he had left his Amendment upon the Paper. Those with the clearest right to speak on behalf of the Anglican schools had unitedly declared that they never instituted these for the purpose of acquiring rent, but that pious donors in the past had in their minds the religious training of the children and believed they were the initiators of abiding foundations. If they were going to be compelled to let their schools they had nevertheless a right to ask that the arrangement should involve the payment of an absolutely substantial rent to the owners of the schoolhouses. If the Bill was not altered it would be necessary for them to provide fresh teachers in denominational schools, and that could not be done without some preparation and money. Surely this was the moment for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education to speak out clearly, saying what the monetary effect of these "arrangements" would be, when taken in connection with Part II., dealing with educational trusts, and how much of the £1,000,000 annual grant would be available to satisfy the claim of those leasing Anglican schools. He spoke of these, because after the Act of 1870 the schools of Roman Catholics, Jews, and Wesleyans were treated according to their trusts as existing to further the purposes of their own denominations, while the Church of England having undertaken to educate the poor in the doctrine of the Church of England was not permitted to receive more rent than 5 shillings a year for each transfer. Surely then there was reason to ask of the Government to cease speaking in generalities and give particulars which might remove the anxiety from the present owners' minds, fixed as they were on what happened in 1870. They ought to make it quite clear in the Bill that they were not going to be put off with a mere peppercorn rent, and that a substantial payment would be paid for the use of the schools. He thought it was very necessary that this point should be cleared up at this stage of the proceedings. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 18, after the word 'manner,' to insert the words 'such arrangements, includ- ing agreement to pay annual and substantial rent to the owner or owners of the school -house.'" —(Mr. Thornton).

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR W. ROBSON

said that under this agreement it would be open to the authorities to make any agreement they liked in regard to rent, and no doubt the amount of rent would depend upon considerations which it was impossible to specify in the Bill. It must be left to the parties to make any agreement they thought fit.

MR. RAWLINSON

said they wished to make it clear that there was no intention to take advantage of a clause in a trustee deed which prevented the trustees from taking rent, or to take away the grant by a scheme framed under Part II. of the Bill. That would be paying rent with one hand and taking it back again with the other, which he believed was contrary to the intention of the Government. This Amendment was intended to set these doubts at rest, and make it perfectly clear that by this Bill the owners of the schools should receive a substantial rent.

SIR W. ROBSON

said that if the local authority desired a school, and the rent asked for seemed to be a proper rent to pay, then the trustees, notwithstanding anything in a trust deed, would be in a position to receive the rent. If the rent could not be agreed upon, the Commissioners might fix the rent under Clause 8.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that after the passing of the Act of 1870 the Education Department laid down a rule that when a school was transferred to a school board only a peppercorn rent should be paid. That was not a statutory requirement but an administrative rule which had no legislative sanction, and had never been embodied in any Act of Parliament. What his hon. friend was afraid of was that some new rule of a similar kind might be adopted under circumstances which were not dissimilar to those under which this rule was made before. The Government claimed that the transfer in all cases was voluntary. A voluntary transfer under the Act of 1870 could be done through the Education Department in such a way as to prevent a transferred school having any rent except a mere peppercorn rent. They desired to put into this Bill some security that such an injustice should not be done.

MR. BIRRELL

said there was no such intention in the mind of the Government. They contemplated that a rent would be demanded, and there would be nothing in the administration of his Department to support the idea that a peppercorn rent should be the basis of these bargains. While the Government contemplated that a rent would be one of the subjects of bargaining, they did not wish to stipulate that a rent should in every case be paid.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said nothing could be fairer than the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that, in view of what happened after the passing of the Act of 1870, something should be put into the clause. The word "substantial" might preclude a bargain which would be perfectly fair, and he did not think that word should be put in. He suggested that the word "fair" or "adequate" should be inserted so as to prevent the administrative abuses which grew up thirty years ago.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that having the example of the 1870 Act before them, something should be put in to prevent what happened then.

MR. NIELD (Middlesex, Ealing)

said if there was one thing more than another which justified them in pressing the Amendment to a division it was the experience of the 1870 Act and the practice which had grown up to regard a peppercorn rent as the basis for user of the school building. He would remind the President of the Board of Education that the schools which were transferred under that Act were trans-

ferred voluntarily, and that the owners who transferred them were satisfied that the provisions of their School Trust, deeds (in the main British schools) as to religious teaching were amply secured because those provisions were practically identical with those of the Cowper-Temple clause. Whatever might be said about the proceedings under this Bill being by arrangement, it must be remembered that in districts where there was only one school, the local education authorities, with the aid of the Board of Education, would put an end to denominational schools. It was, therefore, of the utmost necessity to denominations that words should be put into the Bill to ensure that in future an adequate rent should be paid. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education had declared that his writings on the subject of the inalienable right of parents to insist on the denominational teaching of their children was written ironically, but he ventured respectfully to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Committee to the advice given by the President in lectures undertaken and delivered by him at the request of the Council of Legal Education to law students upon the rights and duties of trustees. He hoped it would not be said that this advice was not the deliberate opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the position of trustees in relation to breaches of trust. In these lectures the President stated that when trustees were invited to commit breaches of trust they should barricade themselves behind their trust deeds and refuse to budge an inch. To maintain the attitude of non possumus.

MR. BIRRELL

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 333; Noes, 122 (Division List No. 113.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Ainsworth, John Stirling	Armstrong, W. C. Heaton
Acland, Francis Dyke	Alden, Percy	Astbury, John Meir
Adkins, W. Ryland	Allen, A. Acland (Christch.)	Atherley-Jones, L.
Agnew, George William	Armitage, R.	Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury.E.	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Dobson, Thomas W.	Kitson, Sir James
Barker, John	Duckworth, James	Laidlaw, Robert
Barlow, John Emmott(Som's't	Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leom'ster
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Barnard, E. B.	Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)	Lambert, George
Barnes, G. N.	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Lamont, Norman
Beale, W. P.	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid
Beauchamp, E.	Elibank, Master of	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Beaumont, Hubert (Eastb'rne	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lea,Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.).
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham	Erskine, David C.	Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington
Beck, A. Cecil	Essex, R. W.	Lehmann, R. C.
Benn, John Williams (D'v'np't	Evans, Samuel T.	Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich).
Benn, W. (T' w'r H'ml'ts.S.Geo.	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire. Wirral
Bennett, E. N.	Everett, R. Lacey	Levy, Maurice
Berridge, T. H. D.	Fenwick, Charles	Lewis, John Herbert
Bertram, Julius	Ferens, T. R.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romf'd)	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Lough, Thomas
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lupton, Arnold
Billson, Alfred	Fuller, John Michael F.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Fullerton, Hugh	Lynch, H. B.
Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)	Furness, Sir Christopher	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)	Gardner,Col. Alan(Hereford,S.)	Macdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs
Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire.N.E.	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Gill, A. H.	Maclean, Donald
Brace, William	Glover, Thomas	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Macpherson, J. T.
Branch, James	Gooch, George Peabody	M'Callum, John M.
Brigg, John	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Crae, George
Bright, J. A.	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Brodie, H. C.	Grove, Archibald	M'Laren, H.D. (Stafford, W.)
Brooks, Stopford	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	M'Micking, Major G.
Brunner,J.F.L. (Lanes.,Leigh)	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Maddison, Frederick
Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Mallet, Charles E.
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness B'ghs	Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Mansfield,H.Rendall (Lincoln)
Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Harmstworh, Cecil B. (Worc'r	Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Hart-Davies, T.	Marnham, F. J.
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Micklem, Nathaniel
Byles, William Pollard	Harwood, George	Mond, A.
Cairns, Thomas	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Money, L. G. Chiozza-
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Montgomery, H. H.
Causton.Rt.Hn.Richard Knight	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Morgan,J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Cawley, Frederick	Hedges, A. Paget	Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Chance, Frederick William	Helme, Norval Watson	Morrell, Philip
Channing, Francis Allston	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Morse, L. L.
Cheetham, John Frederick	Henry, Charles S.	Murray, James
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Napier, T. B.
Clarke, C. Goddard	Higham, John Sharp	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Cleland, J. W.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Clough, W.	Hodge, John	Nicholls, George
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Holden, E. Hopkinson	Nicholson,Charles N.(Donc'str.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Holland, Sir William Henry	Norman, Henry
Collins, Sir W.J.(S.Pancras, W.	Hooper, A. G.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cooper, G. J.	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Nussey, Thomas Willians
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Hope, W.Bateman(Som'rs't,N.	Nuttall, Harry
Corbett,C.H. (Sussex,E.Gr'st'd	Horniman, Emslie John	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Cory, Clifford John	Horridge, Thomas Gardner	O'Grady, J.
Cotton, Sir H, J. S.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Parker, James (Halifax)
Cowan, W. H.	Hyde, Clarendon	Paul, Herbert
Cremer, William Randall	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Crombie, John William	Jacoby, James Alfred	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Crooks, William	Jardine, Sir J.	Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)
Crosfield, A. H.	Jenkins, J.	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'th'mpt'n;
Crossley, William J.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke
Davies,David (MontgomeryCo.	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Davies,Timothy (Fulham)	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.	Pirie, Duncan V.
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jowett, F. W.	Pollard, Dr.
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Kearley, Hudson E.	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh.Central
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Kekewich, Sir George	Price,Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)	Shackleton, David James	Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Vivian, Henry
Radford, G. H.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Rainy, A. Rolland	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Wallace, Robert
Raphael, Herbert H.	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Walsh, Stephen
Rea, Walter Russell(Scorboro')	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Walters, John Tudor
Rees, J. D.	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Rendall, Athelstan	Snowden, P.	Wardle, George J.
Renton, Major Leslie	Soares, Ernest J.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th	Spicer, Albert	Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)
Rickett, J. Compton	Stanger, H. Y.	Waterlow, D. S.
Ridsdale, E. A.	Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Steadman, W. C.	Whitbread, Howard
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	White, George (Norfolk)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
RobertsonRt.Hn.E. (Dundee)	Strachey, Sir Edward	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradford	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Whitehead, Rowland
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Robinson, S.	Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Summerbell, T.	Wiles, Thomas
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Wilkie, Alexander
Rose, Charles Day	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Rowlands, J.	Taylor,Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)
Runciman, Walter	Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)	Williamson,A.(Elgin and Nairn
Russell, T. W.	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen.E.)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Samuel,Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan.E.)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Thomas, David Alfred (M'rth'r	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	Thompson, J.W.H. (Som'rs't,E	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh.N.
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Thorne, William	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester	Tomkinson, James	Winfrey, R.
Scott,A.H. (Ashtonunder Lyne)	Torrance, A. M.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Sears, J. E.	Toulmin, George	Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (H'd'rsf' d
Seaverns, J. H.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Seddon, J.	Ure, Alexander	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Seely, Major J. B.	Verney, F. W.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.	Delany, William	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Ambrose, Robert	Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw.	Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Dillon, John	Long, Rt.Hn.Walter (Dublin.S
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Lundon, W.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn. Hugh O.	Du Cros, Harvey	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.
Ashley, W. W.	Duncan, Robert (Lanark,G' v'n	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.
Balcarres, Lord	Faber, George Denison (York)	M'Killop, W.
Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J. (CityLond.	Fardell, Sir T. George	Magnus, Sir Philip
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Fell, Arthur	Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Baring, Hon. Guy(Winchester)	Field, William	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Meagher, Michael
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Fletcher, J. S.	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Boland, John	Forster, Henry William	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bowles, G. Stewart	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Mooney, J. J.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hambro, Charles Eric	Nicholson,Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Hammond, John	Neild, Herbert
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hardy, Laurence (Kent,Ashf'd	Nolan, Joseph
Carlile, E. Hildred	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hay, Hon. Claude George	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cave, George	Hazleton, Richard	O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.
Cavendish, Rt. Hn.Victor C.W.	Heaton, John Henniker	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hervey,F.W.F. (Bury S.E'm'ds	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	O'Dowd, John
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	O'Hare, Patrick
Chamberlain,Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.	Hills, J. W.	O'Kelly, James (Roscom'n, N.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hogan, Michael	O'Malley, William
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hornby, Sir William Henry	O'Mara, James
Courthope, G. Loyd	Kennaway, Rt. Hn.Sir John H	O' Shaughnessy, P. J.
Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.	Kenyon-Slaney,Rt. Hn.Col.W.	Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Craig,Captain James (Down.E.	Keswick, William	Power, Patrick Joseph
Craik, Sir Henry	King,SirHenrySeymour (Hull)	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Remnant, James Farquharson	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk	Wortley. Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart-
Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter	Starkey John R.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Rutherford, John (Lancashire)	Sullivan, Donal	Younger, George
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)	Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G. (Oxfd Un.
Salter, Arthur Clavell	Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Thornton, Percy M.
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 87; Noes, 370. (Division List No. 114.)

AYES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Faber, George Denison (York)	Nield, Herbert
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Fardell, Sir T. George	Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Fell, Arthur	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Ashley, W. W.	Fletcher, J. S.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Balcarres, Lord	Forster, Henry William	Roberts,S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(City Lond	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter-
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester	Hambro, Charles Eric	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hardy,Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds	Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsby)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Hill, Henry Staveley (Staffsh.	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hills, J. W.	Starkey, John R.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hornby, Sir William Henry	Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G. (Oxf'd Un.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Kennaway.Rt. Hn. Sir John H.	Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark
Cave, George	Kenyon-Slaney,Rt. Hn. Col.W.	Thornton, Percy M.
Cavendish.Rt.Hn.Victor C. W.	Keswick, William	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	King,Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Warde,Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Long,Col.Charles.W. (Evesham)	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Chamberlain.Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Dublin.S.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Magnus, Sir Philip	Younger, George
Courthope, G. Loyd	Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Craig,CaptainJames (Down.E.)	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Craik, Sir Henry	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Duncan Robert (Lanark,Govan	Nicholson,Wm. G. (Petersfield)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.	Barlow, John Emmott (S'm'rs't	Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Boland, John
Acland, Francis Dyke	Barnard, E. B.	Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire.N.E.
Adkins, W. Ryland	Barnes, G. N.	Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey).
Agnew, George William	Beale, W. P.	Brace, William
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Beauchamp, E.	Bramsdon, T. A.
Alden, Percy	Beaumont,Hubert (Eastbourne	Branch, James
Allen, A. Acland (Christch.	Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Brigg, John
Ambrose, Robert	Beck, A. Cecil	Bright, J. A.
Armitage, R.	Benn, John Williams (D' v'np't	Brodie, H.
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Benn,W. (T''w'r' H'ml'ts,S.Geo	Brooke, Stopford
Astbury, John Meir	Bennett, E. N.	Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)
Atherley-Jones, L.	Berridge, T. H. D.	Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Bertram, Julius	Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghss
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.	Bethell,J.H. (Essex, Romford	Buckmaster, Stanley O.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Burnyeat, J. D. W.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight	Billson, Alfred	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Barker, John	Black Alexander Wm. (Banff)	Buxton, Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles
Byles, William Pollard	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Macpherson, J. T.
Cairns, Thomas	Hammond, John	MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.)
Causton,Rt.Hn.Richard Knight	Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil	M'Arthur, William
Cawley, Frederick	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	M'Callum, John M.
Chance, Frederick William	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	M'Crae, George
Channing, Francis Allston	Hart-Davies, T.	M'Killop, W.
Cheetham, John Frederick	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Harwood, George	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Clarke, C. Goddard	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	M'Micking, Major G.
Cleland, J. W.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Maddison, Frederick
Clough, W.	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Mallet, Charles E.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Hazleton, Richard	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Heaton, John Henniker	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln:
Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.	Hedges, A. Paget	Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Helme, Norval Watson	Marnham, F. J.
Cooper, G. J.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Meagher, Michael
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Henry, Charles S.	Micklem, Nathaniel
Corbett,CH.(Sussex,E.Grinsted	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Mond, A.
Cory, Clifford John	Higham, John Sharp	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Cotton, Sir. H. J. S.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Montgomery, H. H.
Cowan, W. H.	Hodge, John	Mooney, J. J.
Cremer, William Randal	Hogan, Michael	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Crombie, John William	Holden, E. Hopkinson	Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Crooks, William	Holland, Sir William Henry	Morrell, Philip
Crosfield, A. H.	Hooper, A. G.	Morse, L. L.
Crossley, William J.	Hope, John Deans (Feif, West)	Murray, James
Davies,David (Montgomery Co.	Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.	Napier, T. B.
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)	Horniman, Emslie John	Newnes, F. Notts, Bassetlaw))
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Horridge, Thomas Gardiner	Newnes Sir George (Swansea)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Nicholls, George
Delany, William	Hyde, Clarendon	Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncaster
Devlin,Charles Ramsay(Galway	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Nolan, Joseph
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.	Jacoby, James Alfred	Norman, Henry
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Jardine, Sir J.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Jenkins, J.	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Nuttall, Harry
Dillon, John	Johnson, W, (Nuneaton)	O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid
Dobosn, Thomas W.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Dolan, Fharles Joseph	Jones,William (Carnarvonshire	O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.)
Duckworth, James	Jowett, F. W.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Dunacn,C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Kekewich, Sir George	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Dunne. Major E. M. (Walsall)	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	O'Dowd, John
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	O'Grady, J.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Kitson, Sir James	O'Hare, Patrick
Elibank, Master of	Laidlaw, Robert	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N.
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lamb,Edmund G. (Leominster)	O'Malley, William
Erskine, David C.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	O'Mara, James
Essex, R. W.	Lambert, George	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Evans, Samuel T.	Lamont, Norman	Parker, James (Halifax)
Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid	Paul, Herbert
Everett, R. Lacey	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
Fenwick, Charles	Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras.E.)	Pearce, William Limehouse)
Ferens, T. R.	Leese,Sir. JosephF.(Accrington	Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Lehmann, R. C.	Philipps, Col.Ivor(S'thampton)
Field, William	Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)	Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Levy, Maurice	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Fullerton, Hugh	Lewis, John Herbert	Pirie, Duncan V.
Furness, Sir Christopher	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Pollard, Dr.
Gardner,Col. Alan(Hereford,So	Lough, Thomas	Power, Patrick Joseph
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lundon, W.	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)
Gill, A. H.	Lupton, Arnold	Price, RobertJohn(Norfolk,E.)
Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Glover, Thomas	Lynch, H. B.	Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Radford, G. H.
Gooch, George Peabody	Macdonald.JM. (FalkirkBurghs	Rainy, A. Rolland
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Raphael, Herbert H.
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Maclean, Donald	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro
Grove, Archibald	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Rees, J. D.

Rendall, Athelstan	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Wallace, Robert
Renton, Major Leslie	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Walsh, Stephen
Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th	Snowden, P.	Walters, John Tudor
Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n	Soares, Ernest J.	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Rickett, J. Compton	Spicer, Albert	Wardle, George J.
Ridsdale, E. A.	Stanger, H. Y.	Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Stanley,Hn. A. Llyuph(Chesh.)	Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Steadman, W. C.	Waterlow, D. S.
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Robertson,Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Whitbread, Howard
Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradford	Strachey, Sir Edward	White, George (Norfolk)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Robinson, S.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Whitehead, Rowland
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Sullivan, Donal	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Rose, Charles Day	Summerbell, T.	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Rowlands, J.	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Wiles, Thomas
Runciman, Walter	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Wilkie, Alexander
Russell, T. W.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)	Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)	Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Thomas, DavidAlfred (Merthyr)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Schwann, Chas.E.(Manchester)	Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset,E	Wilson, J. H. (.Middlesbrough)
Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under Lyne)	Thorne, William	Wilson,J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Sears, J. E.	Tomkinson, James	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Seaverns, J. H.	Torrance, A. M.	Winfrey, R.
Seddon, J.	Toulmin, George	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Seely, Major J. B.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Woodhouse,Sir JT.(Huddersf'd
Shackleton, David James	Ure, Alexander
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Verney, F. W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.Pease.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Vivian, Henry
Silcock, Thomas Ball	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

And, it being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.