EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

HC Deb 24 November 1908 vol 197 cc147-221

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,) Forfarshire

said the object of the first Amendment on the Paper was to meet the particular difficulties of the Merchant Company which had established superannuation funds in connection with its schools. It would be wrong, of course, to penalise that company as compared with other educational undertakings, and they wished, therefore, as this superannuation was founded by a central board and not by the governors of each separate school, to provide that they should come under Clause 12.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, line 5, at end, to insert the words, 'Provided further that where, prior to the commencement of this Act, a governing body as aforesaid or any joint or central board on their behalf have established a superannuation fund to which they respectively contribute, directly or indirectly, the superannuation allowance awarded to a teacher to the extent represented by the sum so contributed shall be held to be a retiring allowance within the meaning of this section.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, line 21, after the word 'boards,' to insert the words 'governing bodies.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)

in moving to omit the words "in Scotland" from Clause 13, said the Amendment dealt with the position of teachers who might have been employed in England for part of their teaching period, and who subsequently, especially in connection with certain denominations in more or less voluntary schools, took up work in Scotland. These teachers, while they had perhaps a longer period of teaching experience, found themselves side by side with teachers who had a much shorter period of work, but who had a claim upon the superannuation scheme, in which they only participated themselves to a very small extent—only for that portion of their experience as teachers which lay within the area of Scotland. In order more or less to obtain an expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman, and to bring their case under his attention, he moved the Amendment.

Amendment not seconded.

Amendments proposed— In page 10, line 28, after the word 'Department,' to insert the words 'or of a teacher's superannuation allowance from a governing body as aforesaid or any joint or central board on their behalf.' In page 10, line 34, to leave out the word 'or.' In page 10, line 34, after the word 'managers,' to insert the words 'or joint or central board.' In page 10, line 34, at end, to insert the words 'or superannuation.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER

The next Amendment† in the name of the hon. Member for Ayrshire would involve a fresh charge.

MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)

pointed out that it did not involve a fresh charge at all on the Exchequer. The fund to which he referred here was one made up by contributions from the teachers, and they were absolutely entitled to get the benefit of the fund.

†The following is the Amendment referred to— In page 10, line 40, after the word 'prescribed,' to insert the words "Provided that the Treasury shall make payment to any teacher who shall make application, and from whose salary deductions have been made under the said Act, but who has ceased to serve as a teacher before this scheme takes effect, a sum equal to the full amount of such deductions, which payment shall cancel the right of such teacher to any annuity under the said Act; and further.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)

MR. SPEAKER

The words are, "the Treasury shall make payment." They do not say the Treasury shall make payment out of any particular fund. It must involve a charge and impose a duty upon the Treasury of making certain payments.

MR. COCHRANE

All I desire is that the Treasury shall repay contributions which have already been made to them and which are allocated to the teachers in certain proportions, not that there shall be any fresh charge, but that they shall simply repay the money paid by the teachers out of their own pocket.

MR. SPEAKER

That does not appear on the face of the Amendment. The only way to construe the Amendment is that the Treasury shall make the payment. It does not say it is to make it out of a fund subscribed to by the teachers, and it does not earmark a particular fund.

MR. COCHRANE

Prom whose salaries deductions have been made.

MR. SPEAKER

It does not say from what fund.

Amendments proposed— In page 11, line 16, to leave out the word 'may,' and to insert the word 'shall.' In page 11, line 16, at end, to insert the words 'or of an Amendment thereof.' In page 11, line 26, after the word 'boards,' to insert the words 'governing bodies.' In page 11, line 26, after the word 'and,' to insert the word 'other.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.)

moved to omit subsection (1) of Clause 14. He said he hoped to prove that the announcement made by the Secretary for Scotland that voluntary schools were to benefit to the extent of an extra 2s. was not such a generous gift as it appeared to be. Under subsections (2) and (4) his contention was that there would be brought into the Scottish Education Fund those very amounts out of which State-aided schools had in the past been able to benefit. The probate and estate duties which were brought into the Scottish Education Fund did not, as a matter of fact, form any fixed amount but an anually increasing sum. The actual increase of those duties was more than the increase in the cost of pupils in the schools. As the hon. Member for Sheffield pointed out in a previous debate, there had been an illegal accumulation of funds whilst the duties were being administered. Whilst it might be contended that voluntary schools would benefit under Clauses 15 and. 16, it would be recognised that this was the only opportunity he would have of pointing out in what way the Catholic schools were not getting justice. Briefly, subsections (1) and (4) constituted the fund which gave the extra fee grant of 2s. per child out of purely Scottish money, and it would be found on looking into the Returns already issued that the sum fixed was £40,000. In subsection (4) of Clause 14 the amount was about £69,000, giving a total of £109,000. The average attendance of children in Scotland was 720,000 and that would work out at about 3s. per child. Under Clauses 15 and 16 it might be said that the Catholic schools were going to benefit to the extent of 2s., but 1s. of that amount came out of money which the Catholic schools would have had under the operation of the estate duties. Therefore instead of the voluntary schools of Scotland, equally with the board schools, benefiting by an increase of 2s. or 2s. 6d., as far as he could make out the real increase was not 2s., but really only 1s. 6d. This explained the dissatisfaction with which this measure was regarded by the Catholics in Scotland. He was not taking up this line of argument on account of any settled opposition to the Bill, but in the hope that the reasonable claims of Catholics would be met. He hoped that when they got to the cumulative vote the Secretary for Scotland would see his way to meet them on that point, because if he did a great deal of their opposition would go. He thought it was important to point out that under the two subsections he had mentioned sums of money were being brought in out of which Catholic schools gained a slight benefit and in the new Scottish Education Fund it was not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to substantiate what he had stated, that the voluntary schools were really going to benefit to the extent of 2s. or 2s. 6d. per child.

MR. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.)

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 26, to leave out subsection (1) of Clause 14."—(Mr. Boland.)

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

MR. SINCLAIR

said he did what he could to answer the hon. Member's arguments the other day on the general position, and on the position of voluntary schools under the Bill. The Amendment was to omit the first subsection of Clause 14, and the hon. Member was quite right in saying that under that subsection the money provided by it, together with the money provided in subsection (4), constituted the security for making up the fee grant in Scotland. It was apprehended that as those sums were no longer available there might be danger that the fee grant in those schools in which the hon. Member for South Kerry was interested might not secure the 12s. per head in the future. He wished to point out that in subsection (6), so far from it being the case that they were weakening the security for the maintenance of the fee grant in voluntary schools or to all schools at 12s., the position would really be strengthened, because hitherto only the particular sum mentioned in subsections (l)and(2) had constituted the security for keeping the fee grant at 12s., whereas now the whole fund formed that security. That was really the position stated as clearly and precisely as he could put it. So far as the precise point raised in the Amendment was concerned he was able to assure the hon. Member that the security they were now taking for the 12s. grant was even greater than it had been in the past. He hoped that so far as this clause was concerned he had been able to reassure the hon. Member that the position of the schools in which he was interested would be safeguarded.

Amendment put, and negatived.

MR. LAMONT

said that, in moving the Amendment standing in his name, he did so, not from a sentimental point of view, but from a strong conviction of the advantages of bilingualism from a practical and utilitarian point of view, and of the value of Gaelic as a mental exercise.

SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)

asked if the subjects referred to in the Amendment were not excluded by the ruling that such matters were dealt with administratively by the Code.

MR. SPEAKER

The point raised is whether the subjects dealt with in this Amendment ought to be dealt with administratively by Code. I will give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt, and he may proceed with his Amendment.

MR. LAMONT

said the present position was that Gaelic might be taught in any school in the Highland districts, but that it was rather discouraged by the inspectors. Secondly, there was the so-called Gaelic grant of £10 to each school having Gaelic-speaking children and a Gaelic-speaking teacher, but this money, unfortunately, was often used, not to increase the teachers' salary, but to reduce the rates. Thirdly, provision for Gaelic was nominally made at junior-student centres, but at many of them it was impossible to obtain such instruction. In the fourth place, Gaelic had this year, for the first time, been graded as a higher, as well as a lower, subject in the Department's examniations. Further than this, it was impossible to discover whether anything was being done for Gaelic in the multitude of Blue-Books, Reports, Circulars and Minutes with which the Department, like a cuttle-fish, darkened all around it, and endeavoured to baffle the public. The two most pressing present needs were those dealt with in his Amendment. First, that the bilingual Gaelic child must always first be taught in Gaelic, because it was impossible that general education could ever efficiently be given in a language with which a child was totally unfamiliar. At present a Gaelic child was often in the position of reading only a language which it could not understand, and of understanding only a language which it could not read. Next, that they must create an adequate supply of Gaelic-speaking teachers. The Amendment met these needs by making a better provision for instruction, and by increasing the number of bursaries, so as to increase gradually the supply of teachers. The Amendment had received practically unanimous support throughout the Highlands—even from Inverness, which had opposed the Amendments which he had moved in committee upstairs. Its terms had been arrived at after consultation between "An Cornunn Gaidhealach" and the associations and individuals interested in this question. Aberdeen University had just decided to place Gaelic on an equal footing with French and German in their bursary competitions; and the Provincial Committee of Aberdeen had arranged for Gaelic-speaking students to study Gaelic at their Training College. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would not lag behind in a movement for the educational advantage of a part of Scotland where, more than anywhere, education was appreciated; and where, more than anywhere, education was synonymous with success. He begged to move.

MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)

, in seconding the Amendment, explained that it was brought up in Committee, but ruled out of order for a technical reason. He and his friends were therefore obliged to bring it before the House on the Report stage. He regarded this as a most important proposal, the desire being that children who had learned to speak nothing but Gaelic in their homes should receive instruction through the medium of a language which they understood. A point which he wished to urge was that children who were brought up to speak two languages were given an increased advantage in learning a third. He impressed upon the Government that the districts affected by this proposal were in the poorest counties in Scotland. The necessary funds must be got either under Clause 15 from the central fund, or under Clause 16 from the fund at the disposal of the county councils.

Amendment proposed— In page 14, line 10, at end, to insert the words, '(f) To making payments to school boards in Gaelic-speaking districts of such sums as may be necessary to make adequate provision for instruction in reading and writing the Gaelic language, and also of such sums as may be necessary to increase the number of bursaries available, both before and after the junior student stage, for Gaelic-speaking children intending to become teachers.'"—(Mr. Lamont.)

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

MR. SINCLAIR

said this question was discussed in Committee to some extent. Hon. Members who had studied the Bill knew that in subsection (9) of Clause 16, the continuance of such grants as were now given to this purpose was provided for. They could be given subject to the discretion of the school boards and the district committees. The question was whether they should upset that or not. The Committee had much sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Argyllshire as to the desirability of giving full permission to those people who wished their children to learn Gaelic and to make use of that language. He did not wish to argue the general question as to the advantage of bilingual teaching and accomplishments of that kind. His hon. friend proposed by this Amendment to lay the charge for Gaelic-teaching as a charge upon the national funds—that was to say, he proposed that the Lowland counties which had no interest whatever in Gaelic-teaching should be obliged perforce to contribute to the cost of such Gaelic-teaching as was desired in the Gaelic counties. That was not a proposal which in the interest of Gaelic-teaching should be accepted by the House. He thought it was far better to adhere to the position taken up in Committee, namely, that this was a matter which could safely be left to the discretion of the local authorities themselves. The local authorities could open the door wide for the teaching of Gaelic. As had been stated by his hon. friend, facilities and encouragement had been given in the last year or two for the increase of this form of teaching. Reference had been made to the poverty of the Highland districts, but it must be remembered that they had already special grants for this and other purposes. The best course for the House to take in the interest of Gaelic-teaching was to leave this matter as it was.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)

said the right hon. Gentleman had not quite done justice to the Amendment. Although it was moved and seconded by Highland Members, he would give some reasons in his capacity as a Lowland Member why this should not be treated as a Highland question. It was a national question, not only in the sentimental sense, but in the sense that it was desirable to encourage the teaching of languages. It would be a matter of interest to the whole of Scotland that French and German should be well taught, which, he might add, was very seldom the case. The Gaelic language would be well taught if adequate provision were made for teaching it. The likelihood was that Gaelic would be very much better taught than French or German. In that sense it was a national question. The teaching of languages under the Code had been unduly discouraged in the case of certain children in favour of science. No doubt the Highlands felt strongly on this point, but it was unlikely that under the present parish board system, the teaching of French or German would be very prevalent. By arranging for the teaching of Gaelic the children of the Highlands would get their one chance of learning another language. He thought the Amendment could be defended on sentimental grounds, but that was not his present purpose.

MR. BOLAND

hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. Speaking with a knowledge of what had been done to develop the Irish language, to which Gaelic was closely akin, he strongly supported the view put forward by the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs as to the educational value to children in the Gaelic-speaking parts of Scotland of learning their own language thoroughly and of having the opportunity of learning another. He knew a young fellow in Kerry who had a knowledge of the Irish language, and at the age of twenty-three he learned to read and write the language. This had created in him a desire to learn foreign languages, but if he had been deprived of the opportunity of learning the Irish language, his desire to learn French or German would probably never have been felt. He very much regretted that this should be regarded as a merely Highland question. It was a national question and it should be so regarded throughout Scotland. If the hon. Member who moved challenged a division, the Irish Party would be delighted to give the Amendment their hearty support.

MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)

said he was much disappointed at the speech of the Secretary for Scotland, and at the; attitude he had taken up with regard to the teaching of Gaelic in the Highlands. An hon. Member had said that this was a national question, but he looked upon it as an Imperial question. Nearly all Highlanders in the Western Highlands and Islands spoke Gaelic only in their homes, but in the parish schools English was thrust upon children whose knowledge was limited to Gaelic. In a few schools pupil teachers knew Gaelic, but schools and the Scottish Education Department were opposed, to the teaching of Gaelic. What chance had any Highland boy or girl of learning any language other than English? The parish school boards had not the means to employ teachers to teach French, German, Italian or Spanish. Gaelic was the only language besides English which the children in these schools had a chance of learning. As the Amendment was supported by all the Members representing Gaelic-speaking districts in which there were thousands of old people who were quite unable to speak anything but Gaelic, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision. There were Highlanders in all parts of the world—great soldiers, great statesmen, great commercial men, who had attained to their high position, not because they spoke Gaelic, but because it had materially helped them to acquire other languages. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.

MR. PIRIE (Aberdeen, N.)

said he made no apology whatever for saying a few words on this Amendment. It had been said that no vote had been changed by argument in the House. Well in this case, his was an example of the exception which proved the rule. To tell the truth he had come into the House with a preconceived prejudice against the Amendment, but after listening to the debate the only argument that he had heard against it, if it could be called an argument, was that the Lowland counties would be made to pay for teaching a language which was not their own; Surely that argument cut both ways. Why should the Highland counties be made to pay for the teaching of a language that was not their own, viz., English? He was a Member for a Lowland constituency in which there were not many Gaelic-speaking people; but he was sure that everyone in his constituency would willingly bear the burden of doing justice to a large, a gallant, and a noble section of the community.

MR. SINCLAIR

appealed to his hon. friend not to press his Amendment to a division. The hon. Member knew as well as he did that their system in Scotland was to leave such subjects to be taught under the Code as in the discretion of the school board it was thought the children required or desired. There was no dispute amongst them as to the desirability of Gaelic teaching in Gaelic districts. The question was, with whom should the decision lie? Were they to give to all school boards in all Gaelic speaking districts a claim on national funds for teaching Gaelic? If so, the logical corollary of the Amendment was to give the Lowland districts a claim on the national funds for the teaching of French, German or Italian, or any other language. It was not a question as to whether it was to be done, but how it was to be done.

MR. COCHRANE

pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had already made two speeches on this unimportant question, which had been very thoroughly threshed out in the Committee upstairs, when the solution come to was that Gaelic should be taught by Gaelic teachers. He thought the time of the House should be taken up with the discussion of much more important Amendments.

MR. MORTON (Sutherland)

said he was sorry to occupy the time of the House, but he desired to press the fact that their constituents in the Highlands wanted this Amendment to be carried. His right hon. friend said that if the Amendment were carried the Lowlands would have a right to demand that French, German, and Italian should be taught in their schools. But that was not a fair way to put it. What the Highland Members asked was that their native language should be taught to the natives of the Highlands. What they were afraid of was that there were a large number of people who wanted to kill the Gaelic language; they, on the other hand, wanted to preserve it, and to give the Highland children proper opportunities of learning it. He was extremely sorry that his right hon. friend could not see his way to give way, seeing that Parliament did not give too much to the Highland people.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 109; Noes, 192. (Division List No. 414.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Jordan, Jeremiah
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)	Jowett, F. W.
Ambrose, Robert	Essex, R. W.	Joyce, Michael
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Farrell, James Patrick	Kavanagh, Walter M.
Barnes, G. N.	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Ffrench, Peter	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe]
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.	Flynn, James Christopher	Law, Hugh (Donegal, W.)
Boland, John	Gilhooly, James	Lundon, W.
Bryce, J. Annan	Gill, A. H.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Glover, Thomas	Macpherson, J. T.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Grant, Corrie	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Clynes, J. R.	Halpin, J.	Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Crean, Eugene	Hay, Hon. Claude George	M'Kean, John
Cullinan, J.	Hayden, John Patrick	M'Killop, W.
Dalrymple, Viscount	Hodge, John	Meagher, Michael
Delany, William	Hogan, Michael	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Dillon, John	Hudson, Walter	Meehan, Patrick A (Queen's Co.)
Donelan, Captain A	Jenkins, J.	Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Mooney, J. J.	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Pirie, Duncan V.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Muldoon, John	Ponsonby, Arthur W. A. H.	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury
Murnaghan, George	Power, Patrick Joseph	Walsh, Stephen
Murhpy, John (Kerry, East)	Rainy, A. Rolland	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Nannetti, Joseph R.	Reddy, M.	Watt, Henry A.
Nolan, Joseph	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Weir, James Galloway
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Redmond, William (Clare)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Wilkie, Alexander
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Williamson, A.
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Roche, Augustine (Cork)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Roche, John (Galway, East)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhougton)
O'Doherty, Philip	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Young, Samuel
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Younger, George
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Sheehy, David
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lamont and Mr. Ainsworth.
O'Dowd, John	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
O'Grady, J.	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
O'Shee, James John	Snowden, P.
NOES.
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R	Du Cros, Arthur Philip	Laidlaw, Robert
Agnew, George William	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Alden, Percy	Erskine, David C.	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Esslemont, George Birnie	Lewis, John Herbert
Baldwin, Stanley	Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Faber, George Denison (York)	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Lyell, Charles Henry
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Fell, Arthur	Lynch, H. B.
Barnard, E. B.	Fenwick, Charles	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N	Ferens, T. R.	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs.)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Maclean, Donald
Beale, W. P.	Forster, Henry William	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Beauchamp, E.	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	M'Arthur, Charles
Bellairs, Carlyon	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	M'Callum, John M.
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.	Fuller, John Michael F.	M'Crae, Sir George
Bennett, E. N.	Furness, Sir Christopher	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Berridge, T. H. D.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	M'Micking, Major G.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)	Menzies, Walter
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Glendinning, R. G.	Micklem, Nathaniel
Bowles, G. Stewart	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Middlebrook, William
Bramsdon, T. A.	Gordon, J.	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Brigg, John	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Molteno, Percy Alport
Bright, J. A.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Mond, A.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Gulland, John W.	Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hamilton, Marquess of	Moore, William
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Morrell, Philip
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford	Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard.)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)	Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh	Napier, T. B.
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Haworth, Arthur A.	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Clark, George Smith	Hedges, A. Paget	Nuttall, Harry
Clough, William	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Partington, Oswald
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Higham, John Sharp	Paul, Herbert
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Holland, Sir William Henry	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)
Cooper, G. J.	Holt, Richard Durning	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Horniman, Emslie John	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Houston, Robert Paterson	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Hunt, Rowland	Pullar, Sir Robert
Cox, Harold	Illingworth, Percy H.	Radford, G. H.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Jardine, Sir J.	Richardson, A.
Craik, Sir Henry	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Ridsdale, E. A.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)	Joynson-Hicks, William	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	Kearley, Sir Hudson E.	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Kekewich, Sir George	Rose, Charles Day
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Rowlands, J.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)	Summerbell, T.	Wills, Arthur Walters
Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	Winterton, Earl
Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne	Thornton, Percy M.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Seely, Colonel	Vivian, Henry	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Wardle, George J.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Wason, Rt. Hn E. (Clackmannan	Yoxall, James Henry
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Silcock, Thomas Ball	White, Sir George (Norfolk)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh
Stanger, H. Y.	White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Stone, Sir Benjamin	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Strachey, Sir Edward	Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

MR. J. M. MACDONALD (Falkirk Burghs)

rose to move the omission, of subsection (2) in Clause 15.

MR. BOLAND

said he wished to move an Amendment before that of the hon. Gentleman, viz: in page 14, line 17, at end, to insert the words, "(g) To paying, in respect of all children attending schools other than board schools eligible for grants under the Code, a sum not exceeding ten shilings per head of the children in average attendance at such schools, and such sum shall be in addition to, and not in substitution of, any grants which, before the passing of this Act, were payable to such schools."

MR. SPEAKER

said that that was the same matter that they discussed a fortnight ago, and the House came to a decision upon it. The wording was almost identically the same, and the hon. Member could not discuss it a second time.

MR. BOLAND

inquired whether it would not be possible to have a division on it. He was most anxious that their claim should be made specially at that point.

MR. SPEAKER

replied that the hon. Member had his division the other day. He had no power to take a division without a discussion.

MR. J. M. MACDONALD

said he wished to move the omission of subsection (2), which laid down the principle upon which the balance of the Education Fund should be allocated. That principle was that the allocation should take place in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Department, and so framed as to give greater aid to those districts with which per head of the population the burden of expenditure on educational purposes, approved by the Department, is excessive as compared with the valuation of the district, which scheme shall be laid before Parliament. He rose to move the rejection of that subsection not because he had any objection to its pro-visions, but because the scheme which the Secretary for Scotland had introduced was not consistent with the subsection. He went further and held that it was not consistent with the views which the Secretary for Scotland himself put forward in support of it. A model scheme had been presented to the Committee upstairs, illustrating the mode of distribution in accordance with the subsection, and giving the ratios of necessity of the several districts. When subsequently the actual allocation of the money was presented to the Committee, it was found not to correspond with the provisions of the subsection; and the Secretary for Scotland justified the alteration on the ground that, if the allocation were made in accordance with the principles laid down in the subsection, certain districts in Scotland would receive less money than they were actually receiving at the present moment, and also on the ground that those districts were relatively poor. As to the first ground no one would object to a sum being taken from the fund and so distributed as to make the amounts to be given to these districts equal to the amounts they now received. The second ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman justified his departure from the model scheme opened up a much larger question, and it was to that part of the proposal that he should like particularly to draw the attention of the House. In the first place, he contested the view that the districts that would be benefited under the second scheme were the poorer districts, and, in the second place, even if these districts were really the poorer districts, the allocation of the funds gave to them a considerably larger sum than they obtained at the present moment, and gave them that sum at the cost of the rest of the country. The districts that benefited under the scheme represented 38 per cent. of the population of Scotland, and only 36 per cent. of the expenditure and 42 per cent. of the valuation, while the districts adversely affected represented 62 per cent. of the population, 64 per cent. of the expenditure, and only 58 per cent. of the valuation. He contended that those figures proved that the principles laid down in the subsection had been entirely departed from in the allocation which his right hon. friend had actually made of the balance of fund. Take, for example, the six school boards which came under the allocation; five, which were prejudiced by the scheme, had rates over the average for the whole of Scotland, while the only one that had a rate under the average was benefited. Turning to the ratios if necessity of the several districts, he showed that the allocation was not only not in accordance with them, but in many instances diametrically opposed to them.

MR. J. M. HENDERSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

rose to a point of order. His hon. friend said he did not object to the terms of this section, which provided that the money should be divided according to a scheme to be laid before Parliament. There had been two tentative schemes produced, but neither was before Parliament, and neither formed part of this Bill. He was most anxious for this Bill to go through, and why should they waste an hour in discussing a scheme which was not in the Bill.

MR. PIRIE

inquired whether it was in order to say it was waste of time to discuss a matter of this kind.

MR. SPEAKER

did not think there was any point of order raised. It was a question of merits.

MR. PIRIE,

on a point of order, said the second Order on the Paper, which was to be taken at 8.15 p.m., was not necessarily bound to come on at that time, the Rule being suspended. It could come on later, at eleven o'clock. Therefore, they had illimitable time to discuss this question.

MR. SPEAKER

said the hon. Member was wrong there. He would only have up to eleven o'clock. The question of the disposal of the time did not rest with him, but with the House itself.

MR. J. M. MACDONALD

said he did not wish to detain the House much longer as he had made his point, and he had no doubt his right hon. friend understood it. They did not object to the principle contained in the subsection, but they did object to the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman had presented to the Committee for the purpose of carrying it out. They recognised that under the principle of the Bill there were certain districts that would suffer, and would receive less money than they received at the present moment. They were willing that these districts should have money temporarily applied to them, so that the amounts they received under this scheme would not be less than those they at present received, but they were not willing that this scheme should be a permanent scheme to be taken as a model for all future schemes. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the scheme was temporary in its provisions, and that he would reconsider it with a feeling favourably disposed towards the districts which were necessitous, and which suffered under it, it would not be necessary for him to divide the House on his Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 18, to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 15."—(Mr. J. M. Macdonald.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'for,' in page 14, line 21, stand part of the Bill."

