Lords Sitting of 30 July 1903

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, 'Chat the Lord Lamington be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Earl of Denbigh, read and agreed to.
Exeter Corporation Bill [H. L.] Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
Hainault Forest Bill. The King's Consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.] Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; London County Council (Money) Bill; South Shields Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Perth Corporation (Tramways) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L]; Aberdeen Corporation (Tramways) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.] Pentillie Estate Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Southern Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Dewsbury, Batley, and Birstal Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Worthing Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.] Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (Various Powers) Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill; Watford and Edgware Railway Bill; Harrow Road
822
and Paddignton Tramways Bill; London United Tramways Bill, Returned form the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Birmingham Corporation Bill (H.L). Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. Read 3a (according to Order)" and passed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. House in Committee (according to Order); Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a to-morrow.

BECKENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
[THIRD READING.]
Bill read 3a (according to order).
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, this is rather a bulky Bill, and I am afraid that my Amendment looks rather big on paper; but I think I can in a comparatively few words state the case to your Lordships. The case is one which I hope will commend itself to you, and one in which I think your Lordships will do well to review the decision of the Committee. This Bill is an omnibus Bill, and, amongst other things, it contains a quantity of tramway clauses. The Beckenham Urban Council under this Bill is given power to construct three tramways, altogether amounting to about two miles in length. Tramway No. 1 is about one mile in length, and to that we have nothing to say. Tramway No. 2 is about three-quarters of a mile in length, and runs from Thesiger Road along the Kent House Road to the county boundary between Kent and London. Then comes Train way No. 3, which is a short piece of about 280 yards, which also runs from the county boundary along Kent House Road to its I junction with the Sydenham Road, and it is with regard to this tramway that the difficulty arises. I think it is worth remarking that the Beckenham Urban Council propose to hand these tramways over under lease to the British Electric Traction Company to work, but it is

823
curious that it is specially stipulated in the Bill that the Beckenham Urban Council should not be bound to construct Tramway No. 2 at all unless an arrangement is arrived at with regard to Tramway No. 3, which lies outside their territory, but within the territory of the London county. I think that very clearly shows that the advisers of the Beckenham Urban Council and of the British Electric Traction Company were well aware that there would probably be difficulties with regard to this short piece of tramway lying within the London county, and that they were prepared for Parliament to take a hostile view with regard to the powers sought in respect of that particular piece of tramway.
These 280 yards of tramway he entirely outside the territory of Kent and of the Beckenham Urban Council. The road authority there is the Lewisham Borough Council, and the tramway authority the London County Council, and there is absolutely no precedent whatever for one of the tramway authorities surrounding the London county carrying a tramway into London county territory without the consent of, or arrangement with, the London County Council as the tramway authority. Since the existence of the London County Council, namely, since 1889, there have been only three cases in which these powers have been sought and given—I refer to the cases of the London United Tramways Company at Hammersmith, a tramway projected by the Bexley Urban District Council in 1901, and a tramway projected by the Erith Urban District Council in the present session. But in all those three cases special arrangements were made in the Bills by which the rights of the London County Council were acknowledged and saved. The Erith Tramway case came before the very same Committee that had to deal with this Bill in the House of Commons, and in that case the Committee decided that the Erith Council should not be at liberty to construct the tramway in the London county without the consent of the London County Council, and of the Woolwich Borough Council as the road authority. With regard to the other two cases—the Hammersmith tramway and the Bexley tramway—special provisions were made, and my Amendment proposes to introduce
824
the conditions made in 1901 with regard to the Bexley tramway into this Bill, those conditions being that the London County Council should have the right, in the course of the next two years, to construct this piece of tramway, and that if they did not use that power, then the Urban Council should have the right to go on with the work as proposed under the Bill.
I think there can be no question as to the correctness of my case so far as precedent is concerned. There is absolutely no precedent whatever for power being given to one of the smaller tramway authorities to invade the London county without the consent of the London County Council, or without some definite arrangement with that body. I shall probably be told that this tramway No. 3 affects a very small bit of the county of London, but that is a very dangerous sort of proposition to admit. After all, little though it may be, it is just as much all infringement of the principle as if a larger area were effected. The London County Council has not shown itself ill the least obstructive in regard to this matter. It offered to undertake, if necessary, the construction of the line, or to buy it from the District Council when constructed, and to lease it on the terms which have been put forward by the Highways Committee. I quite admit that in this particular case the tramway is but a short piece. I admit that it is in the interests of the people of the district that it should be connected with Tramway No. 2; that, indeed, it is almost necessary for the purpose of Tramway No. 2 that these 280 yards of tramway should be constructed from the county boundary up to the Sydenham Road in order to complete the connection. The London County Council are perfectly willing to agree to this, and are only desirous of having its rights saved in the manner adopted in all previous cases. If this piece of tramway is to he worked within our territory, it ought to be constructed by our leave, or, if we so desire it, constructed in such a manner and on such conditions as we think proper to impose. I do not think I need labour the point. I have stated the case shortly, and, I hope, clearly, and I trust your Lordships will give me your support in securing the insertion into this Bill of the clause which stands in my name Oil the Paper.

825
I should have preferred, if it had not been for the late period of the session, to have moved that the Bill be re-committed; but I recognise that it is too late for such a course to be adopted now. I therefore beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 18, page 19, line 38, at the end of the clause, to insert the following proviso: Provided also, that not withstanding anything in this Act contained, the Council shall not construct, the said Tramway No. 3 if the London County London County Council shall, in either of the sessions of 1904 or 1905, obtain powers to construct a tramway between the same, points as the said Tramway No. 3. and shall proceed to construct and complete the same as soon as possible after obtaining such powers, and on the completion and opening of the same for public traffic by the London County Council all powers for the construction of the said Tramway No. 3 by this Act given to the council, shall absolutely cease and determine: provided always that if the said London County Council shall not, before the thirtieth day of November one thousand nine hundred and four, have given notice of their intention to apply in either of the said sessions for such powers as aforesaid, or having given notice of such intention shall not proceed with the promotion of a Bill or Order, or shall, before the said thirtieth day of November one thousand nine hundred and four, have informed the council by notice in writing that they do not intend to construct such a tramway, then from and after the said thirtieth day of November one thousand nine hundred and four, or the abandonment of the said Bill or Order, or the receipt of such notice as last aforesaid (as the ease may be), the powers by this Act conferred upon the Council of constructing the said Tramway No. 3 shall, not withstanding anything in the foregoing proviso contained, be exerciseable by the Council.'"—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, my noble friend has asked the House to reverse a decision that was deliberately arrived at by the Committee to which this Bill was referred. I do not think I need go into the particulars of the Bill, because my noble friend has very clearly and very fairly put them before you. The Urban District Council of Beckenham has in this Bill asked leave to construct a series of tramways, one of which—tramway No. 2—is on its own ground, but would be practically useless without this little addition of 280 yards which goes into the territory of the London County Council. There is no not question about the Standing Orders having been complied with in this case
826
in every particular. The proper consents were given to the construction of the tramway according to the Standing not Orders, and, so far as I can see, no absolute principle is infringed except the principle that my noble friend has set up, that under no case is ay neighbouring local authority to invade the district of the London County Council. I quite agree with my noble friend, that one should be very jealous of interfering with the tramway authority of so important a body as the London County Council, but it is not a principle the applies in other parts of the country. There are many cases in which local authorities construct tramways, with local authorities construct tramways, with the two-thirds consent of the districts through which they pass, into the district of other local authorities. The London County Council have no tramways for a very long distance within the reach of these 280 yards, and even if they had they would have to obtain the consent of the Lewisham Borough Council before they could construct the tramway which they could construct the tramway which they ask leave to construct under this proposed clause. I do not think I need labour the question, but I would point out what our Standing Order is which deals with this matter. The Standing Order is No. 133, and it Provides that—
"No power shall be given to any local authority to construct…any tramway beyond the limit of the district…unless a Committee on the Bill shall determine that, having regard to the special local circumstances, such construction, acquisition, taking, or working ought to be sanctioned."
Therefore, under our Standing Order it is perfectly open to the Committee to which the Bill is referred to consider any local circumstances connected with the case. This case was entirely before them. The London County Council was heard, and I cannot help thinking that without hearing the evidence as it was given before the Committee, it would be scarcely right of your Lordships to upset a decision deliberately arrived at after hearing both sides of the case. On those grounds I venture to hope that the House will not depart from the decision which has been arrived at by the Committee upstairs.
LORD MONKSWELL:My Lords, I think the Noble Earl the Lord Chairman

827
of Committees is mistaken when he says that there have been many cases where, contrary to the views of the local authority, their territory has been allowed to be invaded by another authority. I am told that in no single case has that been so. Tramways outside the districts of the promoting local authorities have been invaded in many cases, but my information is that in all cases it has been done by argument with the local authorities of the districts invaded. Therefore this Bill would absolutely throw to the wind the precedent that has been established in these cases. Never has even a larger local authority been allowed to invade the territory of a smaller authority, and yet here we have a smaller local authority allowed to invade the territory of a larger authority. I am sorry the noble Earl the Lord Chairman has taken the view he has on this question.
Loan TWEEDMOUTH: After the speech of the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees I know perfectly well, that it is useless for me to put the House to the trouble of dividing, but I do wish to enter a very distinct protest against the decision of the Committee, and I also wish to put it very distinctly on record that that protest is solemnly entered by the London County Council, against the principle of the invasion of its territory by an outside tramway authority. I also protest that this particular case, though it may be excusable on the ground of the very small nature of the tramway, must not be accepted as a precedent for Committees to go upon in the future.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
LORD STANHOPE: My Lords, I have an Amendment to omit Clause 40 of this Bill. That Clause was inserted on the application of the Crystal Palace District Gas Company, and it is to this effect: that if it can be proved that any damage is done to the gas pipes of that Company by electrical action the Urban District Council of Beckenham shall be made liable for such damage. The Clause was inserted in your Lordships' House upstairs without the promoters being asked to give any evidence, and I think I can show that the clause is
828
really unnecessary. The great objection to the insertion of this clause is that it vitiates an agreement which has been made with the Electric Traction Company, who were to carry out these tramways. The clause puts an obligation which already exists in another clause in the Bill, but presents it in such a way that it vitiates to a great degree the agreement entered into with the Electric Traction Company. The clause is wholly unnecessary because Clause 35 of the Bill is the model clause, which was agreed to after full consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses under the Chairmanship of my noble friend Viscount Cross. This clause enacts the making of regulations by the Board of Trade, which really protect all gas, water, and other pipes affected by electrical action. The Crystal Palace Gas Company have asked that Clause 40 should be inserted for their protection, but there is no special protection under this Clause for the Vauxhall Water Company's pipes. They are, of course, protected by Clause 35, and I contend that the special protection given to the Crystal Palace Gas Company in Clause 40 is-quite unnecessary in view of Clause 35, and contrary to all precedent. I therefore hope the House will agree to the omission of Clause 40.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 40."—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I regret very much that my noble friend, the Duke of Bedford, who was Chairman of the Committee to which this Bill was referred, is not in his place, because he would no doubt have replied to my noble friend. I feel some difficulty about this matter. I am very unwilling to support an Amendment which would seem in any way to go against a decision of a Committee of your Lordships' House, but after what my noble friend has said, I am somewhat inclined to think that the noble Duke and his colleagues had not before them the full circumstances of the case when they were induced to insert this clause on behalf of the Crystal Palace Gas Company. It is a question of some importance and a ' matter of principle. The clause provides protection for an individual company against the dangers of electrolysis. Prior

829
to 1893 there was a great deal of difficulty in traction Bills in dealing with the different companies and different bodies who had pipes or wires likely to be affected by electrical action. So difficult did this become that Parliament appointed a Joint Committee in 1893, over which Viscount Cross presided, the result of which was that a model clause was framed which subjected all these companies to the Board of Trade regulations, and that clause has from that time, I think, hardly ever been varied. One of the sub-clauses of that clause is that the electrical power shall be used only in accordance with the Board of Trade regulations, and such regulations shall be made for preventing fusion or injurious electrolytic action on gas and water pipes. The result of that has been that that general principle has been adopted in all legislation, with very few exceptions. Where companies have come for individual protection it has almost invariably been refused to them on the ground that the Board of Trade regulations, if they were properly carried into effect, were sufficient to protect them, and that if they were not sufficient the proper course would be for the Board of Trade to render their regulations more stringent. As far as precedents go, from 1897 to 1900 four special clauses were applied for and all refused. There was one case—the London County Council Tramways in 1900—where a clause of a somewhat similar character was allowed; and in a Sheffield Bill in 1901 there was also a clause allowed, but the circumstances were so peculiar that I do not think it ought to be taken as a precedent. The year before last two clauses were refused, and in no case was one granted, and this year it has been refused in one case, allowed in one, and it is in this Bill. I should further say that the Board of Trade, in the Orders which they issue for the construction of tramways, have invariably refused to give this protective clause to individual companies or persons. They say the companies must rely on the general clause which is given to all companies and in all Bills,.and that if the Board of Trade regulations are not sufficient they must be strengthened. I believe there has been one case recently in which it is supposed—I
830
cannot state anything definitely to your Lordships because I have not gone into the matter—that electrolytic action has been proved to have damaged water pipes, but I am informed by the Board of Trade that, so far as they know, the present regulations are sufficient to deal with this matter. Therefore, I venture to think that in allowing this clause to be inserted in the Bill the Committee hardly considered the general principle that was involved, and that it would be a misfortune if in these Bills there crept in a clause of this kind affecting individual companies and persons. On those grounds I feel I cannot possibly resist the Motion which has been moved by the noble Earl.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, the noble Earl has stated that in one case to which he referred the circumstances were peculiar, and that such a clause as the one in question was justifiable on that account. Possibly there was a similar reason for the Committee inserting the clause in this Bill. I have no doubt that the noble Duke who presided over this Committee and his colleagues weighed the evidence carefully and fully considered the points put before them, and is it not possible that the Committee inserted this protection because they recognised special circumstances which rendered it necessary? I am informed that there are other instances which are now being investigated, not only of water, but of gas pipes being injured, and that lately there was a serious explosion owing to a pipe having been moved without the knowledge of the undertakers, and if it had been a large main the damage might have been serious. I think it is rather hard to delete this clause to-day, when those who support it have not had sufficient time to prepare the case against the deletion of a provision which has evidently been inserted in the Bill for their protection after due evidence. This is a question of principle, and I submit that it is a matter for delay. I have not had time to go into it, or to ascertain whether the companies have duplicate mains or not, or whether the inconvenience to the public would be very serious in the event of an accident, and I suggest that the matter should be deferred, so that the Board of Trade might make more inquiry before the Crystal Palace Gas Company is deprived of the protection given them in this clause.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I am, of course, unacquainted with the local circumstances in this matter, but as, by the regulations of the House, the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees, is unable to speak again, I have to say, on behalf of the Board of Trade, that up to the present there is no evidence that the Board of Trade regulations have proved ineffective. The Board of Trade are watching the matter, and if future regulations are considered necessary they will be introduced.
On question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

RETURNS, PEPORTS, &c.
  Despatch from the Governor of the Transvaal respecting the position of British Indians in that Colony.
  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Forty-seventh Report of His Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners; with Appendix.
  VOLUNTEER RIFLE RANGES.
  Statement showing the allotment of the £170,000, provided in the Military Works Loan (Head 3 Sub-head 2): for the purpose of assisting Volunteers in connection with expenditure on rifle ranges.
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND)
  Fifty-eighth annual Report of the Commissioners.

  POST-OFFICE.
  Forty-ninth Report of the Postmaster-General.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, and the number of patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ended the 30th June, 1903.
  GRENADA.
  Regulations for providing gratuities to prisoners on their discharge from prison.
  Twentieth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade, under Section 131 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883.
  COMPANIES (WINDING UP).
  Twelfth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade, under Section 29 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Statement of the estimated income and expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation, for the year 1903–1904.
  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 10th July, 1903, granting a retired allowance to Alfred Flood Bakers, a second division clerk in the Savings Bank Department of the General Post Office, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act.

  LONDON CORPORATION.
  Annual accounts of the Chamberlain of London.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LICENSING ACTS (SCOTLAND) CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I think perhaps the wisest thing that I can do will be at once to relieve your Lordships' minds of any apprehension that I propose to make a speech of a length at all commensurate with that of the Bill which I am about to ask your Lordships to read a second time. There are, as any of your Lordships who have taken the Bill in your hands will see, somewhat more than a hundred clauses, but they are not by any means new matter. The Government announced in the Gracious Speech from the Throne that they proposed to deal during the-present session both with the Amendment and with the Consolidation of the Licensing Laws of Scotland. An Amending Bill was introduced into another place, and also a Consolidation Bill. Both Bills were read a second time and

  833
  referred to the Standing Committee, and at the conclusion of the proceedings of that Committee, which sat for some weeks considering the Amending Bill, the results of their labours upon that Bill were transferred by general consent to the Consolidation Bill, which then went through its subsequent stages in the House in the form in which it is now presented to your Lordships.
  This Bill, therefore, not only amends but consolidates the licensing law of Scotland. It consolidates the whole of the legislation regarding licensing which has been passed as affecting Scotland from the years 1828 to 1901—a period of more than 60 years. During that period there were passed twelve or fourteen public Acts, and a good many private Acts which had penalties of their own, and they are all now reduced to one harmonious whole; and if this measure passes through Parliament, as I have every confidence it will do, before the end of the session, anyone who wants to study any matter respecting the law of licensing in Scotland will not have to do more than read this measure. I think I am entitled to say that this is a highly creditable and useful piece of work, and one which will tend greatly to the convenience of those who have to deal with these matters in the future.
  As I do not anticipate any opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, I shall pass very lightly over most of its provisions, and only touch upon the most important and the new matters which are suggested for legislation to the House. I am sure your Lordships will see that the Bill is presented in a convenient form, because the parts which are new and the parts which are old are distinctly marked, the new parts being marked with thick black lines, so that your Lordships may rely with confidence that anything which is not so marked is already the law of the land. The Bill, then, is divided into seven parts. The first part deals with the question of the new authorities which it is proposed to set up for licensing purposes. I suppose everybody connected with Scotland knows that at the present time there is a licensing court for every county, and in some cases for divisions of counties, and that every Royal burgh has its licensing court of its own, consisting of the magistrates of the burgh. There is an appeal to Quarter Sessions in the case of
  834
  counties, and to Quarter Sessions of counties in the case of burghs, the large cities having an appeal to their own Quarter Sessions. Very general dissatisfaction has been felt for many years in regard to the constitution of these authorities or, as they are described in the Bill, courts.
  In some of the counties of large size the courts have grown by the increase in the number of justices to such an extensive number that all sense of personal responsibility is lost, and in some of the larger counties there have been courts assembled for what after all is largely a judicial as well as an administrative purpose, numbering ninety or over a hundred members; and there has been a great deal of canvassing and solicitation. It is perfectly notorious that in many cases large numbers of the members of the court appear, having been whipped up by one side or the other, and that as soon as special cases in which they are interested are decided they go away. We have, I hope, successfully made an effort to reform that state of matters. In the future there will be a separate licensing court for every burgh over 7,000 in population, whether Royal or Parliamentary, but the existing Royal burghs which are over 4,000 in population will, as a concession to a sort of, perhaps, vested interest, retain their own court, and in all those cases the court will be the magistrates of the burgh. There are now about eighty Royal burghs with courts of their own. About half of those are below 4,000 in population, There are 118 police burghs, and to, these licensing courts of their own will be given whenever they are above 7,000 in. population.
  I think nobody defends the existing state of matters. It is perfectly absurd that a burgh with 348 population should have a licensing court of its own, when a police burgh of 82,000 is still under the control of the county justices. The burghs, I have no doubt—in fact I know quite well—would have desired that all the Parliamentary burghs and all the police burghs should have courts of their own given them, but if that had been done it would have made about 250 different licensing courts in Scotland, one for every three or four parishes, it may be said, and that, I am perfectly certain, would not have tended to wise administration, and is not seriously proposed by

  835
  anyone. Although this proposal has caused a certain amount of opposition on the part of those burghs from whom licensing authorities are taken away, I think I am entitled to say that it has been very maturely considered, and both the majority and the minority of the Licensing Commission, which sat under the presidency of Viscount Peel, recommended that no burgh which was under 7,000 in population should have a licensing court of its own. That, my Lords, was the recommendation which we first adopted, and which we put into the Bill as we laid it on the Table of Parliament. But, as I have said, as a concession to feeling, and in the hope of modifying the opposition to the proposal which we then made, we have gone down to a population of 4,000 for Royal burghs which now have licensing courts and allowed them to retain in those cases their own courts of first instance.
  So far as the counties are concerned, every county or district of a county will have a licensing court of its own. The court will consist half of county councillors and half of justices, and will vary in number from eight or nine in the case of the smallest courts to twenty-one or twenty-two in the case of the larger ones. Where the county or district contains any Royal or Parliamentary burgh under 4,000, magistrates from such burghs will be added to the court in the population ratio. I hope by this means that we shall do away with most, if not all, of the existing difficulties, that there will be introduced a sense of personal responsibility which I am afraid is too often absent at the present time that we shall get the maximum of local knowledge which those resident in these places will have, and at the same time that those very small communities will have their local bias and local feeling corrected by a certain admixture of those who live, not within their borders, but in the immediate neighbourhood.
  We provide also for a new system of Appeal Courts. There will be a separate Appeal Court for each burgh or city above 20,000 in population. It will consist half of magistrates and half of justices of the county or of the city, as the case may be. All burghs in each county between 7,000 and 20,000 in population will have an Appeal Court of
  836
  their own, and in that case the Court will be constituted half of magistrates and half of justices of the peace; and each county, whether divided into districts or not, including all the burghs under 7,000, will have an Appeal Court of its own. The idea is to have as few different policies as may be. We think it advantageous that the largest possible area should be brought under the control of the Appeal Court, so that the decisions in regard to licensing in that area may be as uniform as possible. The second part of the Bill consolidates all the existing provisions as to the power and duties of licensing courts, and confers certain new powers, the most important of which will be found in the forty-first Clause of the Bill and are concerned with the making of by-laws for certain purposes which are there specified.
  The third part of the Bill consolidates all the provisions as to Excise licences, and it also contains a new provision of some importance concerning the forfeiture of Excise licences when the holders are guilty of shebeening or hawking liquors without certificates. The fourth part of the Bill consolidates the law as to offences and penalties for various forms of drunkenness and breaches of the licensing system This, I think, will be a great improvement, because many of the larger towns and cities have passed special Acts of their own, defining their own special offences, and decreeing certain penalties, each differing from the other, in regard to them. By this Bill, if it passes, they will all be consolidated into one whole, and the penalties will be uniform over the whole country. Amongst other things, in this part of the Bill a certain measure of liquor which has been the subject of a good deal of conflict and discussion in Scotland is now legalised. It is known as a "schooner." I do not know if many of your Lordships connected with Scotland know how much is contained in a schooner. As a matter of fact, a schooner is two-thirds of an imperial pint. The Home-Drummond Act prevented the sale of any liquor above half-a-pint in anything except imperial measures. I understand that the special thirst in Glasgow requires more than half a pint to slake it, but that it is not necessary to purchase a whole pint, and, therefore, with the economy peculiar to the race this half-way house, so to speak, has been

  837
  devised. It is undoubtedly illegal at the present time to sell two-thirds of a pint, but if a man wants rather more than half a-pint why should he be forced to buy a whole pint if two-thirds will satisfy him? Therefore, by general consent, it is proposed that it shall no longer be illegal to sell this particular measure of two-thirds of a pint.
  This part of the Bill also adopts the English provision forbidding the sale of liquor to children under the age of 16. It restricts Sunday sale except to lodgers and to bonâ fide travellers for their own consumption. The law with regard to bonâ fide travellers differs from the law of England in this respect, that there is no distance charter. In each case the distance which a man must have travelled is considered as a question of fact for the court which hears the case. I think that is more logical, and, at any rate, no serious proposal has been made to alter the law in that respect in Scotland and make it the same as the English law. But one unfortunate decision was given some time ago—at least a decision in my opinion unfortunate—that a bonâ fide traveller when he has travelled a certain distance was entitled to purchase, not only for his own consumption, but for the consumption of any of his friends, whether they had had travelled or not, as much liquor as he liked. We propose to do away with that and to make it clear that the bonâ fide traveller shall be entitled to purchase only for his own personal consumption.
  Another clause in this part of the Bill forbids sale from vans except where the liquor has been previously ordered or booked. A custom has grown up for grocers' vans to hawk liquor about, and this has been productive of much evil and will be abolished by the unanimous consent of everybody who has the interest of the population at heart. Clause 76 makes an important consolidation of the various general and local provisions, a matter which I have already mentioned. Clause 72 provides for a Black List on principles analogous to those provided in the Act of last year for England, but with some differences. We propose that when any fourth conviction for an offence scheduled under the inebriates Act has taken place within twelve months, a person so convicted may be put on the Black List with
  838
  out further procedure. Another clause makes habitual drunkenness, either of husband or wife, a ground for judicial separation; and another clause forbids excisable liquor from being consumed in unlicensed refreshment houses during the hours when the public-houses are closed.
  The fifth part of the Bill deals with the difficult and complicated subject of the registration of clubs. That is a mater which was also dealt with in the English Act of last year, but he evils which have grown up in Scotland are, I am sorry to say, much more serious and more deep-seated, and much worse in every way than anything which in known in England, The club of the humbler strata of population is hardly known in Scotland as a social resort. It may be said, without fear of contradiction, that in practically every case where a club has been formed in any of the large towns or cities in Scotland for those below the artisan class, it has been formed solely and only for the purpose of encouraging drinking, for getting drink at times when the public houses and hotels are closed, and generally for purposes which are not defensible. The number of these institutions has been rapidly growing. I have had complaints from every town and city of importance, and no matter has been made the subject of so much public discussion in Scotland as the best means of regulation this class of institution. It has gone to this length, that many of them in Edinburgh and Glasgow, in Dundee and Aberdeen and other places, have actually their agents upon the streets on Sunday for the purpose of touting for customers for the clubs, and in one case it was proved before the Courts that a large number of people had been taken into one of these institutions, and the only colourable defence that could be made for their being taken in and given drink was that they were friends of the waiter, who had treated them.
  The provisions we are making are for the registration of clubs upon application by those institution. Before a club can be registered at all a certificate in form of one of the schedules of the Bill must be produced, signed by two justices and magistrates, and by the owner of premises. This certificate

  839
  must certify that the club is to be conducted as a bonâ fide club, and not mainly for the sale of excisable liquors, and the club rules must comply with the provisions of Clause 80. All clubs of all social classes will have to come under this provision, but if your Lordships look at that clause, you will see, I think, that there is nothing in any one of the rules with which every well-ordered club does not already comply. I need not, I think, do more than refer to that clause, because it is in plain language and will tell its own story. A registered club may be struck off the register, as provided in Clause 85, by the sheriff in respect of conviction before the Sheriffs Court or the Burgh Magistrates' Court if that club or any of its managers have broken the law. The sixth part of the Bill deals with legal proceedings, and really does nothing more than consolidate the present law, with such changes of phraseology as are made necessary by the passing of the Summary Jurisdiction Act. The seventh part of the Bill contains definitions, and there are schedules for the forms of the certificate and so on.
  There is, perhaps, one matter to which I should specially allude. Your Lordships know that on recent occasions we have had more than one discussion here as to the limitation of the power of the magistrates of the larger cities to close public-houses and other similar places within their bounds at 10 o'clock at night. It is worth while, perhaps, and this is almost the last topic to which I shall think it necessary to allude, to go somewhat closely into the history of this matter, because in proposing the Bill in the form in which it is now brought before the House, I am asking the House to reverse a decision to which it came in 1887, and also to alter a decision which, at my own instance, it came to last year. The history of the matter is this. By the Act of 1865 a power is given to the licensing court of any district to fix other hours for opening and closing in any particular locality than 8 and 11. In 1872 the magistrates of Rothesay sought, under this provision, to close all the inns and public-houses in that town by drawing a line which included all the inns and public-houses in the burgh, and to say that the area so included was a particular locality in the sense of the statute. The Court of Session decided that such a course was not authorised by the law, and ordered the
  840
  magistrates to revert to the original hours. That decision was given in 1874, and no further advantage was taken of the provisions of that Act until the spring of 1902, when the magistrates of Glasgow and Dundee resolved to delimit certain areas in Glasgow and Dundee respectively as being particular localities in the sense of the Act, and to fix the hour of closing at ten o'clock instead of eleven, for inns, hotels, and public-houses. That case was taken on appeal to the Court of Session, but it was decided that the locality was fairly delimited, and the decision of the magistrates practically stood. The result is, therefore, that in particular localities magistrates can, in every burgh, define particular areas for early closing.
  An Act was passed in 1887 allowing every burgh, with the exception of four or five exempted burghs, to close their public-houses at ten o'clock, and your Lordships will recollect that the exemption in the matter of the larger cities was inserted by this House. Last year the noble Earl opposite, the Earl of Camperdown, introduced a Bill to reverse that decision, and to give the magistrates of those larger cities the same power as was hitherto enjoyed by the smaller communities. Last year I opposed that Bill, and your Lordships may perhaps remember that I opposed it mainly upon two grounds. First, on the ground that if it were carried into effect and the magistrates did so close the public-houses, it would be impossible in the existing state of the law with regard to clubs to avoid a still further and greater increase of bogus institutions of that kind, in which case the last state of matters would be worse than the first. If this Bill passes into law that argument will no longer have any weight. The second main ground of objection which I offered was upon a consideration that in these larger cities there were more people arriving and departing, and that life generally was later, and that the same law ought not to be applied to these larger communities as was applied to the smaller ones. The great argument against me at that time was that although that was true as far as the centres of these cities were concerned, it did not apply to the outlying districts, and that it was hard that there should be no

  841
  power to close in those districts at an earlier hour it desired. The force of the second argument which I used will, as I think your Lordships will see, be largely taken away by the decision of the Court of Session last year, given subsequently to the time when I was speaking, that it is at present competent for the magistrates of these larger cities to delimit areas in their towns without treating the area under their jurisdiction as a whole.
  Although I still remain of opinion that there is no case as yet made out for closing the whole of the public-houses within such communities as those of which I am especially speaking, I think it better not to adhere to the view I previously expressed, but to give way to the practically unanimous opinion of those who were concerned with this Bill ill another place, and allow the provisions of the Act of 1887 with regard to the larger towns to be repealed. There may be some matters which it may be necessary to discuss in Committee, but I think I have gone over all the points which it is necessary to call attention to at this stage. I put this measure before you as a substantial instalment of temperance reform. I am perfectly well aware that it will not do all that everybody wants to do. I do not believe that it is possible, to ever will be possible, to carry out some, at any rate, of the proposals which are glibly made by those who have not to carry them into effect. I would point out, however—and I think it is an important point—that eighteen out of twenty-nine suggestions contained in the Majority Report of Viscount Peel's Commission are embodied in this Bill. Of the Minority Report we take twenty-one out of thirty-two. Many of those, of course, are the same recommendations, but I think I may say broadly, and without fear of contradiction, that we have practically embodied in this measure every provision upon which both the Majority and the Minority Report agree. There are one or two which we have not taken, but I think I may say that we have gone in this matter as far as enlightened and wise public opinion will allow us to go at the present time. If we cannot, as I know perfectly well we
  842
  cannot, make men sober by Act of Parliament, at any rate we are doing much in this Bill to take temptation out of the way of those in whose way it is at present placed, and, while I think we do not interfere unduly with individual liberty, we are doing a great deal which, I believe, will make for the formation of public opinion in favour of sound tem, perance principles. While we penalise that trader who makes it a large part of his business to avoid keeping the law, we do not hamper those who desire legitimately to carry on what we regard as a necessary business. I believe those who have studied the discussions on this Bill will bear me out when I say that on the whole it has been well received, that it is in accordance with public opinion, and that not only the amendment of the law which we now propose, but the consolidation of all the statutes which we now-bring together, will prove of great, and, I hope, if it passes into law, of lasting benefit to the country in whose interests it is put before the House.
  Moved that the Bill be now read 2a— (Lord Balfour of Borleigh.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the subject of Scottish licensing is a very important one, and the Bill which is before the House is, as your Lordships will have seen, of very considerable dimensions. I am happy to think that the discussion of this Bill is not likely to bear any proportion to its size. The reason for this is that the Bill, like many Scottish Bills, has been very fully considered by the Government with the aid of the Scottish Members in the other House, and the result is a Bill which I concur with the noble Lord in thinking is a satisfactory one. It goes as far as all reasonable persons would think possible at the present time, and I hope with him that it will produce a very good effect when it comes into operation in Scotland. I therefore only propose to trouble your Lordships with a very few remarks, at all events at this stage of the Bill. I would say, in the first place, that I agree with the noble Lord that the consolidation of all the licensing Acts in this Bill is a step which will prove of great advantage to the country to which the Bill applies, and I also think, with

  843
  him, that it confers very great credit upon the permanent staff who have been occupied in what must have been a very laborious work.
  I think that the licensing authority, as it stands in the Bill, is a very satisfactory one. I am speaking chiefly of the counties. I think that the proportion of one-half of elected members of the County or Burgh Councils, and the other half of justices of the peace in the burgh or the county is, perhaps, the best solution of that question which could have been adopted. As your Lordships will remember, in England two-thirds were to be justices, and one-third elected members of the County Council; but when the English Bill was under discussion I never attached too much importance to that point, because, after all, the very same class of persons are justices of the peace as are elected on the County Councils, and the difference really is one much more of words than of reality. With regard to the Court of Appeal, I have nothing to say against its constitution, except in one small particular, namely, where the smaller burghs have a Court of Appeal in common with the counties. Those small burghs, I know, are very anxious to have licensing authorities of their own. In that I am afraid I cannot agree, and, indeed, I think that the Government have already gone rather too far in the concession they have made by departing from the limit of a population of 7,000 and allowing Royal and Parliamentary burghs with a population of 4,000 to remain separate areas. As a matter of principle, I think it is undesirable that a licensing area should be too small, and except for some stronger reason than that of sentiment I think it is not desirable to create these small islands in the midst of large licensing areas. So far as I can see, no separate representation, and no special representation, is given to the small burghs in the country with regard to the Court of Appeal. It is a matter on which they have made representations themselves, and I think, although I have no brief at all to speak on their behalf and have no special preference for them, it is a matter on which they have some claim to consideration. If the noble Lord could see his way between this and the
  844
  Committee stage to consider that point, I should be glad. I would much rather that he should propose an Amendment in that direction than that it should be done by myself or any other private member of your Lordships' House.
  The most important part of the Bill to my mind is that which deals with grocers' licences. I entertain the notion very strongly, and I think those of your Lordships who know Scotland well must agree with me, that grocers' licences and the way tins business is worked in Scotland do the greatest evil at the present time. In Scotland villages are few and far between, and the cottages are scattered about, and are usually adjacent to the farm-houses. The consequence is that the population is very scattered, and although there may be no public-houses within miles, you will find as a rule that those sparsely populated country districts are more regularly served with liquors through the agency of the grocers' carts than perhaps any other part of the kingdom, and I am vary glad that stringent regulations are made in this Bill on that point. It is provided that in the first place the liquor is only to be taken in carts when it has been ordered, that a book is to be carried by the man who delivers it containing the orders and the name of the person to whom the liquor has been delivered, and there is also to be kept in the grocer's shop a corresponding book, both of which books will be accessible to the police. I hope that this Bill may be successful in dealing with what is undoubtedly a very great evil at the present time. If it proves an unsuccessful means, we must try to find some more effectual means of dealing with it, but in the meantime the proposal in the Bill seems to me as practicable and as sensible a proposal as could be made, and I have no doubt that the County Councils will endeavour to work it in the best way they can.
  I really think that it is hardly necessary for me to address any more remarks to your Lordships on points on which I agree with the Bill. I think that the Bill is a very good and a very sensible one so far as I can judge, and I would merely, in conclusion, make one remark to the point on which the noble Lord touched at the end of his speech. I refer to the power conferred upon the municipalities of the seven large towns which were previously

  845
  exempted of closing at any time between ten and eleven o'clock, which is a power that has been possessed for some time by all other muncipalities. I am very glad indeed to find that the Government have adopted a different attitude from that which they adopted last year towards this proposal. I am also glad my noble friend Lord Wemyss is not present, because if he had been I do not know what he would have said with regard to their backsliding. But the proposal which the Government are now making is, I believe, a sensible one and the right one. I never could understand why there was any less reason to trust the councils of large towns than the councils of small ones. Unless it is evident that the public sense is in favour of closing at an earlier hour, I cannot see any reason why the council of a large town should be more anxious to act against the wishes of the majority than a small council. I do not quite agree with the noble Lord in the reasons winch he gave for this change of attitude. He said that the Courts had now decided that it was in the power of these municipalities to close any districts in their area, but I contend that they had that power for years: there never has been any doubt of it as far as I know. The only instance in which the case came into Court was when Rothesay proposed to divide its whole area into four or six districts, and to close the public-houses in each of those districts. The Court in that case decided that the whole area could not be dealt with in that way under the Act, but with regard to the power of closing in a district, that power has for many years been in force. I am glad that the Bill has been introduced, and I hope that it will pass into law.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill stated that he considered this a practical instalment of temperance legislation, and I have no doubt that the House will feel that that declaration is amply justified. It is certainly a matter for congratulation that the noble Lord has succeeded in so ably dealing with this difficult subject. If the Bill dealt only with that important subject of clubs which my noble friend referred to, it would certainly be a public benefit. The fact that the beverage chiefly consumed
  846
  in Scotland is spirits as compared with ale, which is more common in England, makes the abuse in regard to grocers' licences particularly easy in Scotland. Personally, I would gladly have seen something further done in this direction. The Bill deals with the sale of liquor by means of grocers' carts, but there is often an abuse without the use of the travelling carts. I refer to the custom of selling spirits in bottles, which are taken by a group of persons, and the spirits consumed, not technically on the premises, but at the door, so to speak, of the establishment where the liquor is purchased. I think the Bill in some other respects might have gone further. My noble friend Lord Camperdown remarked that the Government in the other House had the assistance of the Scottish Members. No doubt the Scottish Members showed the keenest interest in the subject, and proposed many Amendments; but, unfortunately, some of the Amendments which were submitted by the Scottish Members in Committee were not supported by the Government, and are not embodied in the Bill as it is brought up to us. I shall certainly in Committee bring forward some at least of the Amendments which were suggested in the House of Commons. I am glad that my noble relative has included in this Bill the provision enabling public-houses to be closed at an earlier hour in the large towns, which have hitherto been exempted. Although I think the Bill might have gone further, it is an excellent measure, and I trust that it will pass and will pave the way for even further steps in the same direction.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
  MILITARY LANDS BILL.
  Amendment reported (according to order) and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order). An Amendment (Privilege) made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  House in Committee (according Order).
  [The Earl of MORLEY in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (THE MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the Amendments standing in my name to this clause are really drafting Amendments, without which it is thought that the clause might not be workable. I therefore move them without further explanation, but if any noble Lord thinks it necessary to ask any Question upon them, I need hardly say that I shall be very glad to reply.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  LORD REAYmoved an Amendment, the object of which was to leave the determination of the composition of the bodies of managers in the case of provided schools to the London County Council instead of to the metropolitan boroughs, as arranged under the clause. He said that the object of his Amendment was to give to the County Council the same power which the County Councils in the country had under the principal Act. In the principal Act the number of managers and the grouping of the schools was left entirely in the hands of the County Council, and it seemed to him that so important a matter as the decision with regard to the number of managers and the grouping of schools should be in the hands of the authority which, as had been constantly asserted by the Government, was the authority which had supreme control. He did not understand why this departure from the principal Act had been adopted in this Bill, and why it was proposed to give to the metropolitan boroughs powers with regard to the number of managers and grouping which had not been given to similar authorities in the country. It seemed to him a pure waste of administrative power to introduce bodies which hitherto had had no connection with education, which had no experience
  848
  in the administration of education, and some of whom at least bad expressed a distinct wish not to be entrusted with these powers. The County Council, of course, would have inspectors and officials cognisant of the wants of the various districts, but the metropolitan Borough Councils would have no machinery whatever, and he could not see that any good result would he obtained V introducing this entirely new feature in the administration of the Act, and in deviating from what had been adopted last year by Parliament with regard to the schools all over the country.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word 'by' to the first 'the' in line 14."—(Lord Reay.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I admit that the noble Lord is quite justified in raising the point. It is quite true that by this Bill powers are given to the metropolitan boroughs which are not extended to boroughs under the Act of last year, but if the noble Lord did me the honour of listening to the speech delivered the other day he will have recognised that I laid great importance on Are fact that the metropolitan boroughs occupied a very important position. I dwelt at considerable length on their population and wealth, and I also dwelt on the fact that many local authorities of smaller dimensions in other parts of the country had powers which were not extended to the metropolitan boroughs. I consider that the least we can do for the metropolitan boroughs is to give them a voice in regard to a certain amount of the details of the management of the schools in their boroughs. If your Lordships will carry your minds back to the debates that took place in the House of Commons, you will remember that this was really the result of a compromise between the claims of the Borough Councils and the County Council. The County Council, of course, is absolutely free to decide what are to be the powers to be given to these managers. I must say I consider it very essential that boroughs which have been recognised to be of such importance should have this voice. It has been said that a great deal too much work has been added to the already great amount of work which the London County Council has to do. If that is the ease, I think the provision in the Bill that the Borough Councils should,

  849
  after consultation with the London County Council, make arrangements in this direction, will lighten the burden of he County Council. I maintain that we are only doing justice to the metropolitan boroughs in this matter. Much as I would desire to accept an Amendment from the noble Lord, who has the interests of London education so much at heart, I cannot accept the Amendment.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid he was much obliged to the noble Marquess for the suggestion that he desired the work of the London County Council to be lightened, but he failed to see how it would be at all lightened by the passing of the clause in its present form. The clause provided that the boroughs should, after consultation with the local education authority, decide the composition of the managers. Therefore, if the County Council were to do their duty, they must have formed an opinion on this matter. Therefore the argument that their labour would be lightened fell to the ground.
  EARL SPENCERregarded this as a matter too important to be dealt with as a matter of compromise. He was not affected by the argument that the metropolitan Borough Councils were important bodies, for he considered that this was a matter entirely for the responsibility of the educational authority, which ought to be supreme.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid the speech of the noble Marquess; both that night and on the Second Reading, seemed to him to prove too much. His observations were directed not to supporting the provisions of the Bill as it now stood, but the provisions in the Bill as it w s introduced in the House of Commons. The clause originally read:—
  "The council of each metropolitan borough shall he the managers of all public elementary schools provided by the local education authority within their borough."
  The noble Marquess frankly admitted the other night that that was his idea of what the Bill should be, and he understood that though the noble Marquess had given way to Parliamentary pressure he still thought would have been better to have given the whole matter of education in each particular
  850
  borough to the Borough Council. Holding that view the speech of the noble Marquess that night was perfectly justified, but as he had been driven from that position to take up the view that the proper education authority for London was the London County Council, he thought the noble Marquess should have the courage of his conviction and admit that the local educational authority should have the power of decision without any drawback. He pressed the Government to reconsider their decision. Perhaps the noble Duke would be able to say that some concession would be made in this direction.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the noble Earl opposite objects to this question being treated as one of compromise, and says it is too important to be considered ors that basis, but the noble Earl cannot get away from the fact that it is a compromise arrived at in the other House of Parliament. The original provision of the Bill did give to the Borough Councils absolute powers of management over the elementary schools in their districts. Under the compromise which was come to in the other House it gave to the Boroughs Councils not the absolute power of management, but the power of determining, after consultation with the education authority, and subject to the sanction of the Board of Education, the number of the managers of each school, the manner in which the schools should be grouped and it provided that they should also have the appointment of two-thirds of the managers. On the other hand, the education authority retains the power of deciding what powers and duties they intend to entrust to the managers thus appointed. If the London County Council intend to carry on the administration of education in London exactly on the lines which were described by the noble Lord the Chairman of the London School Board the other night, I should admit that any provision of this sort was unnecessary; but, as noble Lords opposite have pointed out, the labour which would be imposed on the County Conned by adding to their work all that is now

  851
  done by the London School Board would tax to too great an extent their powers and their abilities. We believe that the London County Council will be compelled to decentralise their administration much more than the London School Board has done, and we think it would be a very good thing that they should do so. If there is to be decentralisation, it is to the Borough Councils, to the minor municipal authorities of this great city, that we must look for assistance in the work of decentralisation, and if we expect to receive any assistance from them, surely it is not an unreasonable thing to suggest that they should have, not a controlling voice, because the ultimate decision will not rest with them, but that they should have at all events the power of making their suggestions in consultation with the education authority as to the organisation and local management of the schools. I believe that this is a duty which they will be competent and willing to undertake. I admit that I should have preferred the proposal that was originally in the Bill. I should have preferred to delegate specifically certain powers of management to these great bodies, but mainly I suppose, on educational grounds, that solution did not commend itself to the judgment of the other House, and this compromise has been accepted in its place. I must point out that any such alteration as has been suggested by noble Lords opposite would have a very serious effect upon the probable fate of this Bill. This compromise was only arrived at after long and protracted discussion in the other House. To send the Bill back with an Amendment, which would practically amount to striking the Borough Councils out of the administration of education in London altogether, would inevitably m the other House revive all those discussions which have hitherto taken place, and I think that it might—though I do not wish in any way to use the language of menace—have the effect of possibly endangering the final acceptance of the measure. That may be a course which does not hold out any terror to noble Lords opposite, but I think the great majority of Members on this side of the House will think twice before they assent to an Amendment which certainly would lead to a renewal of protracted discussion in the other House, and would be productive of the greatest inconvenience and danger.
  LORD DAVEYobjected to the clause on the ground of the divided responsibility which it created and which he believed would be fatal to good administration. They ought to throw the whole responsibility upon the body which had the administration of the schools. He was not at all impressed with the susceptibilities either of the County Council or the Borough Councils, and was indifferent to the question whether this was a compromise or not. He regarded the provisions of the Bill solely from the point of view of whether they would tend to the efficiency of London education, and he could not but think that to divide the responsibility between the Borough Councils and the local education authority in an important matter of this kind would not tend in that direction.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble and learned Lord has overlooked the fact that this Bill leaves the County Council absolutely free to decide what powers should be given to the managers, and, therefore, to a certain extent the managers are controlled by the education authority. Also, I think the noble and learned Lord has not realised that the Bill provides that the Borough Councils shall act after consultation with the education authority, and that any arrangement made by them has to be approved by the Board of Education. This provision guards against Borough Councils acting in any way calculated to prejudice the educational policy of the local education authority. I believe that the fears that the County Council and the metropolitan Borough Councils may not work amicably together are vain. I am of opinion that the local bodies will do the utmost, with their local knowledge, to promote the cause of education. In the interests of the County Council itself it is desirable that the Council should consult with the local authorities.
  LORD REAYsaid it seemed to him to be an extraordinary position to allow the minor authority to decide after consulting the superior authority. It would be logical enough if the higher authority consulted the minor authority and then came to a decision.
  LORD COLCHESTERheld it to be desirable that those who were specially connected with a district should have a voice in its affairs. It was a great mistake to endeavour to treat London as one unit instead of as a collection of large boroughs which had very little in common. Obviously there could be little known by one district of the schools in another district, and he thought the same lack of knowledge would be found
  THE LORD BISHOP oft ROCHESTERmoved an Amendment substituting one-third for two-thirds as the proportion of the managers to he appointed by the Borough Council. He said it had been urged that it would be of great importance in the future to interest the local authorities in education, or, as it had been put even more effectively, to interest the people of London locally in their own schools. He felt the importance of that very much, but he could not but think that in this case, if the Borough Councils were allowed to appoint one-third of the managers, it would suffice to give them a very real interest
  854
  in their representatives on the County Council. He felt strongly the importance of giving those who were specially acquainted with a district a voice in its affairs.
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause,
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 23.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Harewood, E.

  De Le Isle and Dudley, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Howe, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Argyll, D.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Grenfell, L.

  Manchester, D.

  Morley, E.

  Harris, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Onslow, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Stanhope, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Portland, D.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

  Wellington, D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Lindley, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E Bessborough.)

  Bath, M.

  Rathmore, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  London, L. Bp.

  Robertson, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Abinger, L. Bp.

  Stanmore, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Derby, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Belper, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Colchester, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Lyveden, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Monkswell, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller]

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Reay, L.

  Crewe, E.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Portsmouth, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Russell, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Davey, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Farrer, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Kinnaird, L.

  in the schools. It was clear from the speech of the noble Duke at the Second Reading stage that the importance of the new managers would be greater than that of the old; and he suspected that, if the existing managers were asked which course they preferred, they would prefer that the bulk of their body should be appointed by the central authority rather than by the local council. It was no use disguising the fact that the County Council and the Borough Councils did not always enter into the treatment of a subject with a predominant desire to find themselves at one. There was a tendency, at any

  855
  rate, to antagonism, and it seemed then a serious risk to run with their eyes open, to allow the minor authority, on which, from the nature of the case, they were throwing a very large part of the educational responsibility, to be mainly constituted from a body which had some prepossession against the higher authority.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 16, to leave out the words two-thirds' and to insert the words 'one-third'; and in line 17, to leave out the words 'one-third' and to insert the words 'two-thirds.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
  LORD REAY,in supporting the Amendment, pointed out that the managers were not the agents of the metropolitan boroughs, but were appointed to carry out the educational policy of the County Council. The noble Duke the other night unfavourably contrasted the business methods of the School Board with those of a great railway company, but would any railway company ask another body to appoint a majority of its agents? By this clause, as it stood, they introduced an element of confusion into the administration and defeated their own object. How could they expect the County Council to devolve duties on bodies on which they would be represented by a minority? In these circumstances the delegation of powers to the managers would be restricted, and he doubted whether they would be allowed to have the power which they now possessed of appointing assistant teachers, and also of nominating the head teacher from three candidates selected by the School Board. Instead of having more devolution they would have less. In the borough of the Tower Hamlets, out of the 178 managers, fifty-two were resident elsewhere. Obviously the Borough Councils would endeavour, whether they found fit persons or not, to fill the bodies of managers by their own members and residents.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Why?
  LORD REAYsaid that if the appointment were left in the hands of the County Council better managers would be appointed. What was the position of the
  856
  non-provided schools in this respect? In that case one manager would be appointed by the County Council and one by the metropolitan borough. Why was there an equality in the case of non-provided schools and a disproportion in the case of provided schools? He thought the noble Marquess would be well ad-advised to reconsider this point.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, which is part and parcel of that which has already been rejected, the object of which was to take away the powers from the metropolitan boroughs. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to remind him of what took place in the House of Commons on this question. Mr. Peel's Amendment, which was the origin of the present provision, fixed three-fourths to be appointed by the Borough Council, and one-fourth by the County Council. On the Report stage this was altered to two-thirds and one-third respectively, on the ground that it enabled the number of managers to be varied more conveniently. That was a compromise on this question between the London Members and the local education authority. The right rev. Prelate in his speech dwelt on the fact that the method of appointment of these managers would lend interest to local life in London. It was the knowledge possessed by these men of the local requirements that led us to entrust this power to them and insist on their having a majority. In the past the managers have done excellent work, and there is no reason to distrust them in the future; but if the managers who are appointed do not come up to expectation the local education authority will be able to refuse to give them any powers whatever. The local authority is entrusted with the power of seeing that the managers appointed are, so to speak, up to the mark. We have had experience of the fact that these bodies are co-operating together for the public good, and why it should be imagined that there will be any friction under this clause I cannot understand. The local education authority can supersede the managers should they desire to do anything injurious to the education of the district.
  LORD DAVEYsaid that the objection to the proposal was that, while the County

  857
  Council was made responsible for the efficiency of the school, its powers were to he exercised by a body the majority of which was not appointed by itself. This was the most wonderful provision that he had ever seen in an Act of Parliament. The policy of the Council might be thwarted by the managers, but it would have no power to remove them. Suppose there was a difference of opinion between the County Council, which represented the whole of London, and the Council of the Borough in which the school was situated, as to the policy to be pursued with regard to that school. In that case who ought to govern? Everyone would say the body on whom the responsibility for the efficiency of the school rested. But what would happen The County Council, which appointed only one-third, could remove only one-third; and the Borough Council, which appointed two-thirds, would have the sole power—and that to his mind was much more important than the actual appointment — of removing those two-thirds. Under this system the Borough Council might appoint managers, and instruct them in perfect good faith to carry out a policy which was not dictated by the local education authority, and that authority might find itself thwarted by the board of managers, through whom it had to act, and over the appointment of the majority of whom it had no control. Such a provision as that was calculated to lead to difficulties, and to place obstacles in the way of the policy of the local education authority being rigidly and properly carried out.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I should like to point out to the noble and learned Lord that the managers will have no powers except such as the County Council choose to delegate to them, and those powers can be withdrawn whenever the local education authority think fit.
  Loup DAVEYsaid that it was one thing to delegate powers and another to see them carried out.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that this provision could not be described as a compromise, because one of the parties most concerned—the County Council—had not been consulted. The position of the London County Council had always
  858
  been perfectly clear. It had taken the view that it would prefer not to have these duties thrown upon it, and that it would be better that the education of the children of London should be placed in the hands of a body specially elected for that purpose. But if Parliament decided that the London County Council was to be the local education authority, then it claimed that it should he the real education authority, and that in its hands should be placed complete power to control and deal with this question. To pretend that this was a compromise was surely a misapplication of terms. This provision was not a compromise—it was a scrap thrown to satisfy those who had been desirous of putting the whole of the control of education into the hands of the Borough Councils. The noble Marquess had said that the managers appointed under the present system had done extremely well, and that he had complete confidence that they would give equal satisfaction and do equally good work in. the future. But how were the present managers appointed? They were not appointed by subordinate authorities, but were directly appointed by the central education authority—the London School Board. The London School Board selected the managers and delegated to them such powers as it thought proper, and they were actually agents to carry out the work of the Board. The case under this clause was a totally different one. It might just as logically be suggested that the noble Marquess should allow the choice of the managers of some of his great collieries to be made by a rival colliery owner hard by. He did not think the noble Marquess would like to see the managers under him appointed by his rivals in his own line of business, and, after all, that was very much the position of the Borough Councils to the London County Council. The managers were, above all, the agents of the central education authority, and he held therefore that they should be appointed by that authority.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid the noble Marquess had defended his proposal by saying that in the event of there being any difference of opinion between the London County Council and the minor authorities the former would have the power of asserting their authority only by refusing to give any powers whatever to the managers. The County

  859
  Council might be obliged to place itself in a position in which the whole of this educational scheme would be brought to a standstill.
  LORD REAYplaced before the noble Marquess an analogous illustration in which the selection of assistant and head teachers would devolve, not upon the present School Board, but upon a body of managers not chosen or employed by the Board.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The question of teachers is undoubtedly in the hands of the managers, controlled by the local authority. The question is, whether the local authorities can be trusted or not. I think that they can be trusted, and no discourtesy is intended to the County Council in not asking it to undertake this, work.
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid they were told last year that the object of the Education Act was to co-ordinate and simplify authorities. He would like to ask how the extraordinary provisions which had been pointed out in this clause in any way co-ordinated or simplified the education authorities. It was pointed out in the discussion on the Act last year that the Government, in their ardour to co-ordinate authorities, had introduced into the Bill rather more authorities than there were under the then existing condition of things; but under this Bill they were going still further in the same direction, because they introduced the municipal boroughs. The minor local authorities were to possess a power over the County Council which was not conferred elsewhere by the original Act. Nothing could be more ridiculous than to allow the minor authorities to override the County Council.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURYsaid that he approached this question with an open mind. He understood Lord Tweedmouth to say that the
  County Council and the Borough Councils were in the position of hostile authorities. The noble Lord spoke of two rivals in industrial concerns.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I said nothing and meant nothing of the sort. I said that the Borough Councils in relation to the County Council were subsidiary authorities.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): The noble Lord used the expression "rivals as in business."
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid that he was in the recollection of the House The noble Lord spoke of the heads of two rival industrial concerns, and asked whether one owner would like to have the management of his concern appointed by the head of another rival in business. If that was the view which was taken of the relation of the Borough Councils to the County Council, they were indeed touching on a larger question than was raised by the Amendment. He should like in the strongest terms to protest against the idea that the two authorities, which were appointed with a view to the fullest co-Operation and friendly and harmonious working, should ever be hell up as intended to oppose one another in this matter.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid there was no rivalry between the County Council and the Borough Councils in London. The question before the House was whether it was right to place these minor bodies in a majority against the County Council.
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause,
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 24.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Halsbury, E. (L Chancellor.)

  Portland D.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Wellington, D.

  Abingdon, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Argyll, D.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Manchester, D.

  Bath, M.

  Eldon, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

  Hardwicke, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Lindley, L.

  Howe, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Hehester, E.

  Belper, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Lauderdale, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Dunboyne, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Dononghmore.)

  Grenfell, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  London, L. Bp.

  Lamington, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Lyveden, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

  Herford, L. Bp.

  Reay, L.

  Crewe, E.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Morley, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Burghelere, L.

  Sandhurest, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Russell, E.

  Davey, L.

  Wansdworth, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Welby, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  LORD REAYsaid that if the existing bodies of managers were to cease to exist on the appointed day, there would be an interim during which some confusion aright arise. He therefore moved the insertion of words providing that the existing body of managers should be continued until the new bodies were appointed.
  Amendment moved—
  " In page 1, line 24, after the word 'provision,' to insert the words 'the existing bodies or managers shall be continued until the new bodies of managers are appointed.'"—(Lord Petty.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think the noble Lord will admit that this is not an Amendment of very great importance. It was proposed in the other louse by Mr. Lough, but was not pressed to a division, my colleague, Sir William Anson, expressing his unwillingness to insert a provision which might act as an inducement to the authorities not to put the Bill into operation at the earliest possible date. I can assure the noble Lord that the point will receive our attention.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDEERY: The object of the new clause which I have to move after Clause 2 is to make it clear that schools belonging to the Loudon School Board outside London shall be treated as if they were in London. It is moved on behalf of one or two schools that otherwise would receive exceptional treatment. Sub-section 2 of the new clause deals with the case of a school situated partly in one Metropolitan Borough and partly in another.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 2, to insert the following new clauses:—'(1.) As from the passing of this Ac, any public elementary school provided by the London School Board before the passing of this Act, which is wholly or partly situated outside the county of London, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as, and for the purposes of the principal Act be deemed to have been, wholly situated within the county of London and within the nearest metropolitan borough. (2.) Any public elementary school provided by the local education authority which is situated partly in One metropolitan borough and partly in another shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be situated in such one of those boroughs as the local education authority determine.'"— (The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  LORD REAYsaid the Amendment standing in his name was accepted by the Government in the other House, but, on Report, was defeated on division. The

  863
  London Government Act, 1889, contained this section:—
  "The Local Government Board may, if they think fit, on the application of the London County Council and of the majority of the Borough Councils, make a Provisional Order for transferring to all the Borough Councils any power exercisable by the County Council or for transferring to the County Council any powers exercisable by the Borough Councils."
  That was an extremely wide power of transfer, and when the Act of 1899 was passed no one, of course, contemplated that it would apply to education, as the Borough Councils then possessed no educational powers. Moreover, it was entirely unnecessary in this case, because the Act of 1902, in Section 20, gave the powers required. The clause as it stood brought in two Government Departments, for, of course, the Local Government Board would not allow powers with regard to education to be transferred without consulting the Board of Education. This procedure seemed to him unnecessary, and in the interests of the smooth working of the Bill he thought it would be well that the section of the London Government Act, 1899, in question should not apply to proceedings under this Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the following new clause:—Subsection:3 of Section 5, of the London Government Act 1899, shall not apply to proceedings under this Act.'"—(Lord Reay.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: This clause was inserted in the House of Commons on the Motion of Mr. Lough, and accepted on behalf of the Government. On the Report stage a Motion was made to strike out the clause, and the matter was left to the House of Commons to vote exactly as they pleased, with the result that the clause was struck out by 214 votes to 120. When I tell your Lordships that these powers cannot be transferred unless the County Council applies, unless the majority of the Borough Councils are willing, unless the Local Government Board give their consent, and unless the transfer is approved by Parliament, it will at once be seen that the matter is sufficiently safeguarded. I do not think it would be fair at this late period of the session to send the clause back to the House of Commons for reconsideration.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD REAYdid not think the noble Marquess could have any objection to the next Amendment. Under the Technical Instruction Act, which was repealed, the County Council had the power to provide or assist in providing, scholarships, or pay, or assist in paying, the fees of students ordinarily resident in the district of the local authority in schools within or outside that district. Therefore they had the power to give scholarships at an elementary school. Under this Bill, however, the power of the County Council to give scholarships at elementary schools would no longer exist, and the result would be disastrous to those to whom it was very important that there should be afforded this first step in the ladder of advancement. Unless a provision of the nature contained in his Amendment were inserted in the Bill, the lack of it would make itself very seriously felt.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause (B) The local education authority may aid the education of scholars in public elementary schools who are exempt from the legal obligation to attend school by scholarships, free education, grants of books, or otherwise.'"—(Lord Reay.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: This Amendment has relation to a subject with which the Government will have to deal by a measure having application to the whole country. It is under the consideration of the Board of Education, and my colleague, Sir William Anson, has drafted a clause which provides that—
  "The local education authority shall be entitled to aid by scholarships the education of any scholar in a public elementary school who, being a scholar to whom instruction can legally be given in such a school, is exempt from the legal obligation to attend school."
  I hope that next year a measure will be brought forward that will meet the views of the noble Lord, who, I hope, will not insist on his Amendment.
  LORD REAYsaid that as the reply gave him more than he asked for he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYformally moved the following Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 20, after the word 'shall' to insert the words except as expressly provided.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  Clause 4., as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 1.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid the Amendment which he desired to move bore upon Section 17 of the governing Act, the first sub-section of which was to the effect that any Council having powers under the Act shall establish an Education Committee, or Education Committees, constituted in accordance with the scheme made by the Council, controlled by the Board of Education, provided, etc. He proposed to determine by statute the form of the Educational Committee of the London County Council, which would, of course, be subsidiary to and working under the Council. The members of the Committee were to consist first of all of one member from each electoral division for the County Council, to be elected at the same time as the members of the County Council, on the same franchise, and by the same process, but with the difference that women were to be eligible for election equally with men, and secondly, to consist of nineteen members appointed from their own body by the County Council, and ten members, men or women, experienced in education, to be appointed by the County Council. It would be seen that of such a Committee the County Council would appoint the majority and the rest would be directly elected. Upon a superficial view it might be thought that this was an attempt to bring back the School Board, but it simply went to the extent to bring into the administra-
  866
  tion of the County Council all the best elements of the School Board administration. There was no attempt in this Amendment to revive the School Board, but merely to retain the principle of direct election. There were, indeed, several obvious advantages in such a Committee if it were made a statute. In the first place, such a body—a very impartial, thoroughly representative and efficient type of body— would relieve the excessively overburdened County Council. It would take off the whole burden which was being put upon it by the Bill in this shape, and he did not think there was any Member of their Lordships' House who doubted that this large amount of administrative work would overburden the Council, and that in consequence they could hardly fail to be inefficient in one part of their work or another. Therefore it was for efficiency of education and the whole work of the County Council that he ventured to urge this Resolution on the House. Then, again, by the appointment of one member, one man or one woman from each electoral division, they had an opportunity of securing a person who was directly interested in the great and good work of the education of the children of this Metropolis, and they held on to the principle of direct popular representation In his judgment one of the greatest defects in this legislation, in which they had been engaged for two years, was the tendency to depart from the principle of direct election by the people of the persons who had to do their work.
  Then, again, this Amendment gave them the opportunity of enlisting capable women for the work, and putting them in their rightful position on the Council. In the Bill as it stood it was generally thought outside that one of its great defects was that it practically disfranchised women from being elected. Those women who had worked so devotedly on the School Board for London practically disappeared, and seeing that three-fourths of the teachers and pupil teachers in the schools were women, and at least one half of the pupils were girls, he contended that it would be reasonable, and would certainly tend to an efficiency of devotion to the work, if women were admitted to their proper place in the education of the country. Those

  867
  were the main reasons on which he ventured to urge this Amendment for adoption by the House. He knew that some persons who have not had any experience in practical administration of that kind would say that it was hardly reasonable to elect popular representatives on the Committee of the Council, but no person of practical educational experience would venture to say that. He himself was working happily on two Education Committees at that moment under the Bill of last year, and the Archbishop of Canterbury had informed him that he was the only Bishop who was fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to be appointed on such Committees. He had worked on a Committee under the County Council which was just in the same position that this Committee would be, and he could assure their Lordships that the County Council almost invariably accepted the decision of that Committee, so that there would Le nothing to deter the best persons from offering themselves as candidates. Again, ill the City Committee in Hereford they had had some experience, and out of this experience he ventured to urge as advisable for the good work of the Metropolis, the establishment of an Education Committee under the London County Council such as he had sketched out. he had no doubt that it would work with far more efficiency and harmony than would any other kind of Committee which had been indicated, and he ventured to hope that it might commend itself even now to the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, after paragraph (3) to insert as a new paragraph the words: The provisions of Sub-section 1 of Section 17 of the principal Act shall not apply, and the Education Committee of the London County Council shall consist of—(1) one member from each electoral division for the County Council, to be elected at the same time as the members of the County Council, on the same franchise and by the same process, women to be eligible for election equally with men: (2) Nineteen members, appointed from their own body by the County Council; (3) Ten members, men or women experienced in education, appointed by the County Council. This Committee shall come into existence at the time of the next County Council election, the Act to be administered meanwhile by the present School Board together with the twenty-nine persons appointed by the County Council under (2) and (3) above, acting as the Education Committee of the County Council."—(The Lord Bishop of Hertford.)
  EARL SPENCERsaid he rose at once to say two or three words on the proposal of the right rev. Prelate, because he had a great deal of sympathy with the proposition. He always felt in favour of what was called an ad hoc authority for dealing with this matter. He also felt very strongly in favour of electing women who had done such good work on the School Board. At the same time, he felt there was some difficulty in adopting in this Bill the proposition of the right rev. Prelate, which was to modify the School Board as a Committee. He had very great sympathy with the view of the right rev. Prelate, and if they were dealing with the thing de novo he thought there would be a great deal in what had been said. He was afraid that he had not quite gathered the argument made by the right rev. Prelate, that in his own experience in this matter the Committee of another body should be independently elected.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I said a minority of the whole Committee.
  EARL SPENCERsaid he was not aware that in the country any such minority was now elected in that way. Those were the reasons why, although he very much regretted they could not adopt something of the sort, he doubted whether it could be brought conveniently into the present Bill. The form of the Bill did not seem quite in unison with the proposal of the right rev. Prelate, and much as he sympathised with the endeavour to, get a new element into the matter, he felt there would be a very great difficulty to be encountered. Then he saw another difficulty, which was by no means clear. The members would be only elected to the Committee. That was an anomaly which he thought was a very serious one, and he ventured to hope that the right rev. Prelate would not press this alteration in the schedule to a division.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not think after the remarks of the noble Lord that there is anything for me to say. He has recognised, as I do, that if this Amendment were to be accepted it would ignore-

  869
  virtually everything that has taken place in the House of Commons with regard to this Bill. Any question of a body elected ad hoc could not receive our sanction at the present time. I there fore really do not think the noble Lord will go to a division, and I also do not think he will think me discourteous in not answering at a greater length, which, however, I am perfectly willing to do if he so desires.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid he ventured to think his next Amendment was not open to the objections to the previous one. It dealt with the subject of endowment. The endowment of schools in the London Bill was a new clause. It involved a departure from the parent Bill, and he was very glad to see it, because he recognised it as a great advance upon the Bill of last year. He would even go so far as to say that it was almost a confession that a mistake was made last year. In his own diocese the prevalent conviction was that a great mistake had been made; that they had wasted large sums of money which might, and he ventured to think would, have been used for helping forward the education of the children of the poor. To that extent they had been educationally impoverished by the action of that Bill. Turning to the London Bill he was glad to see that powers were taken to deal with endowments, although he was afraid that they were taken in a very half-hearted manner, so that the repentance did not appear to be either complete or effective. As the clause in the schedule ran the Board of Education had to wait for direct application from the trustees of the endowment in one case, or from the local education authority in the other case. That being so, what was likely to happen? Where they had trustees who might be said to be public-spirited trustees or generously-minded towards the poor children, or who were really earnest in and devoted to the cause of education, they would undoubtedly make an
  870
  application. Similarly with the local education authorities. If they were stirred up by a generosity which was not usually found in local authorities, then they would apply to the Board of Education. But supposing that neither of those applied to the Board then the trustees were left to use the endowments for the up-keep of the school buildings and similar purposes. That would happen in many cases, and money would be used for purposes for which it was never intended; to that extent they would be impoverished and the money would be confiscated. The local authorities would have to ask themselves, the question whether they should let the money go to the relief of the rates or apply it to the schools, and in many cases they would elect to put it to the relief of the rates. The facts would be that if they had a public-spirited and generously-minded body the money would be applied to its proper educational purpose, but if they had an inert and selfish body the trust would be abused, and the money would be confiscated. On that ground he hoped that the noble Marquess would be willing to accept his Amendment, which was simply to make an educational use of this endowment. All that he asked was that it should be the duty of the Board of Education, with regard to all endowments which at the time of the passing of the Act were being used for education, in all such cases to make the scheme an educational scheme, and that the endowment should continue to be used for a genuine educational purpose, and due regard had to the educational needs of the children of the locality or district for which the benefits of the particular endowment were originally intended. He was sure that their Lordships were anxious to have everything reasonable done with a view to help on the education of the children.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 22, to leave out from the word 'education' to the end of paragraph 4, and insert the words shall, by scheme or order, define the use to be made of any endowment to which this sub-section would have applied. Under any such scheme or order, the endowment shall be used for educational purposes, and due regard shall primarily he had to the educational interests of the children of the locality or district for which the benefits of the endowment were originally intended.'"— (The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OE LONDONsaid in many cases these endowments were left for the poor schools and were left for the fabric of the schools. No one in the world was more anxious than himself to see the children properly educated, or had more sympathy with the desire of the right rev. Prelate, but they had to be just before they were generous. In St. Paul's they had to consider the questions of keeping up the service and putting the choristers out in suitable positions in life, but the first and chief question was that of the fabric. The schools could not exist unless the fabric were kept up. As it was, all that was left in many cases for that purpose was the endowment trust, and now the right rev. Prelate proposed to take that away. Therefore, whilst he was in sympathy with the right rev. Prelate's motives he could not support the Amendment.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDwished to point out that where any endowment was left for the fabric it would of course be used for that purpose. His Amendment only applied to endowments which at the time of the passing of the Act, were being used for elementary education.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONsaid his point was that the first essential part of the school was the fabric of the school, without which they could not carry on the purposes of education. He must oppose what he understood to be the real meaning, intent and result of the Amendment.
  LORD COLCHESTERsaid he expressed himself last year as being in sympathy with the object of the right rev. Prelate, but he saw one or two difficulties attending the Amendment. In the first place, when endowments were left for the poor they were not always left for the purposes of elementary education. It was quite possible that if this Amendment were to be passed it would only perpetuate an abuse which had grown up. Again, if any of these endowments were denominational it would be a very serious matter if the object which the denominational founder had in view were
  872
  to be disregarded. Therefore, while he sympathised with the general principle of the Amendment, he could not vote for it.
  LORD DANVEYsaid he also sympathised with the object of the right rev. Prelate who, he thought, did not quite grasp the effect of the clause in the schedule. The effect of Section 4 of the schedule was to except from this Act certain sections of the principal Act of 1902 and to enact instead with regard to all endowments that the Board of Education might make schemes with respect to those endowments. But those endowments were not endowments which as the right rev. Prelate seemed to suppose were devoted to purposes other than education, such as the repair of the fabric, ecclesiastical purposes generally, or anything of that kind. Section 4 of the schedule only applied to endowments which could be applied for the purposes of elementary schools including the maintenance of the school house. The Amendment of the right rev. Prelate also applied to those endowments of the character mentioned, and the effect of the Amendment was that, whereas under the schedule proposed it was necessary that the Board of Education should be put in motion either by the trustees of the charity or by the local education authority, the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate would make it obligatory on the Board of Education to define the use of the endowments which the scheme put in motion. He thought that was an improvement, and that the Board of Education would probably find this to he a freer Act than if it was necessary that they should be put in motion in the manner proposed in the schedule. But for practical purposes he confessed that as it applied only to the London County Council he did not think there would be any practical difference in the result, and he should certainly prefer that the Board of Education should be left free and without the necessity of their being put in motion in the manner proposed in the schedule. With regard to the latter part of the Amendment he thought it would be an improvement to insert it in the Bill, as it would define the purposes for which the scheme was to be made and he should consider it very doubtful whether it would not be ultra vires for the Board of Education to make a scheme for any other purpose than that referred to in

  873
  the Amendment. He should there fore be disposed to support the Amendment, although he did not think that, when it was thoroughly threshed out, it would confer a great practical improvement on this Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL of HALSBURY): I really do not know, after what my noble and learned friend has said, that it is very desirable to pursue the discussion of this Amendment. As I understand him, and I concur in his view, it will make no practical difference to this particular Bill. This matter has been settled in the House of Commons by an Amendment by the Government, which was accepted by Sir Michael Foster with great gratitude. I really think it would be un- desirable to disturb that agreement. There is only one observation that I wish to make, and that is, that educational purposes must surely include the upkeep of the schools, and if diverted from that the endowments would be diverted from educational purposes.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the paragraph I am moving to insert was acquiesced in by the President of the Local Government Board on the request of Dr. Macnamara in the House of Commons. It is, with regard to the accounts being open to inspection by ratepayers, and we therefore came to the conclusion that if a Committee acts independently with regard to delegated powers their accounts shall not he open to inspection, but if it is approved by the County Council they shall be open. It is quite possible for a Committee to have matters to deal with of a confidential character. Questions of the character of the teachers, the division of grants, and similar matters, might arise, which it would be inadvisable to make public, unless the Committee were acting with the County Council. The Amendment is uncontroversial, and I therefore beg to move it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 3, after paragraph 6, to insert as a new paragraph the words, 'Where the London County Council dele- gate to their Education Committee any
  874
  powers, and the acts and proceedings of the Committee as respects the exercise of those powers are not required to submitted to the Council for their approval, Sub-section 1 of Section 233 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (which provides for the inspection and the taking of copies of Minutes) shall apply to the Minutes of the Committee relating to the exercise of those powers as it applies to the Minutes of the Council.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he would have regard to the state of physical exhaustion of their Lordships by reason of the lengthened sitting, and would speak very briefly to the Amendment that appeared on the Paper in his name. With regard to the two words, "by agreement," he would like to say that it was only intended that this clause should take effect in the event of the foundation managers and the local authority coming to an agreement. There was to be no sort of compulsion. Then the words, "outside the ordinary hours of the school time-table," were inserted in order that schools might be left in the hands of the foundation managers, except for the purposes of secular teaching—that was to say, foundation managers to arrange their schools for Sunday evening classes, or even to let the schools for entertainments. He was bound to say that since the Board of Education issued the new by-law he was not sure what hours the school time-table would set forth. That, however, was a matter which could easily be made clear. So far as religious education went he might say that a system such as this had been in vogue in Birmingham for some years in the Board schools, and had given every satisfaction. The Church of England had taken advantage of it, and the Church people there had professed themselves to be entirely satisfied with the character of the religious education that had been given, and with the general results. He ventured to think this was a solution of the difficulty with regard to religious education that the Lord Bishops professed to be anxious to get rid of. There is an easier way open, by giving up the attempt to control secular education in the schools throughout the country, but if they did not see their way to do that, he hoped they would

  875
  support this new clause. It ran on the lines of the compromise proposed for Wales, and would place the voluntary schools on the same basis as the Board schools were placed under the Act of 1870. Therefore it would, he hoped, foreshadow some agreement on the part of all these bodies in the State with regard to education.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Page 4, after paragraph 7, to inset as a new paragraph the mortis 'All public elementary voluntary schools within the area shall be maintained by the local education authority as if they were provided schools, provided that the local education authority shall, by agreement, rent the school premises from the trustees, free use of the premises being granted to the denominations under whose auspices the schools have hitherto been conducted for purposes of denominational religious teaching outside the ordinary hours of the school time-table, to the Children of such parents as make written application for the same. If any question arises under this section between the local education authority and the managers of a school not provided by the authority in respect to the use and rental of the premises, the matter stall he determined by the Vogel of Education.'"
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not think the noble Earl for a moment imagines I can accept his Amendment. It seeks to reverse the whole scheme in last year's Bill with regard to voluntary schools. The whole scheme was discussed last year and was rejected. A similar Amendment to this was ruled out on the Report stage in the House of Commons on the ground that it was a charge on the rates. That having been ruled out, I do not know how your Lordships are to deal with this question, but I can only say that it must be taken as a cardinal principle of the Bill that the position of the voluntary schools, as settled last year, is not to be altered, and no difference can be made between the voluntary schools in London and those in the country. I can hold out no hope of the Amendment being accepted.
  LORD DAVEYsaid he could not be surprised at the view expressed by the noble Marquess with regard to this Amendment, which was of a character that might have been more fitly adopted
  876
  in the Act of last year, if it was intended to apply—and there was no reason why it should not—to the whole of the country. He felt indebted to the noble Earl for having suggested this question, because in his opinion it was an extremely important one, and he had always looked to a solution of this kind as a real solution which might meet the just desires and wishes of the supporters of denominational education as well as those who preferred the system of Board schools. He ought to observe that the scheme which was suggested in the Amendment of the noble Earl was really that of the powers already existing under Section 26 of the Act of 1870, and when he heard the most reverend Primate say that no scheme or plan had been suggested by any Party on that side of the House for a solution of the difficulty, he felt some surprise. The solution to be found in Section 26 of the Act of 1870 had been put forward in the Press, by speeches both in the House of Commons and in that House, and in the literature that had been issued on the subject. He believed it was on the basis of the compromise proposed by his right reverend friend -the Lord Bishop of Hereford. He (Lord Davey) had some right to speak on this subject, because he had for the last twelve, years been a member and the chairman of a, School Board in his own parish, in which they had carried out exactly this system. There they had a school which belonged to a charity. The School Board rented the school at a nominal rent under the powers of the Act of 1870. The trustees of the charity reserved to themselves the use of the school out of school hours, and they gave religious instruction in that reserved time. What happened? The school bell rang three-quarters of an hour before the school began, and religious-education was given at the beginning of the school time. Then at a quarter to ten the bell rang again and the School Board work began. They found that system worked admirably and gave satisfaction to everybody. He had never heard a single complaint about it, either from the Church people, or from any member of the School Board, or from the Nonconformists themselves, and he had always thought that it afforded material for the solution of the question. He had always been of the opinion that

  877
  if the clergy had embraced that solution it would have been of great advantage to them. There would have been no Kenyon-Slaney Clause or introduction of foreign managers into the control of religious education, but it would have been entirely in the hands of those to whom the school house belonged, and they would have been free form many of those restrictions which the clergy found to be rather irksome upon them. It was a subject upon which he felt a great interest. He regarded it as a real basis for the solution of the confliction views of both parties. It was one to be welcomed by the Nonconformists, because it would not involve any payment of rates for the religious education that might be given by the trustees, and it was one which the supporters of undenominational education ought to—and he believed would—welcome, because it would relieve them of the cost of the maintainence of the building, and of very many restrictions under which they now suffered.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTERsaid that although anyone at this late hour spoke as with a halter round his neck, he thought it would not be respectful if no one sitting on those Benches expressed their views with regard to the Amendment. His objection would, of course, rest on the words "outside the ordinary hours of the school time-table." He could well imagine that the arrangement might work admirably in some cases, but they had to think not of instances but of the general rule, and in their view it would neither be respectful to the subject of religion nor practicable to make and arrangement by which that great subject should be taught outside the school hours and thereby give a kind of advertisement to the children concerned that they need not attend, It was important to he interests of peace in the future, and of a future settlement that they should recognise that any such arrangements must come within the school time-table. He had in his hand a paper by a Nonconformist, reproaching the Church for not coming to an arrangement based on facilities within the school time-table, but such an arrangement had never yet been responsibly suggested, and
  878
  he was quite convinced that no arrangement would ever commend itself to the consciences of those denominationalists who require denominational teaching, so long as proposals were made that religious education should be given outside the school time-table. When the noble Lord said he thought a compromise had been proposed on that basis, he (the Lord Bishop of Rochester) was not sure what compromise was alluded to, but he thought perhaps it was that suggested by Dr. Macnamara. He felt, and Dr. Macnamara knew at the time, that that was a point which from their point of view put his proposals out of Court.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid as he had been referred to in connection with the compromise he should like to say by way of explanation that the noble and learned Lord opposite had not received quite the right impression of the compromise which he had more than once proposed in regard to the voluntary schools. It was, he understood, voluntary schools with which this Amendment would deal. He had always contended, in a compromise of the kind, that denominational instruction should be limited to a specified time—but to a specified time within the ordinary hours of the school curriculum. There lay all the difference. Whilst sympathizing with the general view of the noble Earl he could not support the Amendment as it stood. He had another practical objection in his mind. From his experience in a country diocese he felt they had to consider both sides, and in many parishes there was on sufficient reason for so drastic a remedy. The Lord Bishop of Rochester had suggested that he should figure a little more in the shape of mediator. He could only say that he had been mediating for seven years, and he was afraid that with regard to some points the time for mediation was now over. But with regard to the Amendment he felt that in the country this is not the best mode of solving the difficulty.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he had reason to believe that the Amendment he had to submit had never been brought forward in the House of Commons. It appealed to a large class of people and spoke for itself. It was a

  879
  supplementary Amendment to one that was to be moved later, and it dealt with religious tests as applied to those who wished to become teachers and were about to go into training colleges. The object of the Amendment was to enjoin upon the London County Council, who would be the particular educational authority under the Act to make adequate provision for those who wished to have undenominational colleges. The noble Marquess would observe that under the Bill the London County Council were only obliged to provide additional colleges if they considered the existing arrangements insufficient, and if they thought on the other hand that there were at the present moment sufficient opportunities for those who wished to have undenominational training, they would not be obliged to alter the present conditions. He would venture to point out that there could be no reproach cast upon those who asked for these undenominational colleges. They were in no sense irreligious persons, but they preferred to get the tenets of their faith from spiritual guides rather than to look upon them as tickets of entrance to a particular college. What was the provision existing at the present moment in this country for denominational and undenominational colleges? In England and Wales there were 45 residential training colleges, of which 38 were denominational. Of these 14 were for men and 24 for women. Therefore there were only seven undenominational colleges in the whole of England and Wales, two being for men and five for women. Then, what was much more germane to the Bill and to his Amendment, he asked their Lordships to consider how many of these training colleges there were in London, to which place the Bill applied. In London there were 12 residential colleges, of which 10 were denominational and only 2 in the whole of this great Metropolis were undenominational, one being for men and the other for women. But he was bound to admit that, as he understood it, there were day training colleges for teachers to which he had not alluded. In one sense, at any rate, they fulfilled the object which his Amendment had at heart, because those who wished to be teachers attended day training colleges and would not live in denominational hostels. These day training colleges were practically undenominational as regarded
  880
  particular students. He welcomed some regulations that the Board of Education had lately brought forward for the purpose of encouraging day training rather than residential colleges for teachers. They were prepared to encourage hostels by grants, where those pupils who wished eventually to become teachers resided, and who attended day training colleges in the daytime. The Board of Education had promised grants to denominational hostels, and it was quite obvious that if a teacher had to live in a denominational hostel, there was a test on that student even if he attended a day training college which was undenominational. His Amendment would enable the London County Council, as the principal education authority, to encourage undenominational hostels, of which he was told there were very few at the present moment, and also to encourage the establishment of day training colleges for undenominational teachers. The present system imposed upon those who wished to become teachers in public schools a sort of religious test. The hostels, which were mainly of a denominational character, also imposed a religious test, and his Amendment empowered and enjoined, but did not impose upon the London County Council, if they thought the present provision for undenominational colleges inadequate, to provide them for those who were to become teachers, and who wished for such educational provision. He did not think his Amendment was in any way one that could not be accepted. It was desired by many people in this country, and he hoped, having regard to the inadequate provision for undenominational training at the present moment that it would be taken into favourable consideration.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Page 4, after paragraph 7, to insert as a new paragraph the words, 'It shall be the duty of the education authority to make adequate provision of training colleges or of day training colleges, to which all qualified pupils shall be admitted without inquiry into their religions beliefs, and in which no religious catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be used.'"—(Lord Burghclere.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am afraid that it is impossible to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, for the simple reason that it would make the provision of training

  881
  colleges by the local authority compulsory. As this is a very important and serious matter, I have been careful to supply myself with the reply which should be given to the noble Lord on this point. The answer I have framed is as follows: This Amendment cannot be accepted. It would make the provision of training colleges by the local education authority compulsory. The local education authority, under their secondary education powers, have power to provide such training colleges. The quest ion whether the provision of secondary education in any form at all was to be made compulsory was fully debated last year; and Section 2 of last years Act represents the farthest extent to which the House of Commons would go in that direction. Under that section the local education authority are to "consider the educational needs of their area, and take such steps as seem to them desirable, after consultation with the Board of Education, to supply or aid the supply of education other than elementary." It is made quite clear by Section 22 (3) that the power to supply education other than elementary includes the power to train teachers. The actual compulsory supply of education corresponds, and should correspnod, with the extent to which education is compulsory. A parent is obliged to give his child elementary education; and the duty of the State is to make sure that there are elementary schools to which a parent can send his child for the purpose. No duty is imposed on the parent to see that his child receives anything beyond elementary education, and therefore no duty is imposed on the State to provide such education. The part of the Amendment which provides that the training colleges provided by the local education authority should be undenominational is already provided for in last year's Act (see Section 4), under which any training colleges provided by the local education authority must be undenominational. The noble Lord asked with regard to grants given to hostels. They are given to hostels whether they are denominational or undenominational.
  EARL SPENCERsaid he was not surprised at the answer given by the noble
  882
  Marquess to his noble friend. Everything for which the Opposition asked, no matter how sound the arguments by which the request was supported, was refused by the Government, and, of course, against their majority it was impossible to prevail. His noble friend had not been answered in the least degree. The noble Marquess had quoted a memorandum on the subject, and said he relied on the provisions of the Act of last year. The House were repeatedly being told that everything in the Act of last year was sacred, and that the limits there laid down must not be overstepped. He, however, could not accept that proposition. There was nothing more needed in the country than increased facilities for the training of teachers, particularly for those who did not belong to the Church of England. More undenominational training was required. He was quite aware of the difficulties in the way, and possibly he felt them more, having had considerable experience of training institutions in Ireland, where the attempt to establish hostels for the different denominations had practically broken down. The real remedy was to establish day training colleges. According to the noble Marquess, there were ample powers in that direction under the head of secondary education. But those powers were optional, and his noble friend desired that the local authority should be obliged to deal with the matter. There were many districts in the country without sufficient training college accommodation for teachers, and the object of this clause was to lay it down as the imperative duty of the local authority to provide that which was so much needed, and without which all their Lordships would doubtless agree good education was impossible.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not think my noble friend or anyone else has claimed a specially sacred character for the legislation of last year; and we are perfectly aware, as I said the other day, that as soon as they had the opportunity noble Lords opposite are pledged to alter—in fact, practically to repeal—it. But I venture to point out to the House again that the work we are now engaged in is not in the Amendment of

  883
  the Act of last year, but the application of that Act to London, and I do think it would be very inconvenient and undesirable that we should now introduce a provision as regards London, which was deliberately rejected by the other House of Parliament last year in regard to the rest of the country. What reason has the noble Lord to suppose that the London County Council will not do all that is necessary in the way of providing the training college accommodation which may be necessary? I was under the impression, until a short time ago, that the London County Council was a body in which noble Lords opposite reposed very considerable confidence. It is now proposed to make compulsory upon the London County Council the exercise of a duty which it has not been thought necessary to make compulsory upon the rest of the educational authorities in the country. That is an extremely curious way of showing the confidence which noble Lords opposite entertain in the London County Council, and I must altogether object to inserting this entirely novel provision in the Bill.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he entirely agreed with the most rev. Prelate that the opposition to the Act of last year was not based on educational grounds so much as on grounds outside and beyond educational considerations, and he had reason to believe that that was the view of a great many people throughout the country. He did not say it as a matter for congratulation, but he believed that while the people of the country cared very little for education, they were greatly concerned with regard to the principles of injustice which, in their opinion, underlay the Act of last year and the Bill now before the House. The new paragraph which he proposed to insert would have the effect of removing a very real and substantial grievance which was felt most keenly by Nonconformists throughout the country. If these tests were to be established and maintained, he personally had no objection, because, detesting the Act as he did, he believed that no scheme could be devised by which the dislike of
  884
  the Act would better be kept fresh and keen in the minds of the people than it would be by these tests. What was the position as regarded London? In London there were approximately 1,000 head teacherships and 5,000 assistant teacherships in voluntary schools. The best posts in all those voluntary schools could never be held by Nonconformists, and the assistant teacher-ships might, but probably would not, be so held. His noble friend Lord Burghclere had called attention to the necessity for undenominational training colleges, and that view he entirely endorsed. Under the present state of affairs Nonconformists were trained and examined, knowing all the while that however excellent might be their work in the examination they would be debarred, by a test of the kind against which his Amendment was directed, from the best positions in their profession. Such a position was perfectly indefensible and it was made the more indefensible by a by-law recently issued by the Government. By that by-law the time during which a child was required to attend school was to be held to be the time during which the school was open for secular instruction only. The result would be that in a great number of schools, both Board and voluntary, the children of the poor in London would never hear the Bible read, or receive any religious instruction whatever. That was what had happened from the endeavour to press denominational education too far. This was not imaginary, but a real case in London, because the very poor would naturally and almost inevitably employ their children in the selling of newspapers or in adding to the income of the home by some other means, with the result that they would not receive religious education of any sort or kind. He objected most strongly to that by-law, and it affected the question under discussion in that if children were allowed to be kept away from the school so that they received no religious instruction at all, there was no reason whatever why these tests should be imposed upon Nonconformists. It the time during which children were required to attend school was to be limited to the time during which the school was open for secular instruction, why could not

  885
  the clergyman or minister of any particular denomination give religious instruction before the school opened?
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYpointed out that the noble Lord the Chairman of the London School Board had a Question down for to-morrow, and intended then to discuss this subject at considerable length. He hoped, therefore, the noble Earl would forgive bins if, instead of replying on this point now, he reserved his remarks till to-morrow.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he was simply stating these facts because they bore most pertinently on the question of tests. His contention was that if it was not necessary for the children to receive any religious instruction at all, and that if the time during which they had to attend school was limited to the time during which the school was open for secular instruction, the argument as to the importance of the denominational views of teachers in voluntary schools was very much weakened. Judged, therefore, by the action of the Government themselves in issuing this by-law, altogether apart from the hardship of reimposing these religious tests, he was unable to appreciate the importance of the teachers belonging to a particular religious denomination. He therefore moved the Amendment standing in his name, regretting that, in view of the strong feeling excited in the country on the principle involved, he would feel bound to insist on taking a division.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, after paragraph 7, to insert the words, 'No teacher shall be required, as a condition of being anointed or continuing a teacher in any school or college aided or maintained by the local education authority, to belong to any particular religious denomination, or to attend or abstain from attending any place of religious worship, or religious observance, or Sunday School'"—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYthought, with all respect to the noble Earl, that he was hardly conversant with all the facts in this particular matter. The Amendment divided itself into two parts, the object of
  886
  the first part being to prohibit the imposition of the condition that a teacher should belong to a particular denomination, and that of the second to prevent a teacher being obliged to attend or to abstain from attending any place of religious worship, and so forth. The second part was already practically the law, as the Code laid it down that such a condition should not be imposed. The words of the Code were—
  "A teacher shall not he required to perform or to abstain from performing any duty outside ordinary- school hours or unconnected with the ordinary work of the school."
  That was a most wholesome, right, and legitimate provision of the Code, and it really disposed of the second part of the noble Earl's Amendment He altogether disapproved of its being made a condition of a teacher's appointment that he should as a matter of absolute obligation undertake certain duties unconnected with the school and its work. He was quite aware that such a condition had not been unknown in the past, and it was possible that as a matter of private and terminable agreement, it was not unknown in the present, but if it should be made a matter of legal obligation, it was, in his opinion, indefensible in theory and practically inoperative in practice. When, however, he came to the further suggestion of the noble Earl, that it should he rendered impossible to require or to arrange that the teacher appointed to the head teachership in a particular school should belong to the denomination by the members of which the school was built and had been maintained, he was compelled to part company with the noble Earl. The issue there raised was a very wide and large one, involving the whole policy of the present Bill and of the Act of last year. It raised the question of the maintenance in any form whatever of schools in which denominational teaching was given. The noble Earl was perfectly consistent in objecting to this provision as part of the much larger provision that denominational schools as such should continue to be carried on. But if they were to be carried on, he fell back once more on the remark of Mr. Asquith that if denominational schools were to go on it was reasonable that the teachers should belong to the denomination which built the school. He did not wish to labour the point; it seemed hardly to require

  887
  argument when fairly faced. He would instance the case of a school on the building of which £15,000 or £16,000 had been spent by members of a particular denomination, who were at the same time rated for undenominational schools, and were maintaining by annual subscriptions, amounting to £1,000 a year, the character of the teaching in the schools. That it should be said that, as a condition of receiving any help whatever, that school must be liable to have appointed to it as head teacher a Roman Catholic or Unitarian, did not appear to him to be at all fair.
  A little while ago, when speaking to a friend who agreed with the noble Earl in opposing this Bill, he asked whether, if he were chairman of a small rural School Board, he would think it legitimate in appointing an infant mistress to ascertain whether or not the candidate was a Roman Catholic, and his friend said, "Certainly not. To ask such a question would be entirely and absolutely wrong." That was surely the redurtio ad absurdum of the theory which had been laid down. To assert that in a school which had been built and maintained by the members of a particular section of the Christian community, and which as regarded the fabric, was still to be maintained by them, the head teacher who was to give the instruction might be one who definitely opposed the tenets of the denomination who had built and maintained the school was to put forward one of the most illiberal, unfair and arbitrary contentions that could possibly be made That was his view as to the denominational test, as it was called. On the previous occasion when he spoke he did not refer to the denominational test as such, but to the question of whether or not the teacher, in order to be considered qualified to give religious instruction, should have been trained at a training college or elsewhere, and be able, as proved by examination and inquiry, to give the religious instruction in a proper manner. He was, however, quite ready to go further, and to say that in those schools which were still to have a denominational character, subject to all the safeguards imposed by recent legislation,
  888
  which introduced for the first time a popular element on the governing body which was not only to help in appointing the teachers, but actually to control the religious teaching given, and subject also to the still prevailing conscience clause, it seemed to him to be almost a self-evident proposition that the teacher should belong to the denomination to which the school was attached. He would not follow the noble Earl into the question of the by-law which was to be discussed to-morrow. He would simply say that the noble Earl had not quite fairly represented the matter, as the adoption of the by-law by the local authority was entirely optional, and the relaxation was to be given only when a parent asked for it in writing. He merely mentioned that lest it should be supposed that he and others accepted the interpretation of the by-law which had been put forward. As to the proposal that denominational schools should in future be presided over by teachers who might be opponents of the Christian faith-or, indeed, of any form of faith whatever—he hoped it would not commend itself to their Lordships' House.
  THE LORD BISHOP of HEREFORD,as he understood the noble Earl intended to divide the House on this question, desired to explain why he would be unable to support him. He strongly held the view that a wise and right policy was that the office of head teacher as well as that of assistant teacher in all publicly maintained schools should be open in this sense—that candidates for the office of head teachers should be eligible for appointment in voluntary schools, even though they did not profess to belong to the particular denomination to which the particular school was attached. It had to be borne in mind that in connection with all voluntary schools the foundation managers were in a majority, and the only effect of the Act of last year was to tie the hands of the Church majority, so that however much they desired to appoint the candidate whom they considered to be the most eligible, they were unable to do so unless he happened to he of the right denomination That was his objection as an educationalist to the Act of last year. He knew of one case in Which the managers, one of whom was a distinguished High Church leader, preferred

  889
  to appoint as the head of a department a Wesleyan teacher rather than an inferior Church teacher. He was certain that many clergy and other managers of his diocese under similar circumstances would do the same, and it was for the benefit of both religion and education that they should do so. Moreover such an arrangement would remove a substantial grievance at present felt by Nonconformists. But further than saying that all candidates should be eligible he did not think they ought to go. It was not reasonable that in a Church school the managers should be bound down by such a clause as that now proposed.
  LORD KINNAIRDthought the right rev. Prelate hardly realised that after the passing of this Bill the denominational schools would no longer be voluntary, but would be supported by the rates. There Was a difference between a grant in aid for secular education, coining from the Consolidated Fund, and assistance from the rates to schools which had hitherto been called "voluntary." The by-law to which reference had been made showed the drift of e cuts. It seemed as though that which many of them feared would be the result of this legislation was being gradually brought about, and that eventually the teaching of the Bible, according

  CONTENTS.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen).

  Monkswell, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Reay, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Crewe, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Davey, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Belper, L.

  Devonshire,(L. President.)

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Hard wicke, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Argyll, D.

  Howe, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Morley, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Portland, D.

  Onslow, E

  Kenyon, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Stanhope, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

  Bath, M.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Robertson, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Clarendon, E.(L. Chamberlain.)

  London, L. Bp.

  Ventry, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Windsor, L.

  Denbigh, E

  Balfour, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
  Schedule 2 and title agreed to.
  to the compromise of 1870, would be withdrawn from the children of the land, As to the re-imposition of tests on teachers. he agreed with the Bishop of Hereford in the belief that in many cases the common sense of the people of the country would ensure the appointment of the best teachers, but as long as the tests remained they would prevent much of the harmony which was so important in the question of the teaching of the children.
  EARL SPENCERsaid the most rev. Primate had referred, in the course of the debate, and also on a previous occasion, to the opinion of Mr. Asquith that religions teaching would and must continue to be taught in the schools. That statement was made some years ago. His right hon. friend would never have made it with regard to this Bill under which the maintenance of the schools would fall chiefly on the rates. It was hardly fair, therefore, to quote the statement on the present occasion. As to the question under discussion, the whole thing turned on the fact that these schools were now to be maintained chiefly by public rates, and if these teachers were to be thus supported they, as public servants of the State, ought not to be subjected to tests.
  On Question, their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Non-Contents, 33.
  Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received

  891
  on Tuesday next; and Bill to he printed as amended. (No. 182.)

  METROPOLITAN STREKTS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock