Sitting of 10 December 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRlVATE BILL BUSINESS
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (WATER AND GENERAL) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read a second time; to be considered upon Friday.
PETITIONS
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION)
  Petitions for abolition of restrictions: from Penicuik; and Juniper Green; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL
  Petition from Aberdeen, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL
  Petition from Juniper Green, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LIFEBOAT SERVICE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
  Petition from Manchester, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPIION IN TRADE
  Petitions for legislation; from Penicuik; and Juniper Green; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  SPIRITS (ABERDEEN, ELGIN AND INVERNESS)
  Returns [presented 9th December]; to be printed. [No.390.]
  OSBORNE ESTATE
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee appointed by His Majesty to consider the disposition of His Majesty's Osborne Estate in the Isle of Wight [by Command];to lie upon the Table.

  NAVAL AND MARINE TRAINING
  Copy presented, of scheme dealing with the entry and training of Naval and Marine officers and men of the Royal Navy [by Command];to lie upon the Table.
  Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk to the House—
  1. Adjournment Motions under Standing Order No. 17.—Return relative thereto [ordered 9th December, Mr. Caldwell];to be printed. [No. 391.]
  2. Closure of Debate (Standing Order No. 25).—Return relative thereto [ordered 9th December, Mr. Caldwell];to be printed. [No. 392.]
  3. Divisions of the House.—Return relative there to [ordered 9th December, Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  4. Public Bills.—Return relative thereto [ordered 9th December, Mr. Caldwell];to be printed.
  5. Public Petitions.—Return relative thereto [ordered 9th December, Mr. Caldwell];to be printed.
  6. Select Committees.—Return relative thereto [ordered 9th December, Mr. Caldwell];to be printed.
  7. Sittings of the House.—Return relative thereto [ordered 9th December, Mr. Caldwell];to be printed.
  8. Business of the House (Days occupied by Government and by Private Members).—Return relative thereto [ordered 9th December, Mr. Caldwell];to be printed. [No. 393.]
  9. Private Bills and Private Business.—Return relative thereto [ordered 9th December, Mr. Caldwell];to be printed.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES

  Irish, Scottish and English Postmasterships
  MR. MACVEAGH (): To ask the Postmaster General whether he will give the number of vacant postmasterships in Ireland that have been filled by officials drawn from England and Scotland during the past three years, the offices to which the appointments were made, and

  645
  the emoluments attached to them; and whether he will also give the number of vacant postmasterships in England and Scotland that have been filled by officials drawn from Ireland during the same period, the names of the offices to which they have been appointed, and the emoluments attached to them.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Twelve postmasterships in Ireland (including one twice vacant) have been filled by officials drawn from England and Scotland during the past three years. The names of the offices and the salaries attached to them are as follows:—Abbeyleix,£115;Kilmallock (filled twice in the three years),£140; Londonderry,£440;Youghal,£125;Kilrush,£110;Buttevant,£100;Roscrea, £180;Lisburn,£200;Kingstown,£240; Newbridge,£130;Dundalk,£280; Limerick,£480. One postmastership in England has been filled by an officer drawn from Ireland during the same period, viz., Towcester, salary £150. No officer from Ireland was appointed to a postmastership in Scotland during the period named.

  Postal Circulation of Lottery Circulars
  COLONEL WELBY (): To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that German lottery circulars are being distributed through the post in unclosed wrappers and envelopes; and if he can say what steps are being taken to prevent this distribution.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) German lottery circulars in open covers have lately been sent to this country from the Continent in considerable numbers, and all those which have been observed have been stopped. Foreign postal administrations have already been informed that such circulars are prohibited by law in this country. It is, of course, not possible to examine every open cover passing through the post, but if any lottery circulars in open covers have been delivered it is only because they have escaped detection.

  Indian Traders in the Transvaal
  Mr. HERBERT ROBERTS (): To ask the Postmaster-General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will give the purport of the communication
  646
  to the Pretoria Chamber of Commerce regarding the location of Indian traders.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) No such communication as the hon. Member refers to has been received at the Colonial Office.

  Historical Manuscripts Commission—Bishop of Galway's MSS
  COLONEL NOLAN (): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he would draw the attention of the Historical manuscripts Commission to the manuscripts at the residence and in the charge of the Bishop of Galway; and if he would endeavour to have a selection of these writings printed.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) The Historical Manuscripts Commissioners have already been in communication with the Galway Archæologiacal Historical Society on the subject of the manuscripts referred to, and it is hoped that in due course a Report will be made upon them.

  Customs Officers—Pay and Promotion
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE (): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that landing officers and watchers in the Customs Department receive extra pay for Sunday duty while waterguard officers do not, he will consider the desirability of putting waterguard officers in this respect on the same footing as landing officers, watchers, and other classes of civil servants; and, considering the number of commissioned boatmen who under the present regulations reach the rank of preventive officer, can he see his way to throw open to those of approved service and qualification a certain number of the vacancies in the rank of assistant landing officer.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) The character of the various duties of the waterguard renders it imperative to have officers in attendance on the arrival and departure of vessels at uncertain periods, and it is therefore a condition of the waterguard service that such duties have to be performed at any hour of the day or night or on any day, including Sunday. Candidates for appointment as boatmen are informed in the printed particulars issued that their hours of employment

  647
  extend over Sundays whenever required, and that the extent of such Sunday employment varies according to local conditions. The Board of Customs, however, endeavour to arrange that the officers should have a free Sunday as frequently as possible. No overtime is allowed, and the men join the Department on that understanding. Boatmen enter the Department under conditions of age and examination which preclude them from qualifying for the rank of assistant.

  Tame Stag Hunting with Hounds
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the practice of hunting tame stags by hounds at Maidenhead and Dorking; and whether, having regard to the manner in which this hunting is conducted, he will take steps for its prevention.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I have caused inquiries to be made as to the two cases of which the hon. Member sent me information, and I do not find any evidence of any illegal act. There may be differences of opinion with regard to this class of hunting; but to prohibit it entirely would require legislation which I am not prepared to undertake.

  Mullingar Prison
  MR. KENNEDY (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the county gaol at Mullingar has been closed for general prison purposes for more than twelve months, he will direct the General Prisons Board to hand over these premises to the County Council of Westmeath for the purposes of technical instruction or for the establishment of an inebriates' home or other local purposes, subject to such reservations to the General Prisons Board as were required in the case of the county gaol at Trim on its being handed over to the Boards of Guardians of the County Meath for the purposes of an industrial school.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The prison at Mullingar was closed as a prison on the 31st December, 1901. It is now used as a place of detention
  648
  for prisoners awaiting trial, and so long as it continues to be so used, the property in and control over the buildings will remain vested in the General Prisons Board. I regret I cannot at present hold out any hope that the buildings, or any portion of them, will be surrendered to the local authorities.

  Army—Paid Pensioner Recruiters
  COLONEL WELBY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to improve the position of paid pensioner recruiters as regards pay or lodging and ration allowances; whether he can see his way to giving them a smarter dress to help in attracting recruits; and whether, considering the service done by them in procuring recruits during the late war, some medal or decoration can be given them, and their services as recruiters allowed to reckon towards an increase of pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The emoluments of pensioner recruiters have been recently increased in several respects, viz., a nightly allowance of 2s. when absent for short periods on duty, free medical attendance at out stations, travelling expenses on appointment, including those of their families, and free conveyance for a certain quantity of baggage. Lighter clothing to wear in the summer months has been granted to them. It is not proposed to grant any medal or decoration for their services during the war; they have gained material advantages by the increased recruiting. Their service does not count towards increased pension as it is not military service.

  Volunteers—Transport Supply
  *MR. KEMP (): To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what progress has been made in supplying transport to Volunteer regiments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Under existing arrangements each Volunteer corps is requested in time of peace to make arrangements for the supply of transport in the event of mobilisation for Home defence, and I am informed that in the large majority of cases the arrangements have been completed.

  Volunteer Statistics
  MR. PIRIE (): To ask the Secretary of State for War will he state the number of the Volunteer recruits during each of the twelve months ending 30th September last, and of the Volunteers resigning or struck off the rolls during the same periods, with the total numbers.

  To 31st December, 1901.

  To 30th April, 1902.

  To 30th June, 1902.

  To 30th September, 1902.

  Total Increase

  8,472

  22,075

  13,014

  9,029

  Total Decrease

  26,616

  27,088

  13,226

  7,967

  Dublin Ordnance Department—Labourers' Wages
  MR. NANNETTI (): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will say what decision has been arrived at on the application from the labourers employed in the Ordnance Department, Dublin, for an increase in their wages, so as to bring it up to the standard paid to labourers in that district; and whether, seeing that a Departmental Order lays it down that labourers and others are to receive the market rate of pay of the district, and in view of the nature of their work, he will take such steps as will bring their wages up to the standard.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) From the information at the disposal of the War Department it does not appear that the labourers in question are underpaid, and accordingly no increase is contemplated.

  Under-age Enlistment—F. Frost, Garrison Artillery.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR (): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Francis Frost, who enlisted in the Royal Garrison Artillery on the 10th November 1902, against his parents' wishes, he being under eighteen years of age, and to the fact that his parents' application that he should return home has been refused; and whether, in view of this man's parents' state of health and circumstances, he can see his way to give orders for his discharge at once.
  650
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick) The hon. Member has been already informed that the Returns giving these details are not rendered monthly but quarterly; the figures for each quarter of the twelve months ending 30th September are as follows—
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This matter rests entirely with the General Officer Commanding the District, to whom I would suggest that any communications on the subject should be addressed.

  2nd Battalion, Sussex Regiment—Quartering on Return Home
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Sussex Regiment is due to arrive from India; and if, after service in a hot climate, it is to be quartered at Shorncliffe, and in buildings of galvanized iron; and if he will consider the possibility of quartering regiments returning from service in hot countries in barracks and at stations not involving such changes of temperature, and consequent discomfort to all ranks.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The 2nd Battalion Royal Sussex Regiment is due to arrive in England tomorrow. It is to be quartered at Shorncliffe as affording the nearest available accommodation to its territorial district. The allotment of the particular barrack is in the hands of the local General Officer Commanding. There are three infantry barracks at Shorncliffe, two of brick, and one of very good hutments of galvanised iron lined with wood.

  Channel Islands Militia
  MR. WEIR (): To ask the Secretary of State for War

  651
  whether, seeing that the States (Channel Islands) have declined to accede to the War Office request to provide 1,800 Militiamen, instead of 1,000 as hitherto, and declined to bind themselves to subject the Militia to be under canvas for the time stipulated by the War Office, he will state what steps he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) No official representation of the nature alluded to has reached the War Office, and I am therefore not prepared to make any statement on the subject.

  Surveyors of Taxes—Extra Clerical Assistance
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if, having regard to the answer given by his predecessor to the hon. Member for North-West Sussex, on 2nd March 1899, any provision has been made, or is being made, to meet the pressure of work in the offices of the surveyors of taxes caused by the increased rate of income tax and consequent increase in claims for exemption and abatement; and whether any extra clerical assistance has yet been given, or is contemplated, to meet the further pressure caused by the forthcoming quinquennial revaluation under Schedules A and B.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) The answer to both parts of the Question is in the affirmative. Since March, 1899, the established staff has been increased by fourteen surveyors and twenty-five assistant surveyors, and a further increase has been sanctioned as from the 1st April, 1903, of thirteen surveyors. The number of clerks has been increased by eighty-one since 1899, and a further increase of nineteen has been sanctioned from the 1st April, 1903. The work of the quinquennial assessment will next year be executed on a new system, which will spread the work over a longer period. Some of the work has, in fact, already been done. An addition of about £9,000 has been sanctioned to the outlay for extra clerical assistance hitherto expended at this period.
  †See (4) Debates, lxvii., 1016.

  Ministries of Commerce—Practice of Foreign Countries
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affars if he will grant a Return showing the manner in which trade and commerce is administered in the principal countries of the world, and th powers conferred on the Minister of Commerce by those countries which possess such a Minister.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) I would refer my hon. friend to the Paper laid in 1889, entitled Reports on the Constitution and Functions of Ministries of Commerce or analogous branches of Foreign Administrations. If this is not sufficient, perhaps he will put a further Question.

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE

  Army—Special Recruits
  MR. KEMP (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of specials recruited since 1st January, 1902.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): Up to 29th November 7,891 specials have been recruited.

  Imperial Yeomanry in South Africa
  MR. KEMP: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many of the 1902 Imperial Yeomanry are still in South Africa; and if he can say on what date these regiments will be finally disbanded.
  LORD STANLEY: There are at present about 1,500 Imperial Yeomen in South Africa. They will be discharged on completing a year's service from date of enlistment, unless they elect to take their discharges earlier, which they are absolutely free to do.

  Mounted Infantry
  MR. KEMP: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mounted Infantry Companies are to be retained as such, or to be returned to their regiments.
  LORD STANLEY: A considerable number of Mounted Infantry Companies

  653
  are still employed in South Africa. Mounted Infantry are being trained at home by passing as many Infantry men as possible through the training schools, returning them to their units when trained.

  1st Inniskilling Fusiliers—Return Home
  DR. THOMPSON (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the 1st Battalion of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers has been detained in Africa, notwithstanding their services and losses and the fact that the regiment served during the whole campaign in South Africa, seeing that the Brigade of Guards has been brought home.
  LORD STANLEY: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Midlothian on the 27th ultimo?†
  †See preceding volume, page 616.

  1st and 2nd Inniskilling Fusiliers—English and Irish Officers
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why two officers from English regiments were appointed to the command of the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers over the heads of the officers of the regiment who had served throughout the whole of the South African campaign, and several of whom were mentioned in despatches and decorated with the Distinguished Service Medal.
  LORD STANLEY: These two officers were appointed during the campaign to fill the places of an officer who had been killed in action and an officer who had been appointed to the staff at the time when the Senior Major was about to retire, the next senior had just been killed in action, and the two next had not qualified for promotion.
  MR. TULLY (): Was it not the case that the Irish officers were killed, and the English officers got the rewards?
  (No answer was returned.)

  Venezuela—Anglo German Naval Action
  MR. KEIRHARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the under Secretary of
  654
  State for Foreign Affairs whether the claims against the Venezuelan Government, which have necessitated the despatch of warships and have brought about joint action on the part of the British and German Governments, are private traders' claims; and whether there is any precedent for the course taken in order to secure the payment of debts due to private individuals.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CRANBORNE,): The nature of the British claims on Venezuela, which have necessitated resort to coercive measures, will be fully disclosed in the Papers on the subject, which will be laid before Parliament. The claims in question include, amongst other matters demands for compensation on account of unjustifiable interference with British trading vessels, for imprisonment and ill-treatment of British subjects, and seizure and destraction of British property, and for damage to railway lines, rolling stock, etc., the property of British companies. I believe that there is ample precedent for the enforcement, by active measures, of claims analogous to those which I have mentioned.
  MR. BRYCE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information, in addition to that in the newspapers, in regard to the position of things in Venezuela.
  *LORD CRANBORNE: I do not know that I have very much to add. The House is aware that it became necessary for His Majesty's Government and the German Government to present an Ultimatum to the Government of Venezuela, and some details of the claims contained in that Ultimatum I have already given. Thereupon our Minister was ordered to remain twenty-four hours at Caracas, and failing a reply from the Venezuelan Government to go down to La Guaira and wait on board one of His Majesty's ships for twenty-four hours more. This he did. Both those periods were exhausted at 7 o'clock last night; and unless in the meantime some concession has been received from the Government of Venezuela, His Majesty's ships will undertake forcible action. We have not

  655
  yet received any information that that forcible action had been carried into effect. As soon as we receive it I shall be only too glad to give the information to the House.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE (): Is the statement in the newspapers untrue that we have seized eight ships, and that the Venezuelans have seized 200 British and German subjects?
  *LORD CRANBORNE: We have no information certainly as to the latter part of the question. As to the former part, possibly it may be true; but I cannot give any official information at the present moment.
  MR. BRYCE: Can the noble Lord say when Papers will be laid?
  *LORD CRANBORNE: I cannot absolutely promise a date, but I can promise the House and the right hon. Gentleman that there shall be no unnecessary delay.

  British Trawlers under the Norwegian Flag
  MR. WEIR (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the Moray Firth was some time since closed against British trawlers for the purpose of scientific research, and that a number of British owned trawlers, by their recent transfer to the Norwegian Flag, are enabled to fish in the Moray Firth, and thus evade the law which, as British trawlers, excluded them from the Firth, will he consider the expediency of communicating with the Signatories to the North Sea Convention, with a view to ascertain whether it is practicable to come to some understanding with the respective Governments, so that areas like the Moray Firth which are closed for scientific research, may be closed against trawlers of every nationality.
  *LORD CRANBORNE: The hon. Gentleman put an almost similar question to my right hon. friend the Lord Advocate on December 2nd last. I am afraid I have nothing to add to the reply given to him upon that occasion.†
  MR. WEIR: But surely this is a Foreign Office matter?
  See preceding volume, page 912
  *LORD CRANBORNE: At any rate, I can add nothing to the answer given by my right hon. friend.
  MR. WEIR: Will not the War Office approach the Signatories?
  MR. PIRIE (): How long is this state of affairs to continue? The injustice has been going on for some years, and we have been repeatedly promised that it should cease.
  *LORD CRANBORNE: I can only say that the answer of my right hon. friend covers the whole question of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty.

  Notification of Accidents Committee
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Departmental Committee on the Notification of Accidents have yet reported to him; and, if so, whether they have made any recommendation which will have the effect of distinguishing in the statistics of mining accidents between those occurring to male persons under sixteen and under twenty or twenty-one years of age.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I have just received the Report of this Committee and will lay it on the Table with a view to its issue to Members as soon as possible. The suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, which was referred by me to the Committee, is dealt with in the Report.

  Austro-Hungarian Sugar Cartel
  MR. LONSDALE (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Austrian raw sugar manufacturers have provisionally decided to continue the arrangement for limiting the amount of sugar placed on the home market; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take steps for the adoption of countervailing measures against Austrian sugar.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Austro-Hungarian Sugar

  657
  Cartel is reported to have been removed for twelve months from the beginning of November or until the coming into force of the Sugar Convention, which is fixed for September 1st. 1903. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to propose to Parliament measures for countervailing any bounty that may; arise from the action of this Cartel between now and the end of August next.

  Achnasheen Railway Accident
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a special train which left Dingwall shortly after noon on Saturday, the 29th November, was derailed between Achnasheen and Garve owing to the breaking of one of the axles of the tender; and will he state whether the accident will be made a subject of a Board of Trade inquiry?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received a report of this accident, from which it appears that an axle of the tender broke, but the train did not leave the rails. An inquiry by an officer of the Board of Trade hardly appears to be necessary.

  Scottish Congested Districts Board
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland will arrange for the next Report of the Congested Districts Board to show detailed accounts of the amount expended by the Board in providing new holdings since its establishment.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The form of accounts prescribed by the Treasury does not admit of this being readily done without a separate analysis of the accounts, but the Secretary for Scotland will consider what can be done to give as nearly as possible the information desired.

  Bee Keeping in the Highlands
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether crofters and others interested in bee-keeping in the congested area have, through the agency of the Congested Districts Board, the advantage of any instruction as to the best methods
  658
  to be adopted; and, if not, will the Congested Districts Board consider the expediency of adopting the practice in force in Ireland.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Congested Districts Board considered the expediency of the course indicated in the Question of the hon. Member, but such inquiries on the subject as they were able to make did not reveal much encouragement and the proposal was abandoned. But wherever any group of people in a district (or even an energetic man) show an interest in bee-keeping the Congested Districts Board supplies them with all the information they want by books, letters, etc. Instructions are sent out with every hive and the Congested Districts Board are satisfied that these are so clear that little more is needed as to method. A local man with a little enthusiasm is of much more use in a district than any lecturer, and such men the Congested Districts Board is gradually finding out.

  Protection of Scottish Fisheries in the Moray Firth
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that H.M.S. "Jackal" is to be employed for purposes of scientific investigation under the direction of the International Research Committee, will he state what vessel will be detailed for the sea police duties on which the "Jackal" has hitherto been engaged?
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY:The cruiser "Minna" has been ordered to replace H.M.S. "Jackal" in the Moray Firth.

  Oxford Telegraphists' Grievances
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that in the Oxford Central Post Office certain telegraph clerks, who, at the time of their appointment prior to 1896 were asked to undertake telegraph duties only, are now required to perform postal counter duties also; whether, seeing that in the Oxford Post Office the telegraph and postal departments were separate before 1896, he will take steps to remove this alleged grievance without transferring the clerks in question to other districts.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I went carefully into this question in the month of September last. I then satisfied myself that the arrangements in force at the Oxford Office were necessary for the efficient performance of the work of that office, and that the officers concerned were not unfairly treated. I accordingly caused them to be informed that I was unable to relieve them of the postal counter duties to which they referred in their memorial to me; and that I expected them, in common with all other officers of the Department, to loyally perform the work required of them. I have no doubt that the officers concerned will loyally accept my decision; and it is therefore unnecessary for me to consider what action it might be my duty to take under circumstances which I anticipate will never arise.

  Week-End Duties at the Central Office
  Mr. CREMER (): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain telegraph sorters in the Central Office, London, are compelled to perform duty in the circulation office from noon to eight p.m. on Fridays, and four a.m. to noon on Saturdays; and whether, seeing that the Tweedmouth Committee recommended that officers should enjoy nine clear unbroken hours at home, exclusive of a reasonable time for the journey from the office to home and back between each duty, he will take steps to alter the duties of these men in accordance with this recommendation.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The shortness of the interval between the two attendances in question is no doubt inconvenient; but I believe it is not generally unpopular, as it admits of the men being free after noon on Saturday. It has been rendered necessary by the exceptional pressure of work on Saturday morning, and I see no other means by which that pressure can be met. The arrangement does not in my opinion conflict with the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee.

  Improper Use of the Post—American Postal Laws
  COLONEL WELBY (): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether
  660
  he is aware that in America the using for an improper purpose of the United States mail service is an offence punishable by heavy legal penalties; and whether he will consider the advisability of seeking similar powers to protect the postal service of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that there are many provisions in the Postal Laws of the United States of America for the punishment of offences in relation to the improper use of the post. There are similar, though not identical, provisions in the laws of this country, and I am not prepared to make any proposal for further legislation on the subject at present.

  Education Bill—Position of Teachers
  DR. MACNAMARA (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether it would be competent for a local education authority under the Education Bill to make it a condition precedent to the aiding of a non-provided school that any one or more members of the teaching staff should be dismissed, or that their office or offices should be abolished; and, if so, whether such teacher or teachers would be eligible for the compensation to existing officers provided for under Clause 20 of the Second Schedule to the Education Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): It is a condition of the maintenance of a non-provided school by the local education authority that the managers should carry out the directions of that authority in respect, among other things, to the number and educational qualifications of the teachers and for the dismissal of any teacher on educational grounds. But the local education authority cannot require managers to break existing contracts, and the teachers in such schools would in any case be entitled to the notice of dismissal which is a term in their contracts of employment. So long as the terms of the contract are observed no case for compensation would arise.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, if, immediately after the coming into operation of the Education Bill, a local education authority issued an order

  661
  under Clause 7 (i) (a), to the managers of a non-provided school calling for the dismissal of a teacher or for the abolition of that teacher's office, that teacher would be eligible for the compensation to existing officers provided for under Clause 30 of the Second Schedule to the Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The teacher would be entitled to the notice of dismissal provided for in his contract. There is no question of the abolition of an office; the teaching staff of a school must vary from time to time in correspondence with the requirements of the school. If the terms of the contract are observed no case for compensation would arise.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Am I to understand that if the position of the voluntary school teacher is worsened by the operation of the Bill, he will not be eligible for the compensation provided under Clause 20?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: There is no question of the voluntary school teacher involved. If he is under a contract with his employer, like the board school teacher, the conditions of the contract will be observed.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Then he will not be eligible for compensation?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: If his contract is observed there is no case for compensation.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, if, immediately after the coming into operation of the Education Bill, a local education authority abolished the office of or ordered the dismissal of a teacher in a provided school, such teacher would be eligible for the compensation to existing officers provided for under Clause 20 of the Second Schedule to the Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: What I have said as to the teachers of a non-provided school applies equally to the teachers of a provided school.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not quite understand the purport of my question. I am taking a case in which the position of a School
  662
  Board teacher is detrimentally interfered with or worsened by the operation of the Act. Will he be eligible for the compensation provided by Clause 20 of the Act?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: If the contract with the School Board teacher is observed, there is no case for compensation I cannot understand that the position of any teacher will be worsened by the operation of the Bill, the object of which is to leave them exactly in the position in which it finds them. It does not interfere with their contracts.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in the case of a school rented by or lent to a School Board by denominational trustees, if, after the' passage of the Education Bill, that school be re-transferred to the said trustees and become thereafter a denominational school, and any teacher in the school, as a result of the re-transfer, be dismissed by the managers because of inability or disinclination to give denominational religious teaching, such teacher would be eligible for the compensation to existing officers provided for under Clause 20 of the Second Schedule to the Education Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: This question does not refer to any conditions created by the Bill. Such a re-transference could only take place under the provisions of Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill. The managers of the denominational school would not be bound to take over the staff of teachers employed by the local education authority, and the local education authority would have to take care that the teachers whom it employed received the stipulated notice of the termination of their engagement, or compensation if the terms of the contract were not fulfilled.

  Belfast Re-valuation
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state what decision has been arrived at with regard to the application made to him by a deputation of Belfast merchants to withhold the valuation lists for Belfast until the Select Committee on Irish Valuation has issued its final report.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. ATKINSON,): Beyond completing his examination of the Appeal cases, the Commissioner of Valuation does not propose to take further action until after March next. In April and May he hopes to arrange for interviews with leading mercantile and other public bodies, as well as with individuals whose valuations are seriously affected by the re-valuation. The appeal lists will probably be issued in June or July, so that those who wish may appear before the Recorder in October, when the appellants would, for the first time, be put to any expense. The Select Committee will doubtless have reported long before that date.

  Belfast Registration Appeals.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland: (1) whether his attention has been called to the difference in decisions of revising barristers in Belfast in regard to the right of sub-tenants of apartments in dwelling-houses to the householders' franchise; and (2) whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill providing that where a tenant and his landlord reside in different apartments of one dwelling-house, the tenant, for the purposes of the Registration Act, shall be deemed to be a lodger, and the landlord an inhabitant householder.
  MR. ATKINSON: The question whether a person who occupies a portion of a house for which the tenant is rated, and the remaining portion of which the tenant occupies himself as a lodger or a sub-tenant is, in a great degree, a question of fact. The question has recently been considered in the Court of Appeal on an appeal taken from the decision of one of the revising barristers in Belfast. This decision has not yet been reported, and until there is an opportunity of considering it in connection with the earlier authorities in Irish and English Courts, it would be premature to answer the question.
  MR. TULLY: How does it affect the lodger vote in Rathmines?

  Irish Technical Instruction Grants.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  664
  of Ireland whether the technical instruction grants, which it has been decided to continue up to a limit of £7,000 per annum, will be regarded as distinct from the amount that will accrue to Ireland as an equivalent to the increased grants to England and Wales under the Education Bill.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The decision to continue these grants up to a limit of £7,000 does not dispose of the Question put to me. The decision is definite, but not final, and may serve as a point of departure when we come to consider the question of the equivalent grant in all its bearings.

  United Irish League Officials occupying Evicted Farm and Grazing Lands.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many of the 184 officials of the United Irish League, who are in possession of evicted farms and eleven months grazing lands, have been prosecuted under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, during the past eighteen months for unlawful assembly, conspiracy, boycotting, and intimidation; and what has been the result of these prosecutions.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No such proceedings, so far as I have been able to discover, were instituted against any of these persons.
  MR. TULLY: Why was there no prosecution? Was it because they are impostors, like their leaders?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Interest on Post Office Savings Bank Deposits in Ireland.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state when it is proposed to reduce the rate of interest on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank; and what will be the amount of the yearly reduction of interest in the case of the depositors residing in Ireland, and whose deposits are lodged in Irish Post Office Savings Banks.
  * THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am not at present in a position to make any definite statement, but I hope to be able to introduce a Bill upon this subject early next year. I may, however, say that if the recommendation of the Select Committee in favour of a reduction of interest of one-eighth per cent. Per annum is carried out, the reduction in respect of the amount to the credit of depositors on accounts opened at Irish post offices would be about £10,500.

  Blacksod Bay, County Mayo.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the result of official soundings made in Blacksod Bay, County Mayo, with a view to having it made a Transatlantic port in connection with the new fast mail service between these countries and Canada; and what further steps does he propose to take in the matter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no knowledge of any official soundings made in Blacksod Bay with a view to having it made a Transatlantic port; I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.

  Leitrim Light Railways.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a Resolution adopted by the Leitrim County Council on the 19th ultimo, asking to have a light railway constructed from Arigna to Dromahaire, so as to connect North and South Leitrim, develop the Arigna Coal and Iron Works, the Lough Allen Clay Works, and the Creevelea Iron Mines and Peat Works; and whether he can state what action he proposes to take in regard to this project.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. But legislation would be necessary to give effect to the Resolution. It is eminently desirable that something should be done in the direction indicated. This project,
  666
  and others germane to it, are not, however, so far advanced as to call for a public pronouncement on my part.

  Sewing Machines in Irish Schools.
  COLONEL NOLAN (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if, since the abolition of result fees, the time devoted to sewing and to learning the use of the sewing machine has decreased in the country national schools of Ireland; and whether the teachers now receive as much remuneration for teaching sewing as before the abolition of result fees.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Formerly five hours weekly were devoted to needlework. The Commissioners of Manual and Practical Instruction were of opinion that the requirement in this respect was excessive, and the time has accordingly been reduced by the National Board to three hours per week. The consolidated salaries now paid to teachers include a full equivalent for former payments for instruction in needlework.

  Army Remounts—:The Studdert Case.
  Mr. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the amount spent by the Crown in the prosecution of Messrs Studdert in the remount case at the Munster Winter Assizes; how much has been claimed by the defendants as expenses of witnesses for the defence; and how much has been paid to them.
  MR. ATKINSON: At the request of my right hon. Friend I will reply to this Question. Several of the claims have not yet been paid. The accounts have not been closed, so that it is impossible for me at present to answer the Question fully.

  The Unemployed—Distress and Suffering.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in order to afford an opportunity for putting the House in possession of the facts relating to unemployment and the amount of distress and suffering due thereto, he will endeavour to arrange for at least one sitting of the House being given before the session closes to a consideration

  667
  of the Motion which stands on the Notice Paper relating to Poverty (Remedial Measures).†
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Gentleman has been good enough to supplement his Question by a private letter, which I received this morning. In this he indicates that, in his view, the workhouses are insufficient to meet the demand, and that the charitable organisations for the relief of distress cannot cope with the increased pressure thrown upon them by what the hon. Member regards as the exceptional distress. No information which I have been able to obtain confirms the view of the hon. Gentleman. I only read his letter this morning, and have not had time to make very full inquiry; but I am convinced that the hon. Gentleman has given a very exaggerated view—quite unintentional, of course—of the present state of affairs. I do not think anything is to be gained by a discussion in this House on the subject. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that a Select Committee sat six or seven years ago on a like Question, which excited a great deal of attention at the time, and the results of its labours certainly do not indicate that any profitable result would follow for the distressed classes from further debate in this House.
  MR. KEIR IIARDIE: Is not the reason that the Committee came to no finality to be found in the fact that a General Election interfered with its labours and changed its composition?
  [No answer was returned.]
  †The following is the Motion referred to:—
  " That this House, desiring to abolish the poverty and suffering due to unemployment, low wages, and excessive hours of labour, calls upon the Government to introduce and pass into law at an early date measures which shall: (a) enforce the payment of an adequate minimum wage to all wage-earners, particularly those who now receive less than 30s. a week; (b) fix a maximum working period which may not exceed eight hours per day, or, alternatively, forty-eight hours per week; and (c) empower local authorities, acting singly or in combination, to acquire land for cultivation, and to establish industries, so that men and women unable to find employment in the ordinary labour market may be employed on suitable and remunerative work which shall not involve disfranchisement or any other political disability."
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the distress at present prevailing, the Government will now take steps, either legislative, administrative, or by way of inquiry, in order that provision may be made of opportunities for work for the unemployed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel that the reply I have given to the Question of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil deals adequately with the Question he has put on the Paper.
  MR. FLOWER (Bradford, W.): Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of suggesting to the County Council and the various municipal bodies that they proceed with street improvements and other public works, with a view to providing employment during the remainder of the winter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I could not, of course, answer a Question of that sort without notice, but I would suggest to my hon. Friend whether that is not a matter which should really be left to the discretion of the local authorities.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BRYCE: Can the Prime Minister now say what the business will be on Friday?
  COLONEL WELBY: Is it intended to take the Committee on the Militia and Yeomanry Bill after the London Water Bill?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (): I see that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to move the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule if the London Water Bill is not disposed of by midnight. I hope he will confirm the arrangement, which was certainly understood, that, supposing the Bill is finished before twelve o'clock, no substantial Government business will be taken after it.
  MR. CAREW (): When is it, proposed to proceeed with the Irish Local Government Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the various Questions that have been addressed to me, I have lo say that I shall not propose to take the Militia Bill after the Water Bill today if it is regarded as contentious; but I rather hope that the arrangement made by general consent yesterday will prevent it being treated as contentious; otherwise I shall put it down for tomorrow. The proposed suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule only applies to the Water Bill, and will not give the Government a general licence to go on with their business after midnight.
  MR. LOUGH (): Some of us object to the suspension.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; I am aware that there is a difference of opinion between the hon, gentleman and his friends. As regards tomorrow (Thursday) the first business will be the Report of the Committee on the Uganda Railway, the second Order will be the Osborne Estate Bill, and the third the Militia Bill. But I do not desire absolutely to pledge myself as to the order in which these various Bills will be taken, though certainly the Uganda Railway Bill will be the first. For Friday it may be for the convenience of the House to take a measure which, I believe, meets the wishes of Irish representatives belonging to many sections and interests, and which I am sure it is for the interests of Ireland that Parliament should pass in the course of the present session, the Irish Local Government Bill.

  OSBORNE ESTATE BILL.
  Reported, from the Select Committee, with an Amendment.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 394.]
  Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 394.]
  Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for tomorrow.

  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Power given to the Select Committee to report their observations.
  Second Report brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 395.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Eleventh Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
  (2.43.) Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the London Water Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House):"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 89; Noes, 23. (Division List No. 623.)

  AYES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynle

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gray Ernest (West Ham)

  Anson, Sir William Reyuell

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

  Hamilton, RtHn LordG(Midd'x

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Corbett, T. L (Down, North)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

  Cranborne, Viscount Heath,

  ArthurHoward(Hanley

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

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Balfour, RtHn. Gerald W.(Leeds

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hope, J.F.(Shelfield,Brightside

  Bignold, Arthur

  Denny, Colonel

  Lambton,Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

  Boud Edward

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bryce, Rt.Hon. James

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Bull, William James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

  Caldwell, James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Flower, Ernest

  Lowe, Francis William

  Cavendish,V. C. W(Derbyshire

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas,Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Chamberlain, Rt HuJ. A(Wore.

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick,S. W

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Thornton, Perey M

  M 'Kenna, Reginald

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Ritchie,Rt Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Montaga, G. (Huntmgdon)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mount, William Arthur

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Walrond, RtHon. Sir WilliamH.

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebon, W.)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

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

  Percy, Earl

  Smith,James Parker (Lanarks.

  Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

  Plummer,Walter R.

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stanlet, Lord (Lanes.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Purvis, Robert

  Talyor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hoodand Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Tully, Jasper

  Burt, Thomas

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

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Cormbie, John William

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wason, JohnCatheart(Orkney)

  Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cadigan

  Rea, Russell

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  Rigg, Richard

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hardie,J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Mr. Lough and Mr.

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cremer.

  LONDON WATER BILL.
  As amended, considered:—
  (2.50.)MR. CREMER ()said that he offered no apology for moving the omission of Clause 1, because hon. Members on his side of the House regarded it as the very foundation of the whole Bill, and a false foundation as well, and they were naturally anxious to do their best to exclude it and thus defeat the whole measure. During the debate on the Second Reading it was pointed out that the Government had two models on which they could have based their Bill—the Metropolitan Board of Works and the London County Council. To this day no one could understand why the Government did not prefer the London County Council in lieu of a body which expired in the midst of infamy, after an inquiry held at the instigation not of Radical Members but of Lord Randolph Churchill, which brought to light so many misdeeds, so much corruption, and so much jobbery, that it was literally hounded out of existence and superseded by the London County Council. Hon. Members opposite had tried in vain to put their fingers on any blot on the escutcheon of the London County Council, and from the time that that body was constituted down to the present moment, it had never been proved to be guilty of any of the offences which were so characteristic
  672
  of the old Metropolitan Board of Works. Its hands were perfectly clean, and not one of its most violent enemies—and he was sorry to say they were numerous, especially in the House—had been able to charge the London County Council with any of the nefarious practices which were so common in connection with the Metropolitan Board of Works. Here they had a body absolutely above suspicion, and on the basis on which it was constituted the Government might well have built up their new Water Authority. But the Minister in charge of the Bill passed it by, pure and efficient as it had proved itself in the many great works it had undertaken, and had preferred to take as his model an old and corrupt body like the Metropolitan Board of Works. Surely that fact in itself was sufficient justification for their opposition to the Bill. There was no precedent, so far as he could gather, for the extraordinary course which the right hon. Gentleman had pursued in outlining his Bill. There had been various Committees and Commissions from time to time which had reported on the London Water question, but not one of them had ever proposed the constitution of a Water Board such as the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to establish. All of them, in fact, suggested a much smaller body, of not more than thirty-five or forty members, whereas the President of the Local Government Board preferred a board of

  673
  extraordinary magnitude which would prove absolutely unworkable, most inefficient, and most costly. There was another reason which justified them in moving the omission of that Clause, and that was that the Committee which was appointed on the motion of the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into the nature and character of his proposals at first decided in favour of a Board of thirty-five members, and then, owing to some extraordinary pressure which he had never been able to understand, it reconsidered its decision, and finally accepted the right hon. Gentleman's own proposal. Why it thus climbed down he had no knowledge—they had never, in fact, been able to understand what mysterious influence was brought to bear on the Committee. Probably, however, it was not worth while at that stage to try and investigate the nature and character of the influence which undoubtedly was exercised. He was therefore proposing to revert to the proposal of the Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman himself.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 6, to leave out Clause 1."— (Mr. Cremer.)
  Question proposed—"That the, words of the Clause to the first word 'a,' in line 20, stand part of the Bill."
  THE PRESIDENT 0F THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,)said that before he said a word or two in reply to the hon. Gentleman who had moved this Amendment, perhaps the House would allow him to state very briefly, and without any argument for or against, what the course was which the Government proposed to take in regard to the Bill on the Report stage. It was for the convenience of the House that he should do so, and it would facilitate discussion if hon. Members knew what the intentions of the Government were. Various suggestions had been made for the Amendment of the Bill, and he would take them in the order as they stood on the Paper. In the first place, it had been pointed out that if the chairman and vice-chairman were elected from within the Board, it would create vacancies in their respective seats. It had been urged that that was
  674
  unnecessary, and the Government were prepared to accept that view, and to introduce an Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Poplar, which would give effect to it. He now came to the question of numbers. The House would remember that the Bill, as originally framed, provided that the number of members of the Water Board should be seventy-three. In Committee they took out five numbers from five Metropolitan boroughs, and he promised to consider whether he could not re-arrange some of the outside areas and add their representation to that of London within. He had very carefully considered this matter, and he had been able to find four members from the outside areas which he proposed to add to the representation of the London County Council. This would make the total number of the Water Board at sixty-six, or, if the chairman and vice-chairman were elected outwith the Board, sixty-eight. Another point was whether the Water Board should agree to purchase without arbitration. The Government were unable to assent to that proposition. What they suggested was that purchase by agreement should not be valid unless the purchase arrangement had been submitted to the Court of Arbitration; and they gave full power to the Court of Arbitration to consider each contract when it came before them. As to the New River Clause, that was an "agreed Clause" which had been very carefully prepared by the New River Company, and approved of upstairs by the Joint Select Committee. While admitting that the Clause went too far, and would do more than was either desirable or necessary, he was unwilling to alter it here without realising what the effect of the alteration would be on the New River Company, but he proposed to undertake on behalf of the Government that the necessary alteration would be made in the Clause in another place.
  MR. LOUGH (): What about the franchise?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was advised that no question of the franchise would arise, as the franchise depended on the land; and the franchise would come

  675
  to an end by the transfer of the land to the Water Board. Another suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Batter-sea that the members for the new Water Board should cease to be members of that Board if they ceased to be members of the constituent bodies sending them to it. There was an Amendment on the Paper which would give effect to that proposal, which he proposed to accept. He had also felt that it would be wrong that the position of vendor and purchaser should be occupied by one and the same person, and that, therefore, it was desirable that a man who was a director of a Water Company should not be a member of the first Board.
  MR. LOUGH: What about the shareholders?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he thought that would be an absurd limitation, for, after all, the shareholders were very numerous; and if a man was not to be trusted to deal with contracts of this kind, it would be very difficult to find qualified people to sit on the Board. There was only one other point. On the new Board there were representatives of the Thames and Lea Conservancy. His attention had been called to the matter by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, in the course of the debate, and, in his opinion, it was not quite fair that these Conservators should, on the Water Board, take part in the decision in regard to purchase. He proposed to put an Amendment on the Paper which would exclude those Conservators from taking part in the proceedings for the settlement of the purchase. He did not propose to say very much in answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Haggerston. He recognised fully that the hon. Member had felt it his duty to make that speech; but the Government had expressed their views on the subject, and had, on the vote, obtained an overwhelming majority. He might say that in arriving at the decision to which the Government had come they were not actuated by any feeling of hostility to the London County Council. [Cries of "Hear, Hear!" from the MINISTERIAL Benches.] Their governing principle had been that of representation. Nobody could deny that in all the proposals made in connection with this question, none had found more general acceptance than that of representation,
  676
  which would receive the confidence of all concerned. Therefore they had not given power to the London County Council alone, but to all the other local authorities interested. He had now only to return to the worn-out story of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was a member of that Board when it was abolished; and if any one were to argue that because that Board was guilty of grave errors of omission and commission it ought to be condemned outright, he would be greatly mistaken. The Metropolitan Board of Works did au immense deal of excellent work. The hon. Gentleman failed to recognise that the Metropolitan Board of Works was elected by the vestries of London on a broad franchise; and he ventured to say that if they had handed the management of the water to the London County Council it would have been violently opposed by all the other local authorities, and that it certainly would not have passed this House. He contended that if they had proposed a popularly elected ad hoc body it would have been a very unwise and unpopular system, whereas in the proposal which the Government had made they had taken the necessary steps to secure the appointment of a practical and business-like body. He did not share the hon. Gentleman's vaticinations, and he hoped the Clause would be carried by a considerable majority.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON ()said that he and his friends recognised to the full the very courteous and conciliatory attitude which the right hon. Gentleman had taken up in this matter and the concessions which he had made. The right hon. Gentleman had recognised that the addition of four more representatives of the London County Council on the Water Board was a very considerable improvement on the Bill. They on the Opposition side objected to the principle on which the Bill was based, but he thought that the Committee would recognise that in accepting Amendments, moved chiefly from the Opposition side, the right hon. Gentlemen had rendered the smooth and effectual working of this new body more likely. Whatever might be the opinions held with regard to his own position in this matter, he considered that the action he had taken on

  677
  the Bill had been fully justified. It was all very well for those who had not been in attendance to say that the Bill should have been fought through. With such a small following it seemed to him hopeless to attempt to kill the Bill. It was obvious, with only thirty or forty Members at his back, of whom there were only seven or eight who would speak in Committee, that it was hopeless for him to attempt to kill the Bill. The only alternative was to see whether the right hon. Gentleman would meet them in the matter, and that alternative he adopted. The sole object he had in so doing was to improve the Bill and make it workable, He had ventured to make these few remarks because he felt somewhat annoyed at the strictures that had been passed upon him. In his opinion the concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman were vitiated by the principle of the Bill, and as the omission of this Clause had been moved by his hon. Friend he should certainly vote for its omission. In the opinion of the Opposition in regard to the question of a municipal basis, and in regard to this being a business-like and workable Board the proposals of the Government had vitiated both principles. What had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman had not satisfied him or encouraged him to think that this Board would be an advantage to London. The right hon. Gentleman had laid down the principle that the basis of local government should be indirect election, and that was not their view. With regard to the Board of Works he had no desire to say anything against it, but he might just point out that that Board was shown to be so defective, inefficient and corrupt, that the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman himself was a supporter swept it away. That surely was a sufficient condemnation, not only for the Board of Works but for the system of indirect election also. That was the only instance of a large public body being founded on indirect election, and the right hon. Gentleman was now going to elect this new body on the same basis. [An HON. MEMBER: What about the Metropolitan Asylums Board?] The Metropolitan Asylums Board stood upon a different basis altogether, but many people even with regard to that body did not think
  678
  it was the best possible body for the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was not actuated by any hostility to the London County Council in this matter. Mrs. Penruddocke might as well say she was not animated by any hostile feeling towards the child she bullied. The County Council could have been brought in to deal with this matter very easily indeed on the basis of direct election through the County Council. Why direct election through the County Council was not accepted by the right hon. Gentleman except through hostility to the County Council he could not understand. The basis of this Board ought to have been more in the direction of direct election, and inner London should be represented to a greater extent than outside London. He desired to enter a strong protest against this Bill being taken at all at this time of the year; it was not fair to the House, to the London Members, or to the London ratepayers. This Autumn Session was taken for educational purposes and not for the purposes of this Bill, and to force a Bill of this kind down the throats of the House in December, when it could have been dealt with in the previous August, was not treating the House or those interested in that great question with the respect to which they were entitled. The ultimate result of this procedure would be that the Bill, which otherwise would have been most satisfactory, would not be the success they all desired.
  MR. LOUGHquite agreed that the highest praise was due to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he had conducted the Bill, but such praise as was given to the right hon. Gentleman did not prevent them from taking exception to the principles which the Bill contained. He regretted that his hon. friend should have said what he did with regard to the arrangement that had been made, because it was not quite an open question. What some of them complained of was that this arrangement should have been made without its being sanctiened by a meeting of the Party. No one on that side of the House regarded his hon. friend with feelings of greater respect, or would follow him more closely in his

  679
  proper sphere than he (Mr. Lough) would. But the sphere of his hon. Friend, as a late Under Secretary for the Colonies, was the Colonies. With regard to London matters, if they had any Leader at all on the Front Bench, that Gentleman was not his hon. friend but the hon. Member for Southwark. But the London Members who sat on the Back Benches would receive no tyranny from the Front Bench on London matters at all. With regard to the concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman there were several important points which had been omitted. There had been no concession made with regard to compensation for purchase, for instance, and the concession with regard to the constitution of the first Board would require some extension. His personal complaint against the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite was that hon. Members opposing this measure had not been given any opportunity to fight their battles. Clause 1 illustrated the impossibility of anybody holding the views he did adopting a friendly attitude towards this Clause. Anybody who called himself a Radical and a friend of democratic politics in this country must oppose this Clause with all the force in his power. It remained as objectionable now as when it was introduced. The number of the Board was exactly the same as the number in the Bill as it was originally introduced, and all the objections taken then held good at this moment. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman had given the London County Council a representation of fourteen instead of ten, but according to the opinion of the London County Council, as expressed at a meeting held on the previous day, that did not do the County Council any good whatever. It increased their responsibility, but it did not increase their power to enforce that responsibility. The London County Council was still hopelessly outnumbered, and not placed in any better position for fighting its battles. If for the moment they confined their view to the representation of boroughs within London alone on this Board, the Metropolitan Borough Councils had a representation of thirty-one as against ten representatives of the London County Council, so that, without counting the outside boroughs, the
  680
  London County Council, was hopelessly outnumbered. The constitution of the Board was as bad as it could well be, and he did not believe any Member of the Opposition had sacrificed for the concession that had been made the rooted objection he had to this Clause. There was no direct election from the London County Council to this Board. The system on which it was based was most absurd—twelve or fourteen local authorities were formed into an electoral college to elect one member to this body. This system of indirect election was not one that should be set up at this time of day. A compromise would have been possible in this matter. There was the compromise proposed by the hon. Member for North Wilts: a compromise suggested by the Joint Committee, to whose decision he submitted weight should be attached. The Joint Committee, when it was left free, before it was influenced by the Government suggested a compromise which the hon. Member for North Wilts had moved in the House. That was a compromise which would have been accepted by the Opposition, and which would have been a real compromise. It would have got rid of these electoral colleges, and given a small and compact Board with a respectable representation to London, and adequate representation to Essex, Kent, and other counties around London. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had not accepted that compromise; he had not had regard to the suggestion of the Joint Committee; he had not met the objections of the Opposition to this Clause, and he (Mr. Lough) was very glad they were all going into the Lobby to vote against it.
  (3.35.) DR. MACNAMARA ()expressed the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had treated the London Members who opposed this Bill very well indeed. There were only seven of them, and for every one who stood up to oppose the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman could put up eight on his side to support it. He was entitled to do so, but he had not done it, and for having exercised that self-denying ordinance he was entitled to the thanks of hon. Members. The fundamental issue which overshadowed, and in fact entirely dwarfed

  681
  all others, was the question of the constitution of the Board. That was the main point of this Clause, and he, for the last time, vehemently opposed it. The Board consisted of sixty-eight members. It was still too large and unwieldy; there was nothing like it on any Select Committee or Royal Commission; there was nothing like it in any previous Bill for London water, and there was nothing like it with regard to any municipal supply throughout Great Britain. There was from £30,000,000 to £40,000,000 of the ratepayers' money involved in this Bill, and he did not consider that this Board was competent to deal with that sum in a wise and careful manner. What he felt was that it would blunder in its inexperience at a most serious cost to the ratepayers, and that the blunders which it would make would be those which were bound to be made at the outset of its career. With regard to the Board of Works, which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, the report of Lord Randolph Churchill's Commission, which investigated the affairs of the Board, was of a most serious character, and revealed a most lamentable scandal with regard to two members of the Board and some of the servants as well. And the Commission went out of its way to do so. He thought the Government were hopelessly wrong in the way they treated the County and Borough Councils in this matter. He thought the increase of the Board from thirty to sixty-eight all arose from the mistaken desire of the Government to insist upon the representation of Borough Councils upon it. The Joint Committee carried, by six votes to three, a recommendation that the representation of Borough Councils should be struck out, and then the counsel for the promoters, who were the Government, came to the Joint Committee and said that the promoters had heard with profound regret that the representation of Borough Councils was struck out. A motion to adhere to the decision to strike out the Borough Council representation was then put from the Chair, and upon it there voted five as against five, and by the casting vote of the Chairman it was lost. So that, on the casting vote of one man, London for all time was condemned to an unworkable scheme. Viscount Hampden, in regard to that matter, said the Government had shown in an unmistakable way that they
  682
  dominated the Committee through their own Chairman, and they had not shrunk from coercing the Committee into going back on its own decision to establish a more efficient and workable Board, and the noble Lord had gone on to say that if the Water Companies were to be done away with the London County Council was the only body left to deal with it, provision being made for the representation of the outside areas. It was a pity that the Government should impose upon London an authority so grotesque as that which they seemed determined to establish. He was still as opposed to this Board as ever he had been. It was too large and unwieldy; it was removed from the effective control of the ratepayers; it had not the necessary experience and knowledge to carry out the duties of purchase; it was founded on the discredited model of the Metropolitan Board of Works; and despite the pressure of the Government it had not even now the sanction of the majority of the Joint Committee which examined the details of the Bill.
  MR. JOHN BURNS ()said that the County Council for thirteen years bad persistently pressed on the Government a solution of the water difficulty by asking that, as in every other municipality, the water supply should be placed in its hands. By Clause 1 the Government had said that the water supply of London was anomalous, defective, and expensive, and ought no longer to remain in the hands of private enterprise, but that it should be transferred from private enterprise, with its waste, extravagance, mismanagement, and occasional droughts, to a public body. He sincerely regretted that instead of entrusting it to the London County Council the Government had decided to set up this Board of sixty-eight members, drawn from seventy-seven districts, and elected in the most extraordinary way. By their majority the Government had superimposed upon the proper municipal authorities the representation of thirty Borough Councils. Unfortunately for the Government the Borough Councils had shown no enthusiasm in the matter, nor were the ratepayers excited on the issue. He had looked in vain to see the people of London "in fine frenzy rolling' walking either to Trafalgar Square or Parliament Street to press for

  683
  Borough Council representation. In the course they had taken the Government had neither facts, experience, nor wisdom on their side. The whole tendency of government in the municipal sphere, and even in the centralised area of State action, was to remit technical subjects, practical questions, and administrative matters, to small bodies. With other London Liberal Members, he objected to the Board on account of its size, and so far as they had been able to reduce the number of members they had proportionately increased its efficiency. If the London County Council, with 139 members, could discharge 21 statutory functions ranging over the whole ramifications of local, social and sanitary municipal life, there was no reason why a body of 68 should be created to look after one of the simplest, although the largest, of sanitary duties. The size of the Board made for inefficiency, its composition might make for extravagance; and the relative inexperience of the 68 members would very likely lead to an increase of the rate. It would, therefore, be the duty of President of the Local Government Board and his officials to keep their eye very closely on this Board in defence of the ratepayers. To those who desired wherever possible to secure direct and effective popular control in municipal matters, Clause 1 was a great disappointment, and he hoped that at some time in the future the right hon. Gentleman would be able to bring in an amending Bill, and that the Borough Councils would not be drawn into conflict either with the London County Council or with the six outside County Councils, but that they would agree harmoniously, if possible, in the interests of everybody concerned. This body ought not to be allowed to sit in a back street and buy pipes, as the War Office bought horses, in a fourth-floor garret. He hoped it would do its work in the full glare of publicity, and that in every sense of the word it would be a public statutory body discharging its duty in the clear light of day. Those with whom he acted, now that they had been beaten, desired to see the Board a success. If it did enter upon a career of usefulness it would be largely due to the fact that those who had objected to the Board on principle had placed the House and the public in
  684
  the possession of facts and fears which would make every Department responsible for the Board watch its future progress with great care. This Board would have to spend large sums of money on pipes, engines, and so forth for the carrying out of large public works. The President of the Local Government Board should, therefore, see that the new water authority had sub-Committees formed of men who were beyond suspicion and above reproach. The tenders should be open and the contracts carried out with justice to everybody, and there should be no preferential treatment of an exclusive ring of contractors, such as had sometimes happened. Above all, it was to be hoped that local grievances would not be magnified, and that districts which happened to be ably represented would not be able to extract from the Water Board special concessions and advantages which poorer and less ably represented districts were not able to secure. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concilitory tone and temper with which he had met many of their proposals. From conversation with members of the London County Council he could assure the House that that body would send to this Board fourteen of the ablest and most experienced men on the water question in London, who would do their best openly and fairly to inspire the other members with their experience, and to co-operate with them in travelling the knot into which the London water question had got through the apathy of London, the ineffectiveness of Parliament, and the indifference that too many London bodies had displayed on the subject. It was the duty of the Metropolis of the Empire to have the best water supply in the world, and to see that Old Father Thames was no longer depleted of the enormous quantity of water of which the present system deprived it. To secure these two objects this Water Board had been created, and in its work it would have the help and good wishes of all those who had opposed it on principle.
  (4.0.) MR. CLAUDE HAY ()said he would try in what he had to say to imitate the tone which the hon. Member for Battersea had displayed in his speech. This was a question with which he was conversant, and one upon which he had heard the opinion of

  685
  men belonging to all classes in a large industrial community. After due consideration he felt it was incumbent upon him to support this Bill. Feeling that this water question in London was one of immense urgency, he voted for the London County Council Water Bill, and he believed that he was the only hon. Member on the Ministerial side who did so. It had been said that this Bill, by giving representation to the municipal authorities on the Water Board, had given the go-by to the true feeling of London, but he thought that was an entire mistake in regard to London as a whole. He had daily contact with Londoners of various opinions, and all he could say was that when hon. Members stated that the London County Council was the only true body In represent London they erred very greatly. The Borough Councils were becoming the true representatives of these vast communities in London more and more, daily and hourly, and the London County Council seemed to be getting out of touch with those whom they were supposed to represent. The Borough Councillors were generally men who had businesses in the locality and were resident amongst the working class community, and therefore it was absolutely idle and incorrect to pretend that the County Councillors were the only true representatives of London in this matter. He was sure that every hon. Member would re-echo the hope and intention expressed by the hon. Member for Battersea, who, by his unceasing, single-minded work on behalf of London had not only earned the high reputation he enjoyed outside this House, but also the warm sympathy of those hon. Members who differed from him in his views. The hon. Member for Battersea, however, made an error when he demanded that the London County Council should have the control and management of the water question by a majority of its representatives on the ground that it contained 139 members who were now efficiently discharging twenty-one statutory duties. By this argument the hon. Member had adduced the most powerful reason of all why the London County Council was not the best body for the purpose. Surely if 139 men already had twenty-one statutory duties to perform, and remembering that the duties of the Water Board were so very intricate and onerous, that constituted an indisputable
  686
  argument why the London County Council could not possibly be the most efficient administrators of the water question. What Londoners desired was to see an adequate, cheap, and regular water supply, and they felt that the Government, by the institution of the Water Board on its present lines, had created an authority which did represent in its fullest sense all the various interests both inside and outside of the London area, which, hereafter, ought to have a voice in the management of this business, Personally, he believed that his right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board would receive the warmest thanks of all the interests concerned both inside and outside of the county of London for this Bill, and his statesmanship would find a proper place in Metropolitan history. It was on these grounds that he was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for carrying through this Bill, and he cordially joined in the expressions which had fallen from the other side of the Committee that they were willing to bury all that controversial spirit which had so long surrounded this question, and, as true Londoners, assist the Water Board to work for the benefit of the whole population of the Metropolis.
  CAPTAIN NORTON ()said he was astonished to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Hoxton, who took such a deep interest in social matters connected with London. The action he had taken on this question seemed extraordinary, and he did not think the hon. Member's constituency would be grateful to him for the course he had taken. Dr. Mansfield Robinson, a great water expert from the borough of Shoreditch, in his evidence before the Water Commission, read a resolution passed by the Shoreditch Borough Council on February 18th, 1902, strongly protesting against the London Water Bill now before Parliament, and disagreeing with the proposed constitution of the Water Board. Therefore the constituents of the hon. Member for Hoxton' had protested against this proposal.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Not all my constituents. Will the hon. Member read on.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the resolution urged that the London County Council should be the Water Authority, and recommended that a copy of the resolution be forwarded to each Member of Parliament for the borough. It also urged them to oppose the passing into law of the London Water Bill, and to support the measure put forward by the London County Council. In the face of

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Perey, Earl

  Anson, Sir Willian Reynell

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Groves, James Grimble

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon Thomas F.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon. Jonh

  Hamilton, RtHn Lord G(midd'x

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pryee-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

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

  Hay, Hon Claude George

  Purvis, Robert

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Health, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hozier, Higginbottom, S. W.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hozier, Hon, James HenryCecil

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn Chas. Thomson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bond, Edward

  Jessel, Captain Herbert merton

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John

  Knowles, Lees

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bull, William James

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbeyshire

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Smith, Abel G.(Hertford, East)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Lawson, John Grant

  smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Chamberlain, RtHn J. A.(Wore.

  Lecky, Rt.Hn. Wiliam Edw. H.

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanely, Lord (Lancs.)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lockie, John

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Taylor, Austin. (East Toxteth)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskin

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down North)

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Cox,Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lowe, Francis William

  Tnfness, Lient.-Col. Edward

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Montagn, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Flower, Ernest

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W

  Murrary, RtHn A. Graham (Bute

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Gordon,MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Sehwann, Charles E.

  Bayley, Thomas (Deryshire)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Shackleton, David James

  Broadhurst, Henry

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

  Shackleton, David James

  Bryce, Rt.Hon. James

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. CharlesSeale-

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Burns, John

  Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Burt, Thomas

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Wallace, Robert

  Cameron, Robert

  Longh, Thomas

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Maenamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Crombie, John William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Weir, James Galloway)

  Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Rea, Russell

  Fenwick, Charles

  Rigg, Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland)

  that resolution, the hon. Member for Hoxton came forward and supported the Bill which his constituents had asked him to oppose.
  (4.13.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 50. (Division List No. 624.)
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONmoved to leave out in line 20, Clause 1, "a chairman, a vice-chairman, and other," and insert "sixty-eight." He did not know that the Amendment he was proposing would be the best form in which to carry out the object he had in view, which was, that the election of the chairman and vice-chairman should rest with the Water Board itself. He understood that the President of the Local Government Board agreed with that object, but perhaps the Amendment would come better on one of the Schedules.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 20 to leave out the words 'a chairman, a vice-chairman, and other,' and insert the words 'sixty-eight.' "—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Amendment should be made by altering Rule 1 in the Third Schedule.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he would move it there.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WALTER LONGmoved to leave out from "shall" in line 21, to "be" in line 23, Clause 1.
  *MR. WHITMORE ()said he deeply regretted that the Government had thought it necessary to move the rejection of the Amendment which was carried in the Joint Committee at his instance. By his Amendment, as the House was aware, the first selection of a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman would have been vested in the Local Government Board. He still thought it would be in the interest of the administrative efficiency of the Board that the first Chairman and Vice-Chairman should be appointed on the responsibility of the Local Government Board after anxious deliberation. He was sure the members of the Board at their first meeting would feel that they were called upon to discharge one of the most difficult and delicate duties they would ever have
  690
  to perform, and he was perfectly certain they would regret that they did not find themselves presided over by a gentleman of distinction carefully selected by the Local Government Board. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had preferred the theoretical principles of municipal Government in this matter to practical considerations which he thought were much more important. He felt there was no good in prolonging his resistance, and therefore he would only express his strong conviction that the arrangement he proposed would have been better.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WALTER LONG moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out from ' shall ' to ' be ' in line 23."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WALTER LONGmoved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1,line 23, and page 2, line 1, leave out 'by the Local Government Board and afterwards.' "
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WALTER LONGmoved—
  "In Clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out' elected and insert 'appointed.'"
  MR. LOUGHsaid if he remembered rightly this was an Amendment accepted by the right hon. Gentleman on Committee stage to which they attached considerable importance. He desired to secure that all the members of the constituent bodies should have the undoubted right to elect a member to the Water Board.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. Gentleman was perfectly right. This was the ordinary word used on such occasions.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WALTER LONG MR. WALTER LONG, in moving the next Amemendment, said he would remind the House that his promise in Committee was by some re-arrangement of the outside areas to find four members of the Board to be added to the representation

  691
  of the London County Council. He found that the County of Middlesex under the original scheme had one member to every 90,000 population, Essex one to every 85,000, Kent one to every 44,000, and Surrey one to every 49,000. It was obvious that that was not an equitable representation of these four counties. He had therefore decided to take one representative each from the counties of Kent and Surrey, which would bring their representation nearer to a level with that of Middlesex and Essex. He also proposed to take two members from the Conservancies, thus reducing the number of the Board to sixty-six, and placing the representation of London Within as compared with London Without on a proper footing.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out '10' and insert '14.'"
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it was quite clear that the Conservancies were moribund bodies, and the right hon. Gentleman was well advised in leaving them only one member. Some of them had ventured to point out that, under a population or ratable basis inner London was not represented on the Board as compared with outer London, and the alteration proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would bring about a much better and fairer proportion between the representation of inner and outer London. He was not going to say, however, that this addition of four members to the representation of the London County Council made him any the less opposed to the principle on which the Bill was founded. He trusted that those who took a strong view as to the position of the London County Council would feel that they were now in a much stronger position than they were under the Bill as it was originally framed, seeing that they would now have one-fifth as against one seventh of the whole representation. At the same time, the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to him to have much weight in this connection. The right hon. Gentleman said that this would bring up the representation of the London County Council to the proportion suggested by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. He did not think so. The proposal of that hon. Gentleman was
  692
  to give the London County Council practically, if not an actual majority of the Board, an overwhelming position on it. He did not, therefore, desire to put the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman higher than it ought to be put.
  MR. COHEN ()said he wished to express satisfaction at the increase of four members which his right hon. friend had given to the London County Council. That satisfaction, however, was tempered by the fact that, in giving four extra members to the London County Council, his right hon. friend had taken away a member from a constituency in which he was interested.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he thought the London County Council had been hardly treated under the Bill. For eleven years it had been the water authority for London, and had done its business very ably indeed. He was glad to see that the London County Council were getting more representation on the Water Board, but he thought it should have been larger still.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CAUSTON ()said that the object of the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper was to take away the representation of the Metropolitan Borough Councils. He desired to give the President of the Local Government Board one further opportunity of reducing the number of his Board. The most extraordinary thing was that the poorest parts of London, which were most interested in the water supply, were not in favour of being represented. The Metropolitan Borough Councils had shown no genuine demand for representation on the Water Board; in fact, six of the Councils had passed resolutions against their being represented on the Board. The time of these Councils was fully occupied in strictly local matters. They had never had to deal with the water question at all, but had looked to the London County Council as the proper body to deal with it.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the hon. Member for Battersea had proposed

  693
  an Amendment by which when a member had ceased to be a member of a Local Board, he ceased to be a member of the Water Board.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid that matter was quite safe in the hands of his hon. friend the Member for Battersea, and therefore he would not say anything more about it. He did not quite understand it. He understood that the members of the Water Board were to be taken from the various local authorities, and directly these gentlemen ceased to be members of the local authority they ceased to be members of this Board.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page2, line 6 to leave out the words 'one by the Council of each of the other metropolitan boroughs.'"—(Mr. Causton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. Gentleman had truly said it was not possible to say anything new either for or against the proposal he made, which was that the scheme of the Bill should be altered at this the last moment by the elimination of the Borough Councils. One thing he had not said anything about, and that was the effect the Amendment would have. If the Amendment were carried the Metropolitan Boroughs would be cut off, and the principle for which hon. Gentlemen had so strongly contended in the previous Amendment would be cut off altogether. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of six Metropolitan Boroughs which he said were opposed to this proposal, and he had stated that those were all poor Boroughs in the south of London; he had forgotten to mention that they also sided with him politically. The hon. Gentleman had stated that none of these Boroughs had expressed a desire to be put on this governing body. But it the hon. Gentleman was entitled to quote these six Boroughs against the proposal of the Government, the Government were also entitled to quote the remainder in its favour. No pressure had been brought to bear on the Boroughs to support this measure, and since the Bill had been introduced they had not altered in
  694
  one iota the desire they had to be brought into the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite knew quite well that they did their best to get up agitations against the Bill, and that they had failed; there had been no response to their suggestions from any part of London. And they knew perfectly well that the Government had received overwhelming support. He believed the Government had taken the right step in including the Metropolitan Boroughs in this Bill, and he asked the House to support the Government by rejecting this Amendment.
  MR. LOUGHthought the right hon. Gentleman had rather misrepresented the argument of his hon. friend the hon. Member for Southwark, and what his hon. friend had proved by it. The right hon. Gentleman had also omitted to mention the most important fact in this matter, which was that the Joint Committee recommended the very suggestion which his hon. friend had just made. The Joint Committee recommended that the representation of the Borough County Councils should be struck out, and it was only when the Government sent back to that Committee the message that they had received this recommendation with profound regret that those who had already voted against it agreed to the inclusion of these boroughs in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had insinuated that if hon. Members went into the Lobby in support of this Amendment they would be voting for the reduction of London representation, but that was not so, because the effect of this Amendment, if carried, would be to get rid of all the inside and outside boroughs. The argument in support of this Amendment was that those boroughs had no duty analogous to that which would be thrown on their shoulders, and that if they had they would, however important these boroughs might be in themselves, derive no good by sending one member to a Board of 68. The appointment of these members did not synchronise with the election of the Councils themselves, so that in all probability the members appointed to the Water Board would remain members of that body long after they had ceased to be members of the Borough Councils. He thought his hon. friend was perfectly justified in dividing against it, and

  695
  that it could not he said that they were in any way treating the representation of London unfairly by supporting the Amendment.
  *LIEUT. COLONEL TUFNELL ()said he strongly opposed the Amendment. He happened to know that so far from the Borough of Islington not desiring to be represented on the Board, they had sent in a requisition that they should be allowed to have two representatives on it instead of one. They thought it was hard, as they were the wealthiest and largest ratable borough in London, that they should only have one representative
  on the Board, whilst the City of West-minister, where there was nothing like the extent of population, were to have two. The Borough of Islington was one of the hardest working, and one of the best boroughts in London, and they would be only too glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to allow them to have two members instead of one on the Water Board.
  (4.53) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 111; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 625.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Samuel,Heibe L.(Cleveland)

  Wason,JohnCatlicart(Orkney)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sehwann, Charles E.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mellor, Rt.Hon. John William

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Whiteley,George(York, W. R.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Shipmpn Dr. John G.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley Rea, Russell

  Spencer, RtHn. C.R. (Northants

  Rigg, Richard

  Tully, Jasper

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Wallace, Robert

  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In Clause 1, page 2,line 17, leave out 'and'."
  "In Clause I, page 2, line 18, leave out 'one
  by the councils of the urban districts of.'"
  " Clause I, page 2, line 35, leave out 'and.'"
  " Clause I, page 2, line 36, leave out 'one by
  the councils of the urban districts of." "—(Mr. Walter Long)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  " In Clause 1, page 2, line, 39, leave oul 'three.' and insert 'one.' "—(Mr. Walter Long.)
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND ()said he did not see why the Thames Conservancy should only have one representative on the Board. It must be remembered there was a question now before a Royal Commission of dividing administration over the river into two parts, and, if this suggestion were carried out, the Thames Conservancy should have at least two members.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had been reluctant to reduce the representation of the Conservators, but the reduction was necessary from the considerations that bad already been discussed, and be asked the House to abide by the distribution which had been arranged. The Thames Conservancy was no worse off than any other constituted authority. He was surprised that his hon, friend should have quoted the Report of the Royal Commission, because that Surely was a strong recommendation for the course the Government had adopted. All the work which had to do with this new Hoard had relation to the upper Thames, and, that being so, it was only the upper Thames that should be represented on the new Board. He regretted having to reduce the representation of the Thames Conservancy, but he could not now ask the House to reconsider the matter.
  SIR F. DIXON HARTLANDsaid that the Thames Conservancy was the body to which the whole control of the water of the Thames was given, and therefore, he should, if opportunity arose, move that the word "two" be inserted instead of one.
  MR. SPEAKER: The form will be to negative the word "one," and if the hon. Gentleman succeeds in negativing "one," he may move to insert "two."
  Question, "That the word 'one' stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to
  MR. LOUGHsaid as the Clause read now, the first words were—
  "The Water Board shall pay to each company as compensation for the transfer of their undertaking."
  If the words" as compensation" were left out the Clause would read much better, and convey more clearly what the Government intended to convey. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that the House was hurried and pressed this week, but if he could convince the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment he now proposed to move was of great importance, and that it, would not alter the principle of the Bill, the right hon, Gentleman would, he hoped, yet consider whether the Clause was outside the scope of improvement. All along, the Government had commended this Bill to the House by assuring them that it would not involve the principle of compensation for compulsory transfer of the Companies' property; and when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading, these words were not in the Clause. At that stage the Bill undoubtedly more accurately represented what the Government intended than the present, words did. He submitted that these words should be struck out because they were contrary to the 23rd Clause of the Bill. Sub-Clause 8 of Clause 23 provided that the Court should not make any allowance for compulsory sale, or for

  699
  the depreciation in the value of shares. It had been contended all along that the 10 percent, usually allowed under the Lands Clauses Act should not be applied in this case, and the right hon. Gentleman had promised on the previous Monday that this Amendment should be taken into consideration on the Report stage. He submitted that the deletion of these words would make the Bill better sense and make it stronger. The right hon. Gentleman, having considered the matter, had, however, refused to take it "as compensation." Since then, as he saw by The Times of this morning, an extraordinary rise had taken place in all water stock—a rise ranging from 2 per cent, to 10 percent.
  MR. WALTER LONG: How much has changed hands?
  MR. LOUGHsaid that water stock had risen 40 percent, upon the price at which it stood a year and a half ago; yet it had been said the price of the purchase would not be affected by the rise and fall of the market since the Bill had been introduced. He contended they had been undoing all the good they had done in the earlier stages of the Bill. He had no doubt that all this rise in prices had been the result of the work done in this House on Monday last. The House was now considering this matter for the first time since the Joint Committee sat. That Committee stuck "compensation" all over the Bill; and the right hon Gentleman himself on the previous Monday accepted an Amendment striking out "compensation" in another Clause under much the same circumstances. Why was it put in? There could be no doubt that it was put in to suggest to the arbitrators that compensation for compulsory purchase was intended, and that being contrary to the Bill he hoped that in this connection, and upon one or two other important matters, the Government would not consider the debate closed, and that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment he now begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 15, to leave out the words as compensation.' "—
  Question proposed—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WALTER LONGthought that the hon. Member had made a great fuss about nothing. The hon. Member seemed to have been excited by the fact that water stock of all kinds had gone up on the previous day a few points, though he had not responded to the invitation extended to him to say how much had changed hands at the higher price. He had ignored the fact that words were placed in the Bill in order to prevent any rise or fall of the price of stock which, in the opinion of the arbitrator, was due to the introduction of the Bill being taken into consideration in estimating the value of these undertakings. Though there had been a rise, it was obvious that it necessarily need have no effect on the ultimate value of the concerns. He had heard hon. and learned Gentlemen discuss the advisability of leaving out or leaving iu these words, and even they had disagreed, and that being so, what was an unfortunate layman to do but to leave them where they were. This subject was considered upstairs, and it was deliberately decided to insert those words, and he hoped the House would abide by that decision.
  MR. HALDANE ()said there was one thing that would certainly have helped the right hon Gentleman in this dilemma, and that would have been to have taken out of the Bill the word upon which the lawyers differed, and thus have removed the bone of contention. In his opinion, it would be a dangerous thing to allow these words to remain in the Bill. In the Tramways Act of 1870 a similarly slovenly Clause was put in, and what was the result? The courts of England and Scotland came to different conclusions upon that Clause; there was arbitration after arbitration; hundreds of pounds thrown away on litigation, and it was not until years after that the matter was definitely settled by a decision of the House of Lords. Why should these words, "as compensation," be put in at all? They had words in Clause 23 of the Bill which, standing by themselves, would be a full and sufficient guide to the arbitrators. The Court of Arbitration

  701
  was to determine the value of the undertaking on certain principles; nothing was to be given for compulsory purchase; and there was to be no enhancement of the value by reason of a rise in the value of stock. Allowances were to be made for costs, and very properly. They had laid down the principles upon which the arbitrators were to proceed. When they came to the Clause under discussion there was an utterly foreign expression imported —"as compensation" was put in. Why were those words inserted? Was it to introduce some new element? They ought to hear from the right hon. Gentleman why those words were inserted in Committee, and if they were necessary why the Government did not put them in originally. He thought his hon. friend was well founded in his desire to get words deleted from the Bill, which the Government could not explain, and which were not germane to the Clause; which were not in the original draft, and

  AYES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  During-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, George Dension (York)

  LOwe, Francis William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Finaly, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Forster, Henry William

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Banbnry, Sir Frederick George

  Foster, Philips. (Warwick, S.W.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

  More, Robt.

  Jasper(Shropshire)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bond, Edward

  Gordon, Maj. Evnas.(T'rH'ml'ts

  Murray, RtHn A. Graham(Bute

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bull, William James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Guthrie, Walter Murrary

  Percy, Earl

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Chamberlain, RtHn J.A.(Wore.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Chapman, Edward

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG.(Midd'x

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Conpton, Lord Alwyne

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ritchie, Rt.Hn. Chass. Thomson

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Jessel, Captain HerbertMerton

  Robertosn, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Round, Rt.Hon. James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Knowles, Lees

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lecky, RtHon William Edw. H.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dixon-Hartland,SirFredDix'n

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Doughty, George

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  which must have been inserted for some purpose. Under cover of the words of the Clause, as it stood, it might be contended by the Water Companies that they were entitled to be paid something in consideration, say, of the rise of ratable value.
  MR. HARRY SAMUEL ()said he should like to know upon which leg the Party opposite desired to stand. If the Committee did anything they approved of, hon. Gentlemen opposite desired the Government to sub stantiate it. If it did not, then they desired the Government to alter it. He thought the words "as compensation were rightly inserted, and that they ought not to be struck out.
  (5.28.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 139; Noes 56. (Division List No. 626.)

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

  Valentin, Viscount

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

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Walroml, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

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

  Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Titton, Charles Ernest

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

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

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

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Fitzmamice, Lord Edmund

  Schwann. Charles E.

  Asher, Alexander

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert, John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bryce, Rt.Hon. James

  Grey, Rt.Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Burns, John

  Harwood, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Burt, Thomas

  Hayne, Rt,Hon. Charles Seale-

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R(Northants

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hayter,Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Wallace, Robert

  Caldwell, James

  Jones,David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cameron, Robert

  Levy, Murice

  Wason, Engene (Clackmannan

  Causton,Richard Knight

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wason, Jon Catherat (Orkney

  Cremer, William Randal

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Crombie, John William

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Whittaker, J. H. (Halifax)Thomas Palmer

  Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas Palmer

  Dunn, Sir William

  Rea, Russell

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Elibank, Master of

  Rigg, Richard

  Emmott, Alfred

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eilion)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Mr. Lough and Mr. Haldane.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Mr. LOUGHsaid the next Amendment he proposed to move was one to which they attached the greatest value. Its object was to prevent the new Walter Board from arriving at an agreement for the purchase of all these great undertakings without bringing the case before the Arbitrators at all. This question had been argued at some length. On Monday last, after a long debate, the right hon. Gentleman met the Committee in a very fair spirit, and stated that he would consider the matter on Report. The right hon. Gentleman had fulfilled his promise, and had put an Amendment on the Paper which went a long way to meet the object he (Mr. Lough) had in view. Under those circumstances he would not detain the House, but would merely ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was quite clear that the Arbitrators would have full power with regard to the suggestions put before them. He wanted to be sure that the intention of the Government was that the Arbitrators should be able to fully examine the agreements, if agreements should be arrived at, and in order to allow any one who was a high authority upon drafting to offer some explanations.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 16, to leave out from the word 'sum' to the end of line 17."—(Mr. Lough.)
  "Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he proposed to move the Amendment standing in his name, and the hon. Gentleman would see from the words of the Amendment that they gave full power to the Arbitrators.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn—
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 27, at end, to add, 'Any such agreement shall be valid only if and so far as it is confirmed by the court of arbitration constituted by this Act, and that court may confirm the agreement either with or without modifications.'"—(Mr. Walter Long.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid they were all very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting the House in regard to this matter. The proposal he made was a satisfactory one, and he hoped it would work well and might save time and trouble. What the Opposition had always felt before was that there was no check on behalf of the ratepayers on the

  705
  transactions the Water Board might have with the Water Companies. He proposed to insert at the end these words, in order to make it clear—" one constituent authority should have power to object to the agreement." Those words, he thought, would give power to the constituent authorities to object. He thought agreements should not be carried through at all unless the Water Board was unanimous.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not know whether the words suggested would give the constituent authorities the right it was desired to give them, but he could not accept the Amendment because it would interfere with what was obviously the duty of the Water Board.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. LOUGH thoughtClauses 7 and 8 were very important, and the House ought to give them a little more consideration before they passed them. He moved to omit Clause 7. It was one of the most serious provisions. Under the Bill some £4,500,000 of debentures were to be bought up and extinguished. The Clause provided the principle upon which those debentures were to be bought up, which was for the issue of new water stock. In addition, if there was any deficiency at any time, the rates of the whole area were liable to be called upon to make it up. This made the new water stock to be created a far better security than the present debenture stock. Under the provisions of the Bill, enough stock was to be issued to provide an income equal to the present income derived by the holders from their stock. It had been estimated that this would cast an immense burden upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis. The House had put this particular point before the hon. Gentleman on Monday last. They were buying up not a single company, but eight companies, and the right hon. Gentleman would not contend that the whole of the eight companies stood in exactly the same position. The New River Company had issued a small amount of debentures in proportion to its income and assets, and it had been exceedingly well managed. Therefore, its securities stood on a much higher level than those of some of the other companies. None of the companies could be
  706
  regarded as bad, but three of them might be said to be in the second class. By this Clause they were put in the same position as those which had the very best debentures. Manifestly that was not fair. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to introduce some general words which would remove the evil which he saw here. He suggested the insertion of some words, such as "an equal amount of stock of an equally good security." That would give the arbitrators a free hand to take into consideration the fact that some of the companies had not such high-class securities as others. He did not want the vendors to be badly treated at all. In order that the point might be dealt with, he begged to move that Clause 7 be left out.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 4, to leave out Clause 7."— (Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 7 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WALTER LONGhoped that the hon. Member would not press this. The matter had already been discussed at great length. There was really no foundation for the view the hon. Member had put forward that the value of the debenture stock was to be measured by the stability of the company itself. He had never heard anybody suggest, whatever the position of the London Water Companies, that they did not in each case furnish ample security. The argument that in the case of a company where little stock was issued the debentures were more valuable than in the case of a company where a great deal was issued, was in direct contradiction of the facts. He did not pretend to know what were the rules that governed these matters, but if the hon. Member would look into the facts he would find that the value of the stock had nothing to do with the amount issued. There were a great many other considerations that weighed, and to introduce general words, as had been suggested, would only land them on uncertain ground.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON ()moved to leave out from sub-Section (6) of Clause 9, the words—
  "But the Adventurers' and the King's shares shall continue to be of the nature of land to the like extent and in like manner as heretofore, and to devolve and be transmissible and dealt with as such, and any water stock issuable to the New River Company under this Act and distributable among the owners of the Adventurers' and King's shares respectively in respect of such shares."
  He understood that his hon. and gallant friend who represented the New River Company desired to have this matter more carefully considered by the legal advisers of the Company. There were provisions the Clause which required further consideration, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the House an assurance that Amendments would be introduced in another place.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 7, line 30, to leave out from the word 'section,' to the first word 'the,' in line
  37."—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he entirely agreed with his hon. friend that this Clause required very careful investigation, and that it required amendment. It was a very difficult Clause, and there was no doubt that it carried them further than they ought to be carried with regard to the altered character of the new shares. He would undertake that these matters would be investigated. His hon. and gallant friend had promised him assistance in the matter. He would also take care that it was attended to by the Attorney General, and that Amendments were introduced in another place which would make the Clause plain.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. REMNANT ()moved to leave out "would otherwise be entitled to" in page 9, line 6, Clause 10.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the President of the Local Government
  708
  Board stated, when the Bill was in Committee, that he might be able to see his way to omit certain words from Clause 10 in order to make it clear that no compensation would be payable. He proposed to omit the words relating to compensation "in respect of the interests of the company in the undertaking of the Joint Committee, or any expenditure by the company in respect of the said undertaking."
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 9, line 6, to leave out from the word 'for,' to the word 'any,' in line 8."—(Mr Sydney Buxton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that what he promised was that he would again very carefully examine the Clause to see whether it was necessary to alter it. He had done so, and he was assured that there was nothing in the Clause which affected or altered in any way the rights these companies might have at the present time. If they had any rights they must be submitted to the Board of Arbitration, who had full power to deal with them. If they had none, they got nothing fresh under this Clause. He was advised that it was undesirable to alter these words.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he was awfully afraid of the word "compensation" whenever he saw it, and he would prefer that these words should be omitted altogether.
  MR. GOULDING ()said this Clause received very great consideration in the Committee upstairs, and the Chairman laid it down that the companies interested should go absolutely unprejudiced before the Court of Arbitration to state their case. He hoped his right hon. friend would adhere to the words "for compensation." Obviously they had been put in with some object, and it did seem rather hard that they should be struck out now.
  MR. REMNANTalso appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to stand by the words in the Bill.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,)said the case of a Water Company would not be prejudiced before the Court of Arbitration by anything in the Clause. The words of the Clause were—
  "nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect any claim which any metropolitan water company would otherwise be entitled to make for compensation in respect of the interest of the company in the undertaking of the Joint Committee or any expenditure by the company in respect of the said undertaking."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WALTER LONGmoved—
  "In Clause 11, page 10, line 18, after 'Enfield,' insert 'and to agreements between the Water Board and those Councils.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WALTER LONGmoved—
  'In Clause 11, page 10, line 21, at end, insert 'and to agreements between the Water Board and those Companies.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  (6.0.) MR. LOUGHsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper in regard to the equalisation of water charges, which had regard to a provision inserted in the Bill very hastily on Monday last. In every great city of the kingdom, except London, the water supply was handled by the rating authority; and in every great city in the kingdom there was an equalisation of water rates. It was a very good thing for the people who lived in wealthy districts of London that this equalisation of charges should be introduced, but how would it fare with the poor parts of London, where at present the water charges were low? He represented such a district. What they wanted was to go to the richer parts of the City and get them to pay something towards equalising the rates in the poorer parts. But that, he contended, would be impossible under the Bill as it at present stood. At Islington, for instance, a house valued at £20 a year paid £1 4s. for its water, whereas in Camberwell a house of the same value paid £3 7s. What was wanted was that these high charges for water should be reduced, but it should not be done at the cost of the people who now enjoyed the advantage of a low rate.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 13, line 38, at end, to insert the words 'provided that such uniform charges shall not raise the price of water in any district of the Metropolis which now receives a grant under the Equalisation of Rates Act, 1894"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid there could be no doubt that there was a difficulty in regard to the equalisation of the water rates, but that difficulty would not be met by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, that Amendment would increase the difficulty. It was perfectly true that on one side of a street the charge for water might be much higher than on the other side, and while everybody who paid the higher charge was very glad to see equalisation, those who paid the low charge objected to equalisation. It was admitted on all hands that this question of equalisation was the most difficult task which the Water Board would have to face. It could not be solved, he maintained, by the particular measure proposed in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman; and he respectfully suggested to the House to leave the matter unfettered in the hands of the Water Board.
  MR. LOUGHbegged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WALTER LONGmoved:—
  "In Clause 15, page 13, line 39, leave out sub-section (7) and insert, '(7) Within three years after the appointed day the Water Board may prepare and publish in the London Gazette a scheme enabling their charges for the supply of water to be collected together with any local rate. Any local or rating authority within the limits of supply may transmit to the Local Government Board their objections to any such scheme within forty days after the scheme is published in the London Gazette.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WALTER LONGmoved—
  "In Clause 16, page 14, line 39, leave out 'eighty,' and insert 'one hundred.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he wished to amend Clause 18 (Provisions as to the Discharge of Loans, etc.) in respect of

  711
  the period fixed for the commencement of the sinking Fund. As the Clause stood that period was fixed at twenty years. That would be quite right if this was not a going concern, but it seemed to him that to allow the Water Board to wait twenty years before commencing the Sinking Fund would be a little hard on posterity, and he suggested that seven years would be quite long enough.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 16, line 9, to leave out the word 'Twenty,' and insert the word 'Seven.'—(Mr. Haldane.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Twenty' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Royal Commission in their Report recommended that a period of twenty years should be given to the Water Board before they formed a Sinking Fund. Everybody pointed out that there would be great difficulties in the way of the new Board that there would be many risks and increased cost of production, seeing the Board was taking over eight different going concerns, and consolidating them into one. On the whole, he thought that this was one of those cases in which it was just to give more generous terms than were usually given. Twenty years was not too long to give to the Board to enable them to accumulate their profits before starting the Sinking Fund; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONregretted the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to accept the Amendment. It was true the Water Board would have to take a certain risk. and in the opinion of some that risk owing to the constitution of the Board, was considerably enhanced; but it was, after all, taking over a going concern. Its capital, therefore, would not for a number of years be unproductive, which was the usual reason for the postponement of the creation of the Sinking Fund. Moreover, before many years a considerable outlay of capital would be necessary for extensions of works, and
  712
  possibly for the acquisition of a new and distant source of supply. Under these conditions it was surely desirable that the redemption of the original capital should begin at as early a date as possible. The period of the loan had been extended to 100 years in order that the Sinking Fund should be a smaller annual charge on the ratepayer. But if the creation of the Sinking Fund were postponed for twenty years, it would, when it eventually came into operation, be a heavier charge, because spread over a shorter period, and the advantage of the extension of the period of the loan would be lost. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY ()thought that if the creation of the Sinking Fund were put off for twenty years, there would be a danger of it not being created at all. He really regretted any period of delay whatsoever being allowed. The increasing burdens on the ratepayers were very alarming, and this was the way in which they were aggravated. The water supply of London was a profitable concern, and there was no reason why the Sinking Fund should not commence at once. It would certainly tend to economy, as the ratepayers would feel the burden of the responsibility they were undertaking. He therefore supported the view of the right hon. Gentleman on the other side.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL ()hoped the Government would not give way on the point. During the first few years the Board would have large sums to pay in compensation, and it was inadvisable to throw too heavy a burden on the ratepayers.
  *MR. WHITMOREreminded the right hon. Gentleman that the postponement of the Sinking Fund had been used as an argument against a previous Amendment, and had doubtless influenced the action of the hon. Member for Peckham in expressing it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 19, line 39, to leave out the words 'the law of compensation for the purposes of.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 20, line7, after 'expenses,' insert '(other than costs incurred in any arbitration under this Act.)'"—Mr. Walter Long.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LOUGHmoved the omission of Clause 26, which he described as one of the most objectionable in the Bill. Under the Clause the Government took power to bring certain areas into the limits of supply, and to leave other out. Consequently it had the right to increase the Water Board practically as it liked. The Bill had been improved by the Government agreement to reduce the number of members to sixty-six, but if it could be increased as he suggested, it would be possible completely to alter the balance of voting strength as between the inside and outside areas. One great weakness of the Clause was that the Local Government Board was restricted to considering the question on the basis of the variation of population, instead of being able to take all the circumstances of the case into consideration. It was a most dangerous Clause, and one which would— if there had been time for discussion in committee—not have been left in the Bill in its present form. There was no area in the world in which there was so much shifting of population as in the particular area here concerned. New residential suburbs were constantly springing up and others going down, and if it went according to the movement of population the representation on the Board would be always changing. The representation was not on any definite principle, and consequently there were such anomalies as Holborn having one representative for 60,000 inhabitants, while Islington with 340,000 inhabitants also had one representative. If any alterations were required, the Water Board should be left to apply to Parliament in the usual way. The best course would be to leave out the Clause altogether; if that could not be done, the first three sub-Sections should be omitted; but, at any rate, the consideration ought not to be restricted to the variation of population.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 22, line 5, to leave out Clause 26."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'if at any time by reason of' stand part of the Bill."
  CAPTAIN JESSELthought there was a great deal in the argument of the hon. Member with regard to sub-Section (1), but it would be a pity to leave out the whole Clause.
  DR. MACNAMARAdrew attention to the fact that the Amendment had been supported by the Mayor of a borough, the population of which was diminishing, but which nevertheless was to retain two nominees on the Board. The basis of representation was originally fixed on the basis of ratable value and population, whereas under the present proposal the representation was to be varied on the basis of population only. That might cut across the original scheme of representation, but he did not mind that, as he was opposed to ratable value being taken into account at all. He should support the sub-section, as being more democratic than the original scheme.
  MR. JOHN BURNSwas convinced that the Amendment would operate in the opposite direction to that desired by the hon. Member for West Islington. It would alter the basis of the Bill, and give a disproportionate representation to declining districts. In the last ten years the population of nine of the central London parishes had diminished to the extent of 67,000, and that, he thought, was an argument against the Amendment.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Clause had been inserted to meet cases which might arise in which an alteration of representation was required. Obviously, it would be far better to make such alterations by the machinery of the Local Government Board and Provisional Order, than by a private Act of Parliament. There was really no danger of anything unjust being done. On the whole, he thought the Clause was a useful one, and had better be retained.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. LOUGHmoved the omission of the words, "the variation of population or." He said the arguments of his hon. friends had not convinced him. Even though