MR. COCHRANE

said the hon. Member had put clearly before the House a matter of considerable importance to Scotsmen, the division of the spoils. They had fought Education Bills for many years, and now the fight took place over the division of the spoils. The position had been somewhat complicated by the attitude taken up by the Secretary for Scotland. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill he issued with it a Memorandum and a draft scheme showing how the money was to be allocated among the various counties. That scheme was examined by the House, and was referred to the various authorities. At the last moment, just before the Bill went to Grand Committee, the scheme was withdrawn, and another substituted for it. Hence these tears. Had the right hon. Gentleman consulted the school boards before instead of after, he might have produced a different scheme altogether. The right hon. Gentleman truly said they could not go on population or valuation alone, that they must be considered together. If to those elements he had added areas he would have done far better, because areas were a very great element of consideration in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, however, took the two elements of population and valuation, and introduced a scheme, but unfortunately he withdrew that scheme and substituted another in which he entirely departed from those principles, except as to one-third of the fund. He allocated one-third of the fund in proportion to population and valuation, but the other two-thirds he allocated in a purely arbitrary fashion. He himself was quite impartial in this matter, because the constituency which he represented got the same amount under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman as it would get under the scheme shadowed forth by the ton. Member. He was not, therefore, a searcher after illegitimate spoils. When he regarded the reasons which might have influenced the right hon. Gentleman in departing from his original scheme, he noticed some somewhat sinister points. He noticed that particular districts got more under the amended scheme, and that singular favours had been dealt out to Forfarshire, a district not unconnected with the right hon. Gentleman. Taking Forfarshire and Shetland together, he found the ratio of necessity in the former was 12,763, and in Shetland 6,604, and it was a curious fact that whereas under the original scheme Forfarshire only got £10,000 and poor Shetland £5,000, under the amended scheme the contribution to Forfarshire rose to £14,441, whilst that of poor Shetland fell to £2,500. Peebles-shire, another county not unrepresented in great circles, also received a considerable increase. He was not going to inquire by what fortunate circumstance these things happened. All he wished to do was to ask the right hon. Gentleman to adopt some definite principle. Population was not enough, and valuation was not enough, and therefore if the right hon. Gentleman adopted areas he would be wise, because some arrangement must be made for those large counties where the expense was very great. Rumour said that the right hon. Gentleman was going to make some statement on this matter, and therefore it would be perhaps better not to move the Amendment he had intended to move. The right hon. Gentleman might find it easier to make that statement to his supporters rather than to the Opposition. All he would say was that he hoped in that statement the right hon. Gentleman would shadow forth some principle which people could understand, and that would be fair to all Scotland. He did not like to think that these schemes were altered from time to time in order to give an unfair share of the spoils to a particular district.

MR. WILKIE (Dundee)

pointed out that in the previous week he had put a question to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter now under discussion. But he was informed that the experts on this matter did not acknowledge the correctness of his reply. In his answer the right hon. Gentleman stated that while the proposal was strongly opposed by some, a greater number supported it. That might be so as far as the number of Boards was concerned, but if they took the number of children and people involved in the districts the balance was entirely the other way. The Government set out in their Bill that their object was to help those districts which most needed help, districts where there was large expenditure for education, poor districts unable to pay high rates, but this proposal did the very opposite. Instead of helping the poor urban authorities and the highly rated districts in Scotland it was helping the rich and high valuation districts. What they felt and what they feared, but what they hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to reassure them upon, was that this provision would take from the elementary schools and give to the secondary schools. It used to be the boast of Scotsmen that in the educational system of Scotland there was the opportunity of going to the University from the elementary school, and that there were teachers in the elementary schools able to prepare the scholar for the University. He hoped before this question was decided the Government would be able to assure the House that this provision would work in the entirely opposite direction to what they feared, and that the first idea of the Government would be carried out, and that greater assistance would be given to those districts which needed it most.

MR. MENZIES (Lanarkshire, S.)

also objected to the subsection. He did not, he said, intend to go into the details of the first and second schemes except to draw attention to the footnote on this question in the Cd. Paper 4051. He asked hon. Members to look at those words. The words of the subsection were not altered in Committee, and remained in the Bill as when it was originally introduced. He therefore apprehended that these words having been used to cover a principle in the Bill still held good. On the other hand they found that a second allocation was proposed which was totally different, though, as he had pointed out, the words of the Bill remained the same. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell them which of these two allocations was, according to the Bill, because they could not both be right, and his second allocation was apparently re-enacting the two grants which were solemnly repealed in Clause 14. Having annulled those grants under Clause 14, it was now proposed to re-enact them, if not for all time, apparently for this time, at any rate. The present allocation said one-third, according to population, multiplied by expenses and divided by valuation. How could that be in accordance with the Bill itself? He held that, from the legal point of view, this could not be correct. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman, in the kindness of his intention, had sought to give everybody a little more. He sympathised with him in that particular, but he could not admit that this proposal was in consonance with the terms of the Bill. Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why they should not reverse the two-thirds according to population and expenses? The position might be reversed by having nine-sixteenths on the one side and seven-sixteenths on the other. The truth was that the method was so arranged as to bring out the desired result. There was no principle here. While he credited the right hon. Gentleman with a kind heart in trying to give everybody a little more, it was not according to the Bill. He desired to call attention to another phase of the matter. The Bill said that this clause was to be "so passed as to give greater aid," etc., he need not trouble to read the terms through again. If they boiled the words down to one phrase, it meant that aid was to be given when expenditure was excessive as compared with valuation. The hon. Member for Ayrshire had referred to Forfarshire; he should like to refer to Perthshire and other counties. In Lanarkshire the expenditure per head from the rates was 9¾d., and in Perthshire it was under 8d. If they compared the valuation they found that in Perthshire it was £9 10s. per head of the population, and in Lanarkshire, £6 10s. Surely, if there was any meaning in the words of the Bill, it should be Lanarkshire which should get more and Perthshire less. The matter appeared to be perfectly clear. By this kind-hearted allocation under which everybody got a little, he would point out that Lanarkshire got £42.000, but if that county got the same allocation per pupil in attendance as Perthshire it would get no less than £49.000 more; if it had the same as Perthshire, it would get £32,000 more; as Forfarshire, £37,000 more; or as Dumfriesshire, £15.000 more. Surely no one could be surprised if they doubted somewhat the legality of the allocation. In answer to a Supplementary Question the other day the right hon. Gentleman said this subject was a complex one. He acknowledged its complexity. He had been studying it for some time, and he thought it more complex than a Chinese puzzle. What with residue grants, secondary school grants, grants under a minute (whatever that might mean), general aid grants, special grants, Gaelic speaking grants, and necessitous school grants, grants according to population, and grants according to school attendance, the whole thing should be put in the melting pot and divided up equally according to the average of scholars in attendance. There were people who were rather amused at those Members who backed up their constituencies, yet they were the people who enlarged on the generosity of the Scottish Education Department to their particular counties. In his humble opinion a great deal of that generosity was at the expense of the industrial communities—at the expense of Lanarkshire, Dumbartonshire, Renfrewshire, and other industrial communities. Lanarkshire was the premier county of Scotland. ["Oh, oh."] Well whether it was or not, it had nearly one-eighth of the whole population and it got less than one-tenth of the grant. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether that appeared to him to be a fair allocation. Lanarkshire had an average attendance of 88,000 out of a total of 720,000 for the whole of Scotland. In the continuation classes of Lanarkshire, they had 14,310 scholars, and had one-seventh of the whole in that particular. In Lanarkshire they lad 2,000 children attending higher grade schools out of 18,000 for all Scotland; and they spent in rates £5,878, out of a total for Scotland of £37,000. Lanarkshire, therefore, by these details, showed that it was not only in population, in scholars and attendance the premier county of Scotland, but also in the amount it paid for education. In his opinion, the continuation classes were a most important method of education in the community, and ought to be particularly encouraged. He would perhaps be excused for referring to his own constituency. Hon. Members travelling from Glasgow or Edinburgh would remember a long stretch of hill and dale, mountain and valley, between Carstairs and the summit. It was as thinly a populated district as was to be found anywhere in Scotland. Indeed, before this Bill was introduced, he had put before the Education Department a proposal to be allowed to drive children to school in conveyances, so great were the distances they had to go. Though the children had to travel great distances to school in South Lanarkshire, yet they got only 9s. 7d. per pupil in attendance, as compared with 17s. 4d. in a neighbouring county. In his county the highest point was at the village of Leadhills, where they got 9s. 7d., while at the highest point in Dumfries, Wanlockhead, they got 13s. 1d. For twenty or thirty miles Lanarkshire marched with Dumfries; there was no climatic difference, no river, no range of mountains, only an imaginary dividing line, on one side of which they gave 9s. 7d. and on the other, 13s. 1d. On its other side, Lanarkshire marched twenty or thirty miles with Peebleshire, where again there was no climatic difference, no river, no range of mountains, only an imaginary line, on one side of which they paid 9s. 7d. and on the other 20s. 9d. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] He did not know; he was asking for information. The right hon. Gentleman said the matter was complex. He had inquired into this subject, and he had read the big report of about 1,000 pages as well as he could, and he could find no reason why Lanarkshire, particularly in the thinly populated portion of it which he represented, should get 9s. 7d., while Peebles got 20s. 9. It might be that he had approached the subject from a personal point of view in. connection with his constituency, but if a man could not speak for his own constituency, whatever constituency was he to speak for? He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give this aspect of the question his serious consideration, and give them some reasons why the money was so divided.

MR. SINCLAIR

said the hon. Gentleman had given them the particulars and circumstances of his own constituency, and it was, of course, the case that that part of Lanarkshire which he represented was dissimilar in character from the rest of the county in a very marked degree. Under the power which at present existed, and which was given by Parliament, it was quite possible to reconstitute at some later date the district committees which were entrusted with the distribution of these funds, and it would be quite possible to consider whether the special circumstances of a district such as South Lanarkshire were not of sufficient magnitude to justify the creation of a special district committee for that special district. In the meantime they had to deal with the machinery at present in operation in Scotland, and he was asked to say a word on a scheme of distribution which had been put forward as likely to be adopted under this Bill. He asked the House to note that the scheme itself did not form part of this clause. They had had a very full discussion of the matter in Committee. He would not quarrel with the narration which had been given of the discussions or of the actions of the Government in this respect in regard to the two different illustrative proposals which had been put before the Scottish Members of the Grand Committee. Let it be noted also, that after a very full examination no new circumstance had been put before the House which was not present to the Committee, except possibly some local characteristics if the hon. Gentleman's own constituency.

MR. J. M. MACDONALD

I think my right hon. friend is wrong. It is our contention that the districts benefited are not necessitous in the sense in which they were said to be necessitous when the scheme was before the Committee.

MR. SINCLAIR

said that might be the hon. Member's contention, but the facts were before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman might not take the view of the facts which the Government did, but the facts were there for him to judge of just as he could judge of them now. After very full discussion the Committee accepted the scheme of the Government unanimously. It was perfectly obvious to the Committee that the distribution of money on the first principle was absolutely impossible, and any scheme which deprived the existing local authorities of their present resources, and obliged them to curtail the education they were giving, possibly to shut up schools or to discontinue classes, was quite impossible of acceptance. Local authorities in the first place had undertaken obligations to provide certain facilities for education. It was quite impossible that Parliament should step in and take away from them the resources upon which those facilities rested. If it was a good thing to do educationally there would be very strong Parliamentary opposition to it, and quite rightly in his opinion, because it would be a very false educational standard. Therefore, any scheme which did not guarantee to existing local authorities the resources which they at present employed for education was out of the question. That obliged them to curtail the application of the principle mentioned in the clause, because that was a full application of the principle to the whole sum at their disposal. Therefore they were obliged to modify, as he thought was the practical commonsense view of it, the application of the principle of the Bill, and instead of applying that principle to the whole sum they applied it to only a part of the sum. They applied the remaining part of the money exactly on the principle which one hon. Member had quoted, and which would be applied in respect of average attendance, or, what was much the same thing, to the population of the district. They went very far to meet their few critics. They still maintained by their scheme the application to a part of this money of the principle contained in the subsection. They were bound to do that. It was proper to do it from an educational point of view to aid the poorer districts. This money was obtained from the Treasury on the understanding that the money was wanted to develop education in the poorer districts of the country. The scheme of distribution had been announced, but it was not in its final form. Provision was made in this very paragraph of the Bill for the publication from time to time of a Minute setting forth the scheme of distribution of money available to this Education (Scotland) Fund. The first Minute would appear as soon as they knew the sums available under these various grants next year. They were obliged to be sure of the amounts which would become due and payable under the grants next year before they could draw up the Minute. That delay gave a margin of time for consideration. He gave the assurance in the most clear and distinct terms that they were perfectly ready to consider any views and suggestions and proposals which were made to them between now and the time when the Minute had to be published provided these proposed modifications secured to each local authority not less money than they got at present, and that they secured for their proposals greater general assent than was secured by the scheme as it at present stood.

MR. PIRIE

said that to a certain extent perhaps the House might consider the statement of the right hon. Gentleman satisfactory, but he expressed regret that he did not hold out some hope of modification at an earlier stage. At the last moment they were told the scheme was not absolutely final.

MR. SINCLAIR

It never was final in that sense.

MR. PIRIE

said it was not generally understood so. That just showed the terrible danger, which every Scottish member must realise existed in the proceedings of the Scottish Committee, which were not known or realised in Scotland; so much so, that two deputations had waited on the right hon. Gentleman quite lately from educational authorities in Scotland directly opposed to this allocation, which they considered as intended to be final. He had met a member of the last deputation on its return to Scotland, and heard that all they obtained was a direct refusal, that there was no argument, and that the Secretary for Scotland talked round the question quite apart from meeting it in argument, and they went back more forlorn than when they came. It must be clearly understood that within a reasonable time they should have an opportunity of discussing the Minute which the right hon. Gentleman now promised, and that the Education Vote, not the salary of the Secretary for Scotland, should come on the first of Scottish Estimates next year. He had to regret that the second scheme of the right hon. Gentleman did not secure the desired result, but before passing from it there were peculiarities, some of which had already been referred to, which deserved to be brought before the people of Scotland. It was only in that House on Report that they had any chance at all of speaking to the people of Scotland, and he refused to have his time restricted by threats that the Bill would not be passed. The result of the second allocation was lucky for certain constituencies, but unlucky for others, and though he did not in any way allude to the results as being in any way desired results, as another hon. Member had done, he did characterise them as regrettable and unsatisfactory. The Secretary for War was a great educational authority. He had wanted to discuss his views on Scottish education before now, but he had not had a chance. He hoped to have it on the Third Reading. But anyhow Haddington was to receive under the first allocation, £2,800. Under the second scheme it received £4,300. Perthshire, also represented by a front bench Member, was to receive £8,800, and it now received £14,600. Roxburgh was to receive £2,800 under the first scheme and £5,400 under the second. Edinburgh, which was closely allied by official connection with the hon. and learned Gentleman who represented parts of Roxburghshire, received £6,000 more under the new scheme than under the old. Such a state of things ought never to have been introduced except on a basis of clear principle laid down beforehand, and they were not doing their duty unless they took every opportunity of showing the people of Scotland that such a proposition was wrong. They wanted to have a radical change, and make sure that they would have their rights, and that they would have full discussion, and not a hole-and-corner discussion such as they had had in Committee, with no reporters and half the Members away on other Committees and other official duties. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that they as the House should not reverse the decision of the Scottish Committee. He was a strong advocate of the creation of these Scottish Committees on certain lines, but it was an evil day for Scotland—

MR. SPEAKER

This is quite beside the mark.

MR. PIRIE

said he only brought it forward in answer to the argument of the Secretary for Scotland that it was settled by the Scottish Committee and that the House should have nothing more to do with it. He did not think it was necessary for his hon. friend to go to a division, because there were only about fifty or sixty Members present, although 200 or 300 hon. Members would come trooping in at the sound of the division bell and would vote according to the order of the Government Whips without knowing what had taken place in the debate. Therefore he would ask the hon. Member who moved this Amendment to be satisfied if he could get an assurance that this matter would be brought up on the Scottish Estimates.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)

said that before the Amendment was withdrawn he should like to have it clearly stated whether he was right in assuming that this was not in any sense of the word a permanent scheme. Were they to understand that, apart from the necessity of safeguarding the various district authorities in regard to spending, no other vested interest was going to be acquired under this scheme?

MR. SINCLAIR

said that followed from what he had said.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that no new matter had been imported since they discussed this question in Committee, and that it was a blessed thing to have a principle to work upon.

MR. SINCLAIR

said he did not say that.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was a great deal of advantage in working on a principle. When the Committee came to a decision upon this scheme, it was largely the direct result of the speech which the Lord Advocate made, and in the course of that speech, in advocating the second scheme, he said he did so— in order to help densely-populated places where there was not a large valuation. The object was to get hold of the necessitous districts and relieve the populous districts which needed a great deal of money but which could not levy rates because they were so high already. Since then, hon. Members had had an opportunity of going into the facts, and as regarded the districts which benefited under the scheme, out of twenty-two, eighteen, or 80 per cent. were not necessitous districts but areas where the school rate at the present moment was under the average for Scotland. In only four districts was the rate over the average, and in none was it more than about a halfpenny over the average for Scotland. Taking the districts which were prejudicially affected, of the whole seventeen no less than eleven, or 64 per cent., had got school rates in excess of the average for Scotland, and in some cases the rate was so high that it was something over 4½d. He thought it was time to revise the ideas upon which they arrived at a state of acquiescence in this scheme. If they worked out the figures they would find that these proposals would not hold water. The scheme might be justifiable from the point of view of expediency, but from the point of view of principle it was impossible to justify it. This scheme was so illogical that some districts where they had a high valuation, a low rate, and a small population would get more than districts in which they had a low valuation and a high rate and a large population. Any scheme which gave such results as those was illogical and could not be permanent. In fact, from the point of view of principle the system was entirely indefensible.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

invited hon. Members whose constituencies would get large grants to exercise a little forbearance with those districts which would suffer under this distribution Although it was quite true that the distribution was not final, everyone admitted that it was one which was very powerfully supported by his right hon. friend and other promoters of the Bill. It seemed difficult to see how it could be modified or altered, so thoroughly had it been considered, and so impossible was it to reduce the allowance already given. He was not at all sure that with respect to the necessitous allowances to some educational authorities there should not be some reduction of the amount given. He did not admit that that was impossible. He had known cases where the education grants were excessive as compared with what other education districts were receiving, and in such cases it was just to reduce those grants. It was indeed one of the things perpetuated under this Bill that there would continue to be an unequal incidence of the education rate. Therefore, this clause dealing with the distribution ought to be recast. The principle laid down was an admirable one, and they were all carried away with it on the Committee, but when it was said that no new facts had been elicited, he did not agree with that statement. Many facts had been elicited, not only since the Bill was in Committee, but since it had entered upon the Report stage. This scheme could never stand. He was not raising the question of his own constituency in comparison with Edinburgh, because the result was sufficiently obvious, but on the general principle laid down, and taking the general results, they were not only entirely antagonistic to the principle, but they would never be accepted by the majority of the people of Scotland. He did not think that much further discussion was required, because the Government had to reckon not with the House of Commons but with the constituencies in this matter, and they would insist upon a fair distribution in consonance with the general principles which had been laid down. Those principles could not be improved upon, but the principle of this distribution might be summed up in the words: "To him that hath shall be given even more abundantly." That was a principle which would not be popular in Scotland, and would not be accepted in this Bill.

MR. J. M. MACDONALD

thought it would be for the convenience of the House if he withdrew his Amendment. He accepted the assurances given by the Secretary for Scotland, and he begged leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MENZIES

moved to leave out from the words "the districts" to the end of the clause, and to insert the words "so as to give an equal amount, for every child in average attendance at their respective school or schools, to all school boards and other managers of State-aided schools, but that only after reservation of the sum of £25,000 to be given, at the absolute discretion of the Department, to necessitous schools or schools in thinly populated districts." This Bill proposed an unequal distribution of the money. He had no doubt whatever that the Secretary for Scotland and his draftsmen could draw up something better than the words of his Amendment, but he would be quite satisfied if he could get the substance of his proposal adopted by the Government. He had placed the sum at £25,000 for the necessitous schools, but if the Government suggested £26,000 or £27,000 or even £23,000 he would be quite agreeable to accept such a proposal. They could not change all the anomalies of the distribution which had been going on for years, and they could not abolish those anomalies without hurting somebody. Those districts were treated generously by the Department at the expense of the other districts, which only got about half. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give this scheme of equality some consideration. He was quite willing to accept the words of the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had given notice. He begged to move.

MR. DUNDAS WHITE (Dumbartonshire)

in seconding the Amendment, said it seemed to him that some clear directions from the House ought to be given as to the principle on which such a large sum of money should be distributed, and that it should not be left to the sweet will of the Department. The Department had put forward a scheme which seemed to rest on no clear principle whatever. He would not quarrel with it if it worked well, but his point was that it did not work well. For example, Kincardineshire got at the rate of 15s. and Peebles-shire over 20s. per child in average attendance, while the industrial counties of Lanark, Renfrew, and Dumbarton got under 10s. per child in average attendance. It seemed to him that these industrial centres, in many places overcrowded, ought to receive much fairer and more generous treatment than they were receiving under the scheme. The scheme which he and his friends were putting forward was that the number of children in average attendance at the schools should be subject to two qualifications. The first was that £25,000 a year should be set aside for specially necessitous districts, and the other was that no district should receive less than it was at present receiving, subject to the general qualification that the arrangement was sound in principle and would work well in practice.

Amendment proposed— In page 14, line 21, to leave out from the word 'district,' to end of clause, and to insert the words, 'so as to give an equal amount, for every child in average attendance at their respective school or schools, to all school boards and other managers of State-aided schools, but that only after reservation of the sum of twenty-five thousand pounds to be given, at the absolute discretion of the Department, to necessitous schools or schools in thinly-populated districts.'"—(Mr. Menzies.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'in,' in line 24, stand part of the Bill.'"

MR. SINCLAIR

said the local authorities were, under the Bill, to get their share of the grant not as charity but of right. The hon. Member proposed to reserve £25,000. He himself was perfectly confident that such a distribution would not be in accordance with the general desire of the people of Scotland. What the local authorities wanted was to know what they would be sure to get, and not to be under the apprehension that, having the right to certain moneys, they could not depend upon them in future. That was an insuperable objection to accepting the Amendment. All these suggestions were fully examined and considered. He appealed to his hon. friend not to press the Amendment. The views of Members representing various constituencies were before the Government, and they would be carefully considered.

MR. MENZIES

said that on the understanding that this would receive consideration he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MORTON

who had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words, "in accordance with a scheme of allocation prepared by the Department," and to insert the words, "a fixed grant to be allocated to each county in the first place, the balance to be distributed according to population or in some other equitable manner," said that Sutherland was one of the counties which apparently under all the scales would suffer a diminution of what they at present earned. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the Department would not be bound by the scale mentioned and that in no case would they get less money than they were getting this current year, and that in all human probability, they must get more, as there would be more money to distribute. Under those circumstances, and being anxious that the Bill should be passed, he did not desire to move this Amendment.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

moved an Amendment which, he said, was designed to give something of a safeguard in the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeen.

Amendment proposed— In page 14, lines 29 and 30, to leave out the words 'which scheme shall be laid before Parliament,' and to insert the words 'Provided that such scheme shall be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament if Parliament be sitting, or, if not, then within three weeks after the commencement of the next ensuing session of Parliament, and if neither House of Parliament within one month, exclusive of any period of prorogation, after a scheme has been laid before it, presents an address praying the King to withhold his assent from such scheme or any part thereof, it shall be lawful for the King in Council by Order to approve the same or any part thereof to which such address does not relate. The presentation of an address as aforesaid shall be without prejudice to the making of a further scheme under the like procedure. (4) A scheme under this section may be amended by a subsequent scheme made under the like procedure. (5) Any scheme approved by Order in Council under this section shall, as from the date prescribed in such Order, be of the same force as if it were enacted in this Act.'"—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments proposed— In page 14, line 40, after the word 'parents,' to insert the words 'or guardians.' In page 15, line 9, to leave out from the word 'of,' to end of line 10, and to insert the words 'income from all sources other than from school rate.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

rose to move, in page 15, line 9, to leave out from the word "income," to end of subsection, and insert the words "from fees and from grants made by the Department, which grants shall be paid on the annual average attendance of all scholars enrolled in these schools, provided that a course approved by the Department is followed by the majority of the pupils and that a full and definite course of secondary education is substituted for such as do not follow it."

MR. SINCLAIR

asked whether the Amendment was in order. It was an instruction as to the disposal of a Treasury Grant, which did not come out of the Scottish fund at all.

MR. SPEAKER

I think that is so. We cannot deal with that on Report.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

moved to insert, at the end of line 10, the words "except burghs and parishes which have made provision for their own scholars." He said the Amendment referred to an educational hardship which would result from the clause as it stood. Some Leith children went to Edinburgh High School, at a cost of £10 to £12 per head, and others went to Trinity Academy, at a cost of less than £3 per head. It seemed to him rather hard that the cost of children belonging to parents with social aspirations who attended Edinburgh High School, which had great educational traditions, should fall upon the poorer population of Leith, possibly dock labourers out of employment. Why should they have to contribute towards the cost of the education of the Leith child at the Edinburgh High School, amounting to between £10 and £12 in the course of the year? It was hard that they should have to pay for that child four times what the cost would be at Trinity Academy.

Amendment proposed— In page 15, line 10, at end, to insert the words 'except burghs and parishes which have made provision for their own scholars.'"—(Mr. Munro Ferguson.)

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

MR. SINCLAIR

said that under the whole system of education in Scotland parents could not be compelled to send their children to any particular school. There was no such obligation in any preceding Education Act. The grievance to which reference had been made was not so bad as the hon. Gentleman made out. The cost of secondary education did not fall on the rates; it was provided for from other funds. In the second place, by this Bill, as his hon. friend knew, the burden of secondary education was laid not upon a particular parish, but on the district as a whole by a system of contributions from the school boards of outside districts which sent some children to the secondary school, and by the provision of bursaries. He hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

said he would not press the Amendment, but as the people of Leith found that they would have a hard case under the Bill he had brought it up.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments proposed— In page 15, line 20, to leave out the word 'fund,' and to insert the word 'board.' In page 15, line 21, after the word 'maintenance,' to insert the words 'after deduction of income from grants made by the Department or from fees, and of any sum paid to the school board under the immediately preceding subsection.' In page 16, line 21, after the word 'aforesaid,' to insert the words 'or, in circumstances approved by the Department, at a supplementary course of not less than three years duration conducted in accordance with Article 21 of the Code of regulations for day schools of 1908 or under other regulations of the Department that may come in place thereof.' In page 16, line 23, at end, to insert the words 'or training college.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. COCHRANE

said that the Amendment standing in his name to insert in Clause 16, after the word "board" the words "or the managers of any inspected school," was to meet another special case, that of Spier's School at Beith. That school was made a central institution for the training of junior students by the Scottish Education Department. It was governed by a body of el ven managers, of whom seven were elected by the school boards of the district, and these were called upon by the Department to increase their accommodation in order that they might receive the additional grant. The managers spent £4,500 in providing an admirable science and art equipment; and what they desired was that there should be some power by which this school, and others similarly situated, should get back some part of the capital expenditure on equipment in the same way as by subsection (8) of the clause school boards got contributions in aid of capital expenditure for class-rooms, laboratories, etc. He thought an economic way of providing for this class of education should be encouraged, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to add these words to the clause.

Amendment proposed— In page 17, line 26, after the word 'board,' to insert the words "or the managers of any inspected school.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)

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

MR. SINCLAIR

said he had no doubt that Spier's School was doing most excellent work, but the difficulty of accepting the Amendment was that it would give a grant-in-aid of capital expenditure to increase the value of property held by private persons. He was sorry that that was a principle to which it was not possible to assent.

MR. COCHRANE

said that the right hon. Gentleman misapprehended the case. There were eleven governors of this school, only one of whom was nominated and eleven were elected by school boards.

MR. SINCLAIR

said he did not quite follow the hon. Gentleman. There might be a large share of representation in the management of the school, but that did not alter the fact that the Amendment would involve the making of a grant-in-aid of capital expenditure on what was private property.

Amendment negatived.

MR. R. DUNCAN (Lanarkshire, Govan)

moved to add to the end of subsection (1) of Clause 20 the words: "Provided always that it shall not be competent under this section to annex a school board district having a population of over fifty thousand to an adjacent school board district unless the districts concerned are agreed in desiring such union." The object of this Amendment was to prevent the abuse of the system by which a school board might induce the Department to annex an adjacent school board against the wish of the latter. He represented a school board district with a population of 250,000 which had shown a progressive spirit ever since its establishment in 1872. Their school board was admitted to be one of the best in Scotland and they naturally wished to be safeguarded against a possible arbitrary Order from the Department to be united with the School Board of Glasgow. Unless both the school boards desired to be united it should not be done. He begged to move.

MR. WATT (Glasgow, College)

seconded the Amendment, which, he said, limited the power of the Department and made it essential that before one school board could annex another that adjacent board should give its consent. Large districts were apt to swallow up the small fry of neighbouring districts, as the city of Edinburgh had repeatedly endeavoured to swallow up Leith, and Glasgow, Govan.

Amendment proposed— In page 20, line 19, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided always that it shall not be competent under this section to annex a school board district having a population of over fifty thousand to an adjacent school board district unless the districts concerned are agreed in desiring such union.'"—(Mr. Robert Duncan.)

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

MR. SINCLAIR

said that this Amendment really only applied to Govan and he did not think that Govan would like to be called small fry, as had been suggested by the seconder. He could assure the hon. Member for Govan that he need have no apprehension in regard to the Govan School Board being united to the Glasgow district. He thought it would be undesirable specially to safeguard in a Bill of this kind a very large district such as Govan, which was perfectly able to take care of itself.

MR. R. DUNCAN

said as the right hon. Gentleman and the Government had satisfied themselves on this matter, it would be captious on his part not to accept the explanations. He would withdraw the Amendment.

MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)

asked whether, in the case of the absorption of one school board by another under this clause, there were any safeguards as to the emoluments, etc., of the officials of the absorbed school board.

MR. SINCLAIR

said an hon. Member had an Amendment down on that point, and the question had better be discussed upon it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SINCLAIR

, speaking in regard to an Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. Cochrane, safeguarding the interests of the officials of the school boards in the event of an order uniting them being made, said that in the opinion of his advisers these officials were provided for, but he would reconsider the matter, as he desired to act in the spirit of the lines of the Amendment, and if it was necessary he would introduce a further provision.

MR. COCHRANE

said that, of course, after the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he should not move the Amendment, but he would rather like the right hon. Gentleman to say how he proposed to give effect to his promise. There was a power in the Bill to unite parishes and officials might be displaced. He had not been able to ascertain whether anything would be done for them, and he, therefore, put down this Amendment, which he had taken from the Local Government Act of 1889, adjusting it to meet the needs of the various classes. He thought some similar clause should be put in to safeguard the rights of the teachers. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman was thoroughly seized of the point, and wished he had been able to put the Amendment down sooner, so that he might have been able to consider it.

MR. SINCLAIR

said he should like to have a free hand as to the way in which he dealt with the question if it was necessary. At present he was advised it was not necessary. Passing from that subject, he wished to move an Amendment omitting subsection (2) and introducing another dealing with the question of audit. A good deal of discussion, he said, had taken place on that subject since the Committee stage of the Bill, and therefore he proposed his Amendment which was now upon the Paper. The first Amendment which appeared on the Paper was that in the name of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire. That Amendment was very long, and practically restated the system which they had embodied in the Bill, by transferring a large portion of the Schedule into the actual substance of the Bill, and it provided for an appeal to the Court of Session, which was to be an appeal by a person aggrieved by the surcharge. The Government were very anxious to meet all reasonable criticism to their proposal. The House would see that there were Amendments down in the name of the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs to this Amendment of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire, and the real substantive portion of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs lay in the paragraph which dealt with the question of surcharge. The hon. Member proposed to insert— And in the event of any expenditure of the same nature as the payment so disallowed being incurred by the school board in any subsequent year, the Department if they shall be of opinion that the members authorising such expenditure should be surcharged, may present a petition to either division of the Court of Session, craving to have such expenditure declared illegal, and the said members of the school board ordained to refund the amount of such expenditure in the event of it being declared illegal, and the Court shall before granting or refusing the prayer of such petition consider any representations made in answer thereto by the members proposed to be surcharged, and the Court shall have power to find that the expenses of said proceedings shall be payable by said members personally or out of the school fund as may appear just. His hon. friend proposed that the Government should make it perfectly clear and explicit that there should be a dispensing power in the Department in regard to a first offence, so to speak, or the first illegal expenditure, and, as he himself said in Committee, frequently an expenditure of this kind might be incurred perfectly innocently, without any mala fides in the matter, and it had never been the practice of the Department to disallow any such payment. The hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs made this perfectly explicit in the Amendment which he had introduced to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire. That was his first point. His second point was that the Department should not have the power to surcharge itself, but if it wished to surcharge, it must go to the Court of Session, thereby laying the burden of determining upon that Court. The Department would have to go to the Court of Session and get the sanction of that Court to surcharge. He had had opportunities of consulting various bodies of critics of the original proposals of the Government as they were now contained in the Bill, on the subject of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs, and he had received assurances from them that the hon. Gentleman's proposal as amending that of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire met their views sufficiently, and thus bearing in mind the point of view of the Department, and the point of view of Scottish education, he had put down in his own name the Amendment which he now moved. It appeared a very long Amendment, but it was simply an embodiment of what the two hon. Gentleman he had mentioned just now proposed, and made one consistent Amendment, and showed the scheme of audit and surcharge which the Government now proposed to the Committee. He thought he need not say anything more at the moment to explain further that system, but he hoped, as there was good ground for believing, that it met with approval outside the House, it might be equally fortunate to meet with approval inside it. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 21, line 7, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert the following: (2) The following regulations with respect to audit shall be observed (that is to say) (a) Before each audit the clerk of the school board shall, after receiving from the accountant of the Department the requisite appointment, give at least fourteen days notice in such manner as shall be prescribed from time to time, of the time and place at which the audit will be made, and of the deposit of accounts required by this section, and of the name and address of the accountant of the Department; (b) An abstract in duplicate of the accounts, duly made up, balanced, and signed as aforesaid, shall, together with all assessment books, account books, deeds, contracts, accounts, vouchers, and receipts mentioned or referred to in such accounts, be deposited in the offices of the school board and be open between the hours of eleven forenoon and three afternoon to the inspection of all ratepayers within the district of the school board liable to contribute to the school fund, as hereinbefore provided, for seven clear days before the audit, and all such persons shall be at liberty to take copies of or extcrats from the same, without any fee; and any officer of the school board duly appointed in that behalf refusing to allow inspection thereof shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, (c) For the purpose of any audit under this Act the accountant of the Department may, by demand in writing, require the production before him of all books, deeds, contracts, accounts, vouchers, receipts, and other documents and papers which he may deem necessary, and may require any person holding the same, or accountable therefor, to appear before him at any such audit, or any adjournment thereof, and to make and sign a declaration as to the correctness of the same; and if such person neglects or refuses so to appear, or to produce any such books, deeds, contracts, accounts, vouchers, receipts, documents, or papers, or to make or sign such declaration, he shall incur for every neglect or refusal a penalty not exceeding forty shillings; and if he falsely or corruptly makes or signs any such declaration, knowing the same to be untrue in any material particular, he shall be liable to the penalties inflicted on persons guilty of perjury. (d) Any ratepayer may make any objection to such accounts or any part thereof, and shall transmit the same and the grounds thereof in writing to the accountant of the Department, and a copy thereof to the officer concerned, two clear days before the time fixed for the audit, and any ratepayer may be present at the audit and may support any objection made as hereinbefore provided either by himself or by any ratepayer, (e) If it shall appear to the accountant of the Department acting in pursuance of this section that any payment is in his opinion contrary to law and should be disallowed, or that any sum which in his opinion ought to have been, is not brought into account by any person, whether such payment or failure to account has been made matter of objection or not, he shall, by an Interim Report under his hand, report thereon to the Department setting forth the grounds of his opinion as aforesaid, and the Department shall cause such Interim Report to be intimated to the objector, if any, and to the officer or other person affected thereby; and after due inquiry the Department shall decide all questions raised by such Interim Report, and shall disallow all illegal payments, and shall allow all sums which ought to have been but have not been brought into account, and, in the event of any expenditure, of the same nature as any payment so disallowed being incurred by the school board in any subsequent year, the Department, if they should be of opinion that the members authorising such expenditure should be surcharged, may present a petition to either Division of the Court of Session craving to have such expenditure declared illegal and the said members of the school board ordained to refund the amount of such expenditure in the event of it being declared illegal; and the Court shall, before granting or refusing the prayer of such petition, consider any representations made in answer thereto by the members proposed to be surcharged, and the Court shall have power to find that the expenses of the said proceedings shall be payable by the said members personally or out of the school fund as may appear just. (f) Within fourteen days after the completion of the audit, or, as the case may be, after any proceedings under the immediately preceding paragraph of this subsection have been disposed of, the accountant of the Department shall report on the accounts audited, and shall certify on each duplicate abstract thereof the amount in words at length of the expenditure so audited and allowed, and further that the regulations with respect to the accounts have been complied with, and that he has ascertained by the audit the correctness of the accounts. He shall forthwith send one duplicate abstract of the accounts hereinbefore mentioned to the school board, who shall cause the same to be deposited in their office, and shall publish such abstract in the form prescribed in some one or more of the newspapers circulating in the district of the school board. The accountant of the Department shall also forthwith send the other duplicate abstract of the accounts so certified by him to the Department. Provided that, if the Secretary for Scotland shall so determine, such abstract may come in place of and render unnecessary a return of the receipts and expenditure of the school board in pursuance of the Local Taxation Returns (Scotland) Act, 1881. (g) Where any surcharge has been made as hereinbefore provided, or the accountant of the Department has made any interim Report or Report respecting the accounts or the receipts and expenses of the school board, the school board shall cause the surcharge and Interim Report or Report to be printed and published together with the abstract of their accounts hereinbefore mentioned, and to be delivered to any ratepayer, as in this section mentioned, who asks for the same, and in case of default in such publication the Department may cause the same to be published, and the cost of such publication, to the amount certified by the Department, shall be a debt due from the school board to His Majesty, and the clerk of the school board shall be liable in case of default in such publication to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds. (h) Notwithstanding any thing in this section the Department may by minute prescribe rules modifying any enactment contained in this subsection as to the time and place of audit.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

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

MR. COCHRANE

said that his Amendment had been upon the Paper for some considerable time and he certainly felt somewhat prejudiced by the attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment which he had put down would have been very conveniently discussed had it been taken in its original form and the Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs could then have been discussed on their merits. But the right hon. Gentleman had taken a course which he occasionally adopted; he had thought fit to adopt his Amendment and put down one of his own which had precedence, and prevented him from discussing his own proposal. That, however, was merely a trifling matter and he had to deal with the substance of the proposal. No doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, his Amendment was somewhat lengthy, but the same criticism applied to that of the right hon. Gentleman. He put down his proposal because he desired that the Bill should be intelligible to the ordinary person, but the Bill as drafted by the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Local Government Act of 1889, and then other words were substituted for the words of that statute. That was a very clumsy and confusing way of carrying out the proposal, and he thought he would embody a clause in the Bill so that "he who runs may read." That was the only answer he would make to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that his Amendment was somewhat lengthy. When they came to the substance of the two proposals he preferred his solution to that of the right hon. Gentleman's. In the first place they wanted to safeguard the bona fide school board, who would have many difficulties under this Bill. He wanted the House to see that the Department should give them that assistance which they were entitled to claim, so that when some new expenditure arose they would know how to keep in the right path. He had put down another Amendment on line 30 to which he wished to allude as part of his speech. That provided that any particular board or any member who was anxious to know whether they might incur an expenditure might apply to the accountant of the Department, and if he said it was legal no surcharge would arise. That he thought was a commonsense, wise provision. He had not mentioned the Secretary for Scotland as the official of whom the inquiry should be made, because if the right hon. Gentleman was to be the authority to determine the question, and there was an appeal through him to the Court of Session, such a course would have placed him in rather an impossible position, so he was obliged to make the person who would give the opinion whether it was or was not illegal, the accountant of the Department. If he declared that it was illegal it was then provided that the person interested might appeal either to the Court of Session or to the Secretary for Scotland. He thought that was a very complete scheme. What they wanted to prevent was misappropriation and illegal payments, but where a bona fide mistake was made they wished that there should be this dispensing power on the part of the Secretary for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with this matter by leaving out certain words and saying: "There shall be no surcharge on the first illegal" payment. That seemed to him rather to encourage illegal payments. How did the right hon. Gentleman justify his proposition? The first payment might be for a very large amount, but he condoned that offence. Such a way of dealing with the matter opened the door to a very undesirable state of things, nor was it consistent with the other parts of the clause. Because in Section (d) it said— Any ratepayer may make any objection to such accounts or any part thereof. What object could there be in the objection if there was to be no surcharge?

MR. SINCLAIR

said the Department had no power to surcharge at present, it had only power to disallow certain expenditure. In future they would have power.

MR. COCHRANE

said that at present the ratepayers might call attention to illegal payments, and there might be a surcharge but under this proposed clause, they might object to the payments, but could do nothing further. What was to take place after the objection? Here again the right hon. Gentleman had placed his Department in a difficult position. There was no surcharge on the first illegal payment. What was to happen on the second? The accountant of the right hon. Gentleman having already declared a payment to be illegal the right hon. Gentleman had to go to law to see if his accountant's opinion was right or not. The right hon. Gentleman had not improved his Bill by this clause. On the other hand, the Amendment which he himself had placed upon the Paper had the sanction of considerable precedent. It was adopted under the Act of 1902 in England, a most masterly work, which had adopted it from the Public Health Act of 1875. Under that provision any aggrieved persons who considered they had been unjustly surcharged, might appeal to the Queen's Bench Division, or to the Local Government Board. They nearly always appealed to the Local Government Board, because that Department had a power of dispensation. His Amendment would give the appeal to the Court of Session or the Secretary for Scotland, and the only objection he had heard to the appeal was on the ground of expense. But any aggrieved school board that desired to avoid expense had only to appeal to the Secretary for Scotland, and if the right hon. Gentleman thought the payment one that might be justified, he could dispense with the surcharge. He ventured to think his proposal met the situation, and that the right hon. Gentleman's was far from meeting it. He was placed in a somewhat awkward position, because with a great deal of the right hon. Gentleman's clause he agreed, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman's method of getting out of the difficulty of the audit was the least possible one that could be devised.

SIR GEORGE MCCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)

did not, having regard to the compromise offered by the right hon. Gentleman, intend to move his Amendment. At the same time he thought it would have been much better if the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the Amendment adopting the Town Council Act of 1900, on the ground of uniformity. He was now laying down a new procedure with regard to audit. The Report of the Committee on Municipal Trading, presided over by Lord Crewe, laid it down that a surcharge was no protection, and in his view it was better to leave the matter to public opinion and the Law Courts than to attempt to enforce it in this way.

MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)

said the question of the surcharge was one he supposed strongly in Committee, and the school boards with which he was connected had agreed to his supporting the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, subject to there being an appeal of some kind against the autocratic power of the Department. He agreed that there should be an alternative appeal, but at the same time he thought the appeal to the Court of Session was too expensive. He, as a school board manager, would be much more satisfied in ordinary cases to take his appeal to the right hon. Gentleman than to the Court of Session or any other Court. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept some Amendment to provide for an appeal. He had grave doubts as to the dispensing power which the right hon. Gentleman took. He believed it would take away the rights of the ratepayers of taking legal remedies. It was extremely unwise to put a power of this kind into an Act of Parliament and prevent the rights of ratepayers being exercised. Those rights ought to be protected.

MR. SINCLAIR

I am advised it does not take away those rights, and it is the intention of the Government that it shall not do so. It is our intention to affirm that more clearly.

MR. YOUNGER

said if that was so he would pursue that point no further. There was one other objection. The first offence was condoned, and the second offence was to be surcharged. If the first offence was the supply of luncheons, and the second the supply of dinners, they were not the same offence. Were the first and second offences to be of a like character, or were they not? That was a matter the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having afforded him an opportunity of justifying the action that he had taken, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow an alternative appeal to himself.

MR. SMEATON (Stirlingshire)

rose to ask two questions. The right hon. Gentleman desired the appeal to be presented to the Court of Session—a most convenient tribunal for the Department, because the Court held its sittings in Edinburgh, where the Department had its branch offices. At the same time the inconvenience to the school boards, he would imagine, would be great, and the expense of an appeal to the Court of Session would be far greater than an appeal to the Sheriff Court. Why should not the appeal be to the Sheriff Court? The next question he wished to ask was with regard to the payment of costs— And the Court shall, before granting or refusing the prayer of such petition, consider any representations made in answer thereto by the members proposed to be surcharged, and the Court shall have power to find that the expenses of the said proceedings shall be payable by the said members personally or out of the school fund as may appear just.' What about the expenses incurred by the school board when the Department failed? Was the school board to pay in any event?

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

said the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was acceptable as to all the larger boards, but as to the smaller ones, he thought that something was to be said for the modification which had been suggested, because the expense of going to the Court of Session would be considerable. It would be rather hard upon them to have the Court of Session flourished in their face by the Education Department who raised the question of surcharge. While he was quite ready to accept the Secretary for Scotland's proposal as regarded the larger boards he thought that there ought to be some modification in reference to the smaller boards.

THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,) Hawick Burghs

said the point raised was well worthy of consideration, as was that put by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire. The cases would not be many and would arise mostly where there had been some error in law. It was most desirable to have such cases dealt with by the highest judicial authority so that their decision would be applicable to every school board in Scotland. He would point out that they might get an excellent decision by the sheriff in one county while in another they might get a sheriff's judgment which would necessitate the whole case being tried over again.

MR. RAINY (Kilmarnock Burghs)

said he had an Amendment on the Paper which he had put down because he had taken into consideration the question of expense, but after the explanation of the Lord-Advocate he did not propose to move it.

MR. COCHRANE

pointed out that it might be in the power of the Education Board to drag any one of the 972 school boards in Scotland before the Court of Session. If the school board happened to be right, who was to pay the board's expenses?

MR. THOMAS SHAW

was understood to say that in the Scottish Department they were not troubled about the question of costs.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central)

who had given notice of the following Amendment to Clause 21—"to leave out from 'Department,' to end of subsection, and insert 'and any sum not shown to the Department to have been properly expended in giving instruction required or permitted by minute of the Department in force for the time being shall be deducted from the next grant payable to the school'"—said it raised a drafting point. As he read the words of subsection (3), the result of them was that the unfortunate managers of these schools would not be able to get any money paid to them until it had been shown that it had been properly expended, and the consequence would be that they might have to go on without it for many months. That he submitted was the construction of the words. He thought that if there was any doubt about them at all they ought to be set right When he raised the point in Committee the right hon. Gentleman promised to consider it, and he believed that the alternative words which he now suggested would perfectly carry out the intention which they had in view.

MR. SINCLAIR

said the hon. Member's Amendment was not necessary. The words in the Bill would be better left as they were. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that no such ill consequences as he anticipated would follow. He had made inquiries on the point and could give him that assurance.

MR. JAMES HOPE

May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is assured that there will be no such result as I have suggested?

MR. SINCLAIR

Yes.

MR. JAMES HOPE

In that case I do not move.

MR. COCHRANE ,

in moving an Amendment providing that school boards might apply to the Accountant of the Scottish Education Department for advice as to expenditure to be incurred, said the object which he had in view was that school boards should be entitled to ask the advice of the Accountant of the Department as to whether any item of expenditure which they proposed to incur was legal or illegal. He thought it desirable that a school board, if it was anxious to know whether it could incur any particular expenditure, such, for instance, as the feeding of school children, or any other point, should have the opportunity of applying to the Department for advice and assistance in the matter. Although the Department were undoubtedly very courteous, yet if any one approached them as to a point such as those to which he had referred, they invariably answered that it was a legal question and they were not qualified to give a reply. But the Accountant of the Department would surely have to decide whether an expenditure was legal or not, and if he were asked beforehand, he could give an opinion on the matter. His desire was that the Accountant's power to do so should be expressed in the Bill, thus giving the school boards the right to ask for an opinion before entering upon any expenditure which they had in contemplation, and about which they were in doubt.

Amendment proposed— In page 21, line 30, at end, to insert the words '(4) Any school board shall be entitled to make application to the Accountant of the Department respecting any expenditure which they may propose to incur. If such expenditure receives the sanction of the Accountant of the Department it shall not subsequently be regarded as an illegal payment liable to be disallowed or surcharged on the person or persons making such payment.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)

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

MR. SINCLAIR

said the hon. Gentleman was perfectly right. It was a common practice for school boards to write asking the Department their view on a particular expenditure about which they had doubt, and the Department gave such answer as was in their power. But the Department could not take the responsibility of interpreting the law in some particular respect. Of course the present practice would continue, for there was no desire on the part of the Department to discourage the applications of school boards for help and guidance such as the Department could give. This Amendment was part of the hon. Gentleman's own scheme, but there was difficulty in accepting it, because neither the Accountant nor the Department could give a decision as to the legality of a payment; that duty rested with the Court, and it would be very difficult for the Accountant or the Department to give advice, however willing they might be to do so, on some point of an intricate nature. Otherwise, they might express an opinion which afterwards proved to be contrary to the decision of the Court. He thought that on the whole the Bill would be better without the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

thought that the right hon. Gentleman might consider the proposal of his hon. friend in view of the fact that it was the Accountant who now set the machinery of surcharge in motion. If the right hon. Gentleman looked at the first words of the subsection he would see that they were— If it shall appear to the Accountant of the Department acting in pursuance of this section that any payment is, in his opinion, contrary to law, etc— He imagined that his hon. friend would really be satisfied if he could get that expression of opinion from the Accountant of the Department, not at the time when he was intervening and setting the machinery in motion for surcharge, but before the proposed expenditure was incurred.

MR. SINCLAIR

The hon. Gentleman attaches too much judicial weight to the Accountant's Department.

SIR HENRY CRAIK

said he could not agree with his hon. friend who had moved this Amendment, to which the answer was perfectly simple. The Accountant was not really an accountant in the ordinary sense. By the Act of 1872 the word "accountant" was applied to a man who was an auditor. Was it possible for a man who was an auditor as well as accountant to give an opinion beforehand as regarded the accounts? He remembered on one occasion, in connection with a large school, he asked the opinion of the auditor as to certain expenditure, and he received the reply, politely conveyed, that he was to use his own judgment and that he would give his decision on that exercise of judgment afterwards.

MR. J. M. HENDERSON

said that in all his experience he had never known of an Act of Parliament which provided that they should be told beforehand whether what they were doing was right or wrong. That was a thing which they must risk.

MR. COCHRANE

pointed out that local authorities constantly applied to the Local Government Board in Scotland for advice in similar circumstances to those he had in mind in connection with this proposal, and they always got a reply informing them whether a payment was legal or not. A great many of these 972 school boards were probably anxious to keep within the law, and if they could get advice by application to the Education Department it would make the matter easy for them. He, however, should not press his Amendment at that hour of the night, because there was a general understanding that they were to get the Bill through. He merely wanted the hon. Gentleman to understand that it was quite a sensible Amendment which might well have found a place in the Bill in order to keep small school boards in the right direction. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. JAMES HOPE ,

who had given notice of his intention to move the omission of subsection (1) of Clause 22, said his only object in putting down his Amendment was to call attention to the inconsistency between adopting the loan system for the school board and not adopting it for big national works like Rosyth. He would not press the matter.

Amendment proposed— In page 22, line 31, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'at each election after the election taking place in the year nineteen hundred and nine.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER

The Amendment of the hon. Member for Renfrew† is beyond the scope of the Bill. By a side wind it would alter the system of local franchise.

MR. WATT

moved an Amendment which he said would have the effect of postponing the first election until 1911. At the last moment the Government had departed from their original position, and had gone back to the scheme of having the election in the spring of 1909. Preparations for such an election coming on so soon as April or May, 1909, would really be impossible. A roll had to be prepared, which took a very long time. November was the month usually allocated for the beginning of the making of the roll. That month was near its end already, and the Bill was not yet on the Statute-book. The preparation of the roll would be made more elaborate by the fact that under the Bill new electoral districts would be instituted by the Secretary for Scotland. In subsection (4) it was indicated that on the application of a school board the Department might divide a school board district into two or more electoral divisions, define the boundaries of such divisions, and fix the number of members. All these preparations had to be gone into before the rolls were elaborated and the election took place. On that account if on no other, it would be much wiser' to permit the present school boards to continue their existence until 1911, and thus bridge over the time. Under the Government scheme the school boards throughout Scotland would be elected in 1909, and would sit for two years. It was a well-known fact that even under the present law a new school board took at least a year to get into harness, and that with the changes brought about by this Bill the school boards would have much greater difficulty in getting to understand their work. The first year of these new boards would be spent in getting to † The following is the Amendment referred to:—"In Clause 25, after the word 'district,' to insert the words 'Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, a married woman, otherwise possessing the qualification for being registered as an elector may be registered in respect of the same property as her husband; and.'"—(Mr. Laidlaw.) know what they were to do. It was a notorious fact that during the last year of the lives of school boards they were in a condition of terror of the electorate whom they would have to meet, and they initiated very few new schemes. So that they would be deprived of the middle year of their lives when they really did some good for the country.

MR. PIRIE

, in seconding, thought the House must be impressed by the reasonableness of the Amendment. Up to that morning it was the scheme in contemplation by the Government, so that there must be a great deal to be said for it. It was most dangerous in view of the new duties which would fall upon school boards that possibly a great number of men new to educational work might be elected to carry out these new regulations. It would be infinitely more judicious, and in the interests of educational efficiency, if the old members of the school boards had been allowed for the first two years to carry out the absolutely new methods which the Bill would bring into effect. He hoped, if the Government persisted in their attitude—

MR. YOUNGER

On a point of order, might I ask whether these words, having been inserted in the Bill on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, do not involve the necessity for an election in 1909?

ME. SPEAKER

I do not think so. Of course, it is a little involved, but the way I read it would be: "The electors in any election after the election taking place if there is one."

MR. YOUNGER

There is one by law now, and it must take place in 1909.

MR. PIRIE

hoped, if the Government persisted in their attitude, the ratepayers would weigh the desirability of returning old members of the school boards to carry out entirely new duties. In any case it was desirable that the Amendment should be moved in order to get a full explanation of the extraordinary change of attitude of the Government at the last moment.

Amendment proposed— In page 22, line 33, to leave out from the word 'district,' to end of subsection, and to insert the words 'Provided that an existing school board holding office at the passing of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, retain office until the first election of school boards under this Act, which election shall take place in the year nineteen hundred and eleven, being the year following the year of a parish council election.'"—(Mr. Watt.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the second word 'the' in page 22, line 34, stand part of the Bill."

MR. SINCLAIR

hoped he should not offend his hon. friends if he asked them to be good enough not to press the Amendment. It was a point of some importance, but not of cardinal importance. It was quite true what they said, and there was a good deal to be "aid on both sides. It had been his duty to endeavour to arrive at a reasonable compromise on points which were not very vital or of essential importance in the interests of the measure as a whole. This measure had to be worked by people in Scotland. It imposed certain conditions and obligations on a large number of people in Scotland. In the ordinary course the present school boards would have exhausted their mandate by next spring. That was an argument of some strength, and it went rather against the arguments of the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment. After making very careful inquiry, he had found himself in a minority, and he thought it his duty to withdraw from the position which the Government took up in Committee, and to leave the election to take place in its normal way in the spring.

MR. WATT

On that statement I ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments proposed— In page 22, line 34, to leave out from the word '1872' to end of line 38. In page 22, line 39, after the word 'election,' to insert the words 'after the election in the year nineteen hundred and nine.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. JAMES HOPE

, in moving to leave out subsection (3), said the object of his Amendment was to preserve the cumulative vote which was necessary for the protection of minorities. He had no fear that any conscious or deliberate injustice would be perpetrated by school boards upon any minority, but they would feel it a loss and a deprivation, and indirectly they would be left out of the power of controlling matters which were of great interest and importance to them. Under earlier clauses of the Bill certain powers were given to school boards with regard to schools in their area but not under their control. He did not profess that the cumulative vote was an ideal system and he did not doubt that the system of the hon. Member for Ayr might be better had they time to discuss it. Under the English Education Act there was special provision for minorities in the constitution of the education committees. If the franchise was changed to the ordinary political franchise in Scotland there would be no room for these minorities. Speaking specially for his own coreligionists who did not like the other provisions of this Bill with regard to finance, if this cumulative vote was taken away from them they would feel that they were hardly and harshly treated. He did not believe that was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and he would lose nothing by keeping the cumulative vote in.

MR. WATT

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 23, line 5, to leave out subsection (3)."—(Mr. James Hope.)

Question proposed, "That the words of the subsection down to the word 'give,' in line 6, stand part of the clause."

MR. SINCLAIR

said they approached this clause with two Amendments on the Paper, one to reinstate the cumulative vote and the other introducing the system of proportional representation. For his own part he regretted extremely that it was not possible to abolish the cumulative vote in Scotland. Very strong representations had reached him as to the inconveniences which would arise if the cumulative vote was not passed into law. That being so, and holding the view that, after all, the education system, if it was to be worked for the benefit of the people of Scotland, must work without friction, the Government had been obliged, and thought it well, to re-consider their position in the matter. One alternative held out was contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire dealing with the system of proportional representation, and he thought that Amendment might have gone some way in the direction of satisfying the views of some of those who supported the cumulative vote. On the other hand, it could not be denied that it was a somewhat serious thing to adopt in an Act of Parliament by a side wind the principle of proportional representation, even though its application was confined to local elections. That was a new principle which he did not know that the House of Commons as at present constituted had ever had an opportunity of really discussing. On the whole he thought it was better to take the simpler plan, and as they could not secure unanimity as to the abolition of the cumulative vote the Government had decided to leave it in existence where it was. He was sorry for it, but he thought it was a necessity of the situation, and he advised his hon. friend on the Ministerial side of the House to take that view of the matter. There was other business to come on, and he suggested to the hon. Member for Sheffield who had moved the omission of this subsection—which course the Government agreed to—not to press his Amendment to omit the next subsection which the Government preferred should remain in the Bill. He assented to the Motion to omit subsection 3.

MR. JAMES HOPE

thanked the Secretary for Scotland for meeting him so far, and he did not think it would be necessary under the circumstances to move his other Amendment.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

greatly deplored the decision of the Government on this point. He said that certainly not from any want of consideration for hon. Gentlemen opposite who wished to retain the cumulative vote, but because he thought their object could have been better attained by the proposal of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire in favour of proportional representation. The proportional system of representation would have provided them with a good voting system, whereas cumulative voting was a thoroughly bad one. The only really progressive section left in the Bill now was that relating to continuation classes. With that exception this was a reactionary Bill, and to go back on the cumulative vote was the most unfortunate step the Government had taken.

MR. BOLAND

congratulated the Secretary for Scotland on the line he had taken up, because he had tried to meet the views of those who had been contending for the rights of minorities. Subsection (6) of Clause 3 gave power to provide free stationery not only to board schools, but to voluntary schools, and if the cumulative vote had been abolished, it was quite possible in some districts where voluntary schools were not looked upon with favour that the school board might have withdrawn from voluntary schools the right to have free books and stationery, which the supporters of the Bill claimed was one of the great advantages given to voluntary schools by this measure. He thought it was absolutely necessary that the cumulative vote should be retained. The right hon. Gentleman had done the right thing by preserving for minorities the cumulative vote.

MR. BEALE (Ayrshire, S)

assumed that the course taken by the Government rendered his Amendment in favour of proportional representation impossible because it took out the subsection to which that Amendment related. He might say that so far as the representation of minorities went he was delighted, although he was not satisfied that the course the Government had taken was the right one. After the speech of the hon. Member for Leith Burghs he had some hope that they would get before long a better system than the cumulative vote for attaining the same very desirable object.

MR. GULLAND (Dumfries Burghs)

said he was very much surprised at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, because he had hoped that the clumsy, antiquated, cumbrous and unsatisfactory methods provided by the cumulative vote would have been abolished. He thought the plan adopted in the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire provided a real solution of the difficulty of the representation of minorities in a scientific form. The cumulative vote was a most unscientific way of attaining that object.

MR. MORTON

expressed his regret that the Secretary for Scotland had given way on this point. He did not know whom the right hon. Gentleman had taken his orders from, but he had certainly not consulted the Scottish Members. He understood a few days ago that the right hon. Gentleman was going to stick to his Bill, and he regretted that he had not had the courage to do so.

MR. J. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)

expressed his gratification at the decision of the Government on this point. His hon. friend opposite said he did not know where the Secretary for Scotland got his authority from. He would remind him that the Scottish Members upstairs were consulted and the Government very narrowly escaped defeat on this very subject. [Cries of "No."] The hon. Member who interrupted him evidently was not present when this subject was debated upstairs. Those who were present, however, were genuine Scotsmen and not Englishmen sitting for Scottish constituencies. He had listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dumfries who had described the cumulative voting system as clumsy and antiquated. That was not the first time that those words had bee, used, because the Opposition had frequently used the same words as applied to free trade. That, however, did not settle the question. The cumulative vote was the only system which could give fair representation to minorities, and the scheme with which the hon. Member opposite had fallen in love, namely, proportional representation, would not give fair representation to minorities. They were contending for a fair representation for minorities, and having regard to the fact that they had at the present moment educational peace in Scotland he claimed that it was largely owing to the cumulative voting system under which representatives of all denominations could obtain seats on the Education Board. That system allowed the representatives of all denominations to sit around a common board, and in that, way they learned to know and respect one another. It was largely on account of that system that they had no religious differences in Scotland, and it would have been absolutely deplorable if the Government, finding that there was no religious controversy in Scotland, had proceeded by this Bill to create an educational difficulty and bitterness where none had existed previously. For those reasons he rejoiced at the decision of the Government, and if hon. Members opposite were only allowed to speak their opinions to-night he felt sure an overwhelming majority of them would declare themselves in favour of the decision at which the Government had arrived. [Cries of "No."] The Scottish Members to-night were not allowed to speak, because they had all been muzzled at the peril of their political existence. He felt sure if they were free and the Government Whips were not put on an overwhelming majority of Scottish Members would declare in favour of this fair representation of minorities in Scotland.

MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)

said they had now reached a very important stage of this Bill, because they were called upon to settle the principle upon which the representation of school boards should be based. The present system offered some advantages for the representation of minorities, but they were now considering the whole system de novo. They were putting new provisions on the Statute-book, and surely that was an occasion when they might consider whether cumulative voting was the best means of obtaining results which they all desired. He regretted to find that upon an occasion of this sort, for reasons which he could not understand, the proper discussion of the question at issue was being burked" He was extremely anxious to hear the views of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire upon proportional representation. He was anxious to hear what were the objections to which the cumulative vote was open. [Cries of "Agreed."] If muzzled Members of the Liberal Party below the gangway were agreed, he wished it to be understood that there was no such muzzling on his side of the House. Regret would be largely felt in Scotland that this occasion had been allowed to pass without a discussion of the principle embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.

MR. MCCALLUM (Paisley)

said he desired to join those who had thanked the Government for the course they had taken in this matter. As one who had often taken advantage of the cumulative vote, he thought it was only fair that the minority should be considered. Catholics and Nonconformists had surely some rights as ratepayers, and under the system provided by the cumulative vote they were able to obtain representation which under other methods they would not be able to secure. The Government had acted wisely and with great advantage to the cause of education in making a graceful surrender.

MR. R. DUNCAN

said it had been constantly reiterated that there was very great harmony between Catholics and Protestants in Scotland. The reason for that harmony was that there had been a desire on the part of the people to remember the fundamentals on which they were agreed, and to try to forget those matters on which they were not yet agreed. They would be taking a backward step if by abolishing the cumulative vote they were practically to disfranchise the Catholics in Scotland. Ninety per cent. of the people of Scotland were Protestants and Presbyterians, and he thought nothing need be done to render Catholics less powerful than they were now. He was glad the Government had come to the decision to retain the cumulative vote, which, although in some respects a clumsy method, was a means by which minorities of the ratepayers could obtain representation.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

moved to insert the words "before granting or refusing the prayer of the petition and complaint" after the word "shall" in line 30. He said this was merely a drafting Amendment designed to clear up the question whether the function of the Court in dealing with defaulting governing bodies was purely ministerial or to a certain extent judicial. The Secretary for Scotland would as a matter of law state whether the words were unnecessary. He wished to get a public assurance on the point from the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment proposed— In page 23, line 30, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'before granting or refusing the prayer of the petition and complaint.'"—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

MR. SINCLAIR

assured the hon. Gentleman that the words were not necessary to obtain the purpose he had in view.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 25, line 3, after the second word 'exceeding,' to insert the words 'seven hundred pounds per annum in the case of endowments the revenues of which before the passing of this Act might be applied to purposes in two or more counties, or in any other case not exceeding.'"—(Mr. Watt.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

MR. SINCLAIR

said the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs communicated with him on the subject of this Amendment. He was sorry that he was not able to accept the Amendment. The clause was very carefully considered and the protection of endowment authorities was sufficiently provided for. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 25, line 12, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that the governing body of any intermediate or secondary school administered under a scheme approved in terms of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1882, or under any Act or any Provisional Order confirmed by Act of Parliament, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any scheme,. Act, or Order, have power, with the sanction of the Department, to administer that part of their annual revenue, presently applicable to the granting of bursaries, in conformity with the requirements of Section twenty-eight thereof without the necessity of applying to the Court of Session or to Parliament.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)

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

MR. SINCLAIR

referred the hon. Member to page 25, lines 5 to 8, where there were the words— Notwithstanding any provision of the scheme hitherto regulating the number, amount, conditions of tenure, or method of award of the bursaries, be applied by the governing body to the granting of bursaries in conformity with the general scheme for the district as aforesaid. He was advised that these words fully met the point of the hon. Member's Amendment. He would give the hon. Member the undertaking that if they did not fully cover it the words would be accepted.

MR. COCHRANE

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 25, line 40, after the word 'council,' to insert the words 'or county education committee.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)

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

MR. SINCLAIR

said the Amendment had been moved no doubt because of an apprehension that the interests of servants were in danger under the Bill That was not so. They would be in the same position under the secondary education committee as under a county council. The same protection would be extended to them, and there was no need for the Amendment.

MR. COCHRANE

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GULLAND

moved to insert in Clause 32—the interpretation clause—after the word "Department," the words "which in future shall be called the Scottish Education Department." As between the words "Scotch" and "Scottish," one word was wrong and the other right both officially and unofficially. He would call the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to the fact that the Scotch Education Department was housed in the Scottish office, that it had charge of the Royal Scottish Museum, and that this Bill was considered and amended by the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills. That was a sufficient reason for his Amendment. He had consulted the Edinburgh Directory and found that there were in that city 123 Scottish societies and three Scotch; while in the Glasgow Directory there were 122 Scottish Societies and three Scotch. They ought to use the word "Scottish" where it ought to be used. He begged to move.

AN HON. MEMBER

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 26, line 10, after the word 'Department, to insert the words 'which in future shall be called the Scottish Education Department.'"—(Mr. Gulland.)

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

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said he wished that they had a little time to discuss this Amendment. As a temperance reformer, the mover of the Amendment had an objection to the word "Scotch." He did not agree with those people who wanted to call themselves Scottish. The real authority on all things Scotch was Robert Burns, and one of his best poems was about an "Auld Scotch drink." Then there was Byron's poem about "English bards, and Scotch reviewers." Every author of eminence—Burns, Byron, Scott—would have been affronted at the idea of their attempting to get the word "Scottish" in two syllables when they had the strong, sensible, and suggestive word "Scotch" in one syllable.

Amendments proposed— In page 20, line 25, to leave out the word 'Third,' and to insert the word 'Second.' In page 27, line 17, to leave out the word 'Fourth,' and to insert the word 'Third.' In page 29, to leave out Schedule 2.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

Amendments agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

MR. PIRIE

said that some of the features in connection with this Bill were unparalleled in the annals of Scottish legislation. It might be said that he was exceeding his rights in saying a word on the Third Reading, but he did not think so. He asked the House to consider the time given to this Scottish Education Bill as compared with the time given to the English education measure. When the Scottish Members asked for time to discuss the Bill on Report and on the Third Reading stage, they were told a fortnight ago that it was a non-contentious Bill, and that it should go through the House in the course of one sitting including the Third Reading. On the first day of the Report stage it was discussed from four o'clock in the afternoon to two o'clock in the morning. Since that time a great number of new Amendments had been placed upon the notice paper by the Government, making changes in the Bill, and most of them were good. What would have happened to the new Amendments had the original idea been carried out? Those Scottish Members who had revolted against the treatment meted out to Scotland had surely been justified in their attitude from the fact that many of the Amendments which had been put down had been accepted. He had had twelve years' service in the House, and in all that long experience he did not think he had ever known Scottish business to be so treated as it had been during this session and the last. It was becoming more and more apparent as time went on that this House was not the proper place to manage Scottish business. [Cries of "Home Rule."] In another statement the Prime Minister said that the Bill was non-contentious. Were the Scottish Members under the Party system not like a poor starving dog which must take what was thrown to it without complaint? That was why Scotland was anxious to get this Bill. It had been said that the Bill was closely connected with the old-age pension scheme for teachers, and that it was important from a Treasury point of view that the Bill should pass that day. That brought him to a matter the like of which he trusted would never happen again. The rumour had been sedulously circulated in the Lobby yesterday that unless the Bill was passed by 8.15 that night, it would be dropped, and he had had a letter written to him saying that it was necessary that the Bill should be passed by a certain time. That was holding a pistol at the head of the Scottish Members telling them to pass the Bill, or else they were not doing their duty. He hoped such a thing would never be repeated. He did not know who was to blame, but it was clear that the party whips had regarded party alone; and not the interests of Scottish legislation. The Scottish Members had every right in doing their duty, indignantly to repudiate such treatment, and to declare that they would have none of it. There was one other feature to which he would like to call the attention of the House. The Bill had been before the Standing Committee for fourteen or fifteen sittings. Scotland, at the present moment, had the advantage of possessing ten or twelve Members who sat on the Treasury Bench. Those Members were naturally among the ablest of the Scottish representatives. They were men whose opinion would be of some value in shaping Scottish legislation, but by the system of Scottish Grand Committees they were debarred from and had not actually taken any part at all in the discussions of this measure in Committee. That meant to say that ten or twelve Scottish constituencies were practically disfranchised. [An HON. MEMBER: Shame.] Some of those hon. Members were eminent authorities on Scottish education, including the Secretary for War who, when this Bill was before the last Parliament had taken a prominent part in the discussions in Committee. There was one great blot on the measure—it was a matter which he had brought up on the Second Reading stage—and that was, that the opportunity had been lost of transferring the Scottish Education Department from London to Edinburgh. He had always thought that was a most vital point, and that the people of Scotland had a right to manage their own educational affairs in their own country. In his preface to a valuable work on Scottish educational reform, the Secretary of State, who had been a Scottish Member for upwards of twenty-two years and who was a member of the Education Committee of Scotland, expressed the view that the administration ought to be centred in Scotland and not at Dover House, many hundreds of miles away. Having written that, it was the bounden duty of the right hon. Gentleman to support in Committee an Amendment to that effect, and to forward his views in the House of Commons. Until this change was effected the administration could not be effectively carried on. There were fifty Scottish officials of the Scottish Education Department in London and 118 in Scotland, and it stood to reason that where the latter number was the headquarters of the Department ought to be. The amount of the salaries of the Scottish officials in London was £13,000, and in Scotland £40,000, and it stood to reason that where the salaries of the officials were the most numerous, the head of the Department ought to be. All the other Scottish boards, eight in number, were practically centred in Scotland. Surely it was a strong argument that the Education Department should be in Scotland that the Local Government Board was carried on there, because the latter had more administrative work to do than the Education Department, and that Board was both legislative and administrative. What would his hon. friends from Ireland say if the Irish Education Department were to be situated in London, and surely Scotland had a right to ask that she should have the same advantages as Ireland. Take the question of the legal officers. Parliament did not sit during a great part of the year, and during that period at least they ought to be in Edinburgh to control the legal work. It was not treating the Scottish school boards fairly in the management of their business, unless they were given a close personal association with the Department, and if the office was in Edinburgh it would lesser the number of deputations from Scotland to England, and also reduce the correspondence. As to the ostensible reasons given against the change by those who professed to wish for it, it was a case of "save me from my friends." They said they were in favour of it, if they were given a Parliament in Scotland, and had Home Rule first. He said that if they transferred the Education Board to Scotland, Home Rule would necessarily follow. The Secretary for Scotland said they would transfer the Department to-morrow if they could also transfer the power of Parliament to control it, but Parliament did not do so. It had been the curse of Scotland—this alleged control of the Education Department by Scottish Members, and the influence of Scottish Members in the House was a myth and an illusion. The control of Parliament was wholly illusory, and the Department was dominated by the officials. It was said by the Secretary for Scotland that the Scottish Education Department being one of the largest spending Departments should be located close to the Treasury in order that negotiations to get more money might proceed. He never heard of such an argument being put forward by a Minister. They did not want to get any money by back door influences, but they wanted what they were entitled to, and no more. Then they were told that the officials of the Department had established themselves in London, and had long leases of their houses, and it would be rather unfair to disturb them. He was perfectly ready that the change should only take place in five years time. There was one thing they had gained by discussion, however, because they now knew that this change could be brought about by administrative action. He could assure the Secretary for Scotland that they would leave no stone unturned until the Scottish people realised the importance of this matter. He asked hon. Members to put the question firmly and straightforwardly before the democracy, and it would not be long before the change was brought about. They had had thirty-six years of this Department; for that period no great educational reform had been carried out in Scotland, and he thought that such a state of things was lamentable. He was pleading not only with the members of the House, but with the Scottish people to say that as it was the inviolable right of a private individual that he should be able to take an active interest in the education of his own off-spring, so it was the great duty of a nation to take an active interest in the education of its own children. In insisting upon that they were fulfilling one of the most sacred duties that could fall upon any nation. He pleaded for this change as he had never pleaded for anything in the House before, and he held that it was in the highest interests of Scotland and its education that she should have the right which he advocated. The result of this Bill, he was sorry to say, had not been to free Scotland from the Education Department, but to rivet the fetters upon her, but he looked forward to the time when the many obstacles which prevented Scotland from controlling her own education and her own affairs would be removed.

MR. BOLAND

said the members of the Irish Party for whom he and the hon. Member for South Down had been acting had hoped that before the Bill emerged from the Report stage the financial arrangements would have been settled satisfactorily, and it was with great regret that they came to the Third Reading, and found that they were practically in the same position as they were when they started. The House would remember how, when the Report stage was under discussion, they moved that the Bill should be re-committed so that Clause 15 might be discussed again, and that the Catholic, and in fact, all the voluntary schools in Scotland should have some opportunity of competing, not on level terms, but on fair terms with the school boards in Scotland, and the House would remember how after three hours discussion it was disclosed to them that there would be a residue of 2s. per child for voluntary schools in Scotland. He willingly conceded that the Secretary for Scotland had met their claim about the cumulative vote in a generous manner, but he did not consider that the financial arrangements of the Bill were satisfactory, and consequently they must take a division against the Bill. Under the English education scheme which was now before the country the Catholic schools would get a minimum of 46s., rising to a maximum of 55s. per head. The utmost the Catholic schools in Scotland received was 40s. 5¾d. per head, and even though they got the additional 2s. which was promised them recently, the grant would not reach even the minimum proposed in England. The grant of free books might mean another small amount, but it did not give the minimum grant which was given in England to contracting-out schools. He mentioned this to show that the Roman Catholics of Scotland for whom he had the honour of speaking did not think they had been fairly treated, and he would only say in conclusion that as the financial clauses of the Bill were unsatisfactory, for that and for no other reason it was necessary to divide on the Third Reading.

MR. MORTON

agreed with his hon. friend the Member for the Northern Division of the City of Aberdeen that Scotland had not had fair play, so far as legislation in this House was concerned. It was useless to complain, however, because a Liberal Government, largely composed of Scottish Members, was against them and utterly neglected Scotland. This was the only Bill which they had got through or nearly through, except the Tobacco Act, which the Government had opposed. He regretted that the religious question had been raised by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He thought that in Scotland they had got beyond that, yet Irish Members unfortunately, notwithstanding the support Scottish Members had given them on

Irish affairs, interfered in the purely local affairs of Scotland. Ireland perhaps was not in as good a position as Scotland, and not so well-governed; but that was their own fault. If they had given England a Bannockburn 100 or 200 years ago they would not now be in the position of a conquered country—which Scotland never was—and be governed as such. He hoped that the Bill would be passed, and that Scotland would get something, if not all that she ought to have. In this matter he noticed that the Members of the Treasury Bench—with one exception—had got for their constituencies the larger share of the money, but that as usual they had neglected the poorer constituencies However, he was thankful that the people of Scotland were to get something, as much as the front bench would allow; and he had no doubt without the help of the Irish Members they would be able to show the people of the United Kingdom how to carry on the education of the Scottish people, and he hoped that the Irish Members would profit by it. Surely Scottish affairs should be managed by and in the interest of the Scottish people.

MR. BELLOC (Salford, S.)

said that if the hon. Member opposite would put himself in the position of a Protestant minority in a practically self-governed Ireland, and assume that the Protestant children there were compelled either to go to a Catholic school or contract out, and that if they contracted-out they had to find something like 25s. a head, he would see that the humanitarian point of view was rather at fault.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 195; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 415.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Bright, J. A.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Barnard, E. B.	Brodie, H. C.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Barran, Rowland Hirst	Bryce, J. Annan
Alden, Percy	Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Barry, E. (Cork. S.)	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Beale, W. P.	Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight
Atherley-Jones, L.	Beck, A. Cecil	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Benn, W (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Clark, George Smith
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Clough, William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Bramsdon, T. A.	Clynes, J. R.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Brigg, John	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Renton, Leslie
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W)	Hodge, John	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Holt, Richard Durning	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Houston, Robert Paterson	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Cowan, W. H.	Jackson, R. S.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Cox, Harold	Jardine, Sir J.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Jenkins, J.	Rowlands, J.
Craik, Sir Henry	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Samuel, Rt. Hn H. L. (Cleveland)
Dalrymple, Viscount	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Scott, A H. (Ashton-under-Lyne
Dalziel, Sir James Henry	Kekewich, Sir George	Sears, J. E.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Laidlaw, Robert	Seely, Colonel
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Delany, William	Lamont, Norman	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Dickinson, W H. (St. Pancras, N.(	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)	Sherwell, Arthur James
Dobson, Thomas W.	Lewis, John Herbert	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Du Cros, Arthur Philip	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Simon, John Allsebrook
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan	Lupton, Arnold	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Lynch, H. B.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Erskine, David C.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Summerbell, T.
Essex, R. W.	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Esslemont, George Birnie	Maclean, Donald	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Fenwick, Charles	Macpherson, J. T.	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Ferens, T. R.	M'Callum, John M.	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	M'Crae, Sir George	Thompson, J. WH. (Somerset, E)
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Findlay, Alexander	Marnham, F. J.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Foster, Henry William	Massie, J.	Walsh, Stephen
Fuller, John Michael F.	Menzies, Walter	Wardle, George J.
Gill, A. H.	Micklem, Nathaniel	Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Middlebrook, William	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Glover, Thomas	Molteno, Percy Alport	Waterlow, D. S.
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Mond, A.	Watt, Henry A.
Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Montgomery, H. G.	Weir, James Galloway
Gordon, J.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Grant, Corrie	Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)	White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)	Myer, Horatio	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Gulland, John W.	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Wilkie, Alexander
Gurdon, Rt. HnSir W. Brampton	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Williamson, A.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Nuttall, Harry	Wills, Arthur Walters
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Partington, Oswald	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)	Paul, Herbert	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Harvey, WE. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Pirie, Duncan V.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Younger, George
Haworth, Arthur A.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Yoxall, James Henry
Hedges, A. Paget	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Helme, Norval Watson	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Radford, G. H.
Henry, Charles S.	Rainy, A. Rolland
Higham, John Sharp	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Hills, J. W	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Flynn, James Christopher	M'Killop, W.
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.	Gretton, John	Meagher, Michael
Boland, John	Halpin, J.	Meehan, Patrick A.(Queen's Co.)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hayden, John Patrick	Muldoon, John
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hogan, Michael	Murnaghan, George
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Jordan, Jeremiah	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)
Cross, Alexander	Joyce, Michael	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Cullinan, J.	Kavanagh, Walter M.	Nolan, Joseph
Dillon John	Kilbride, Denis	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)
Farrell, James Patrick	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Fell, Arthur	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Ffrench, Peter	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	O'Doherty, Philip
Flavin, Michael Joseph	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	O'Dowd, John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Redmond, William (Clare)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Power, Patrick Joseph	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Reddy, M.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Redmond, John E.(Waterford	Young, Samuel

Question put, and agreed to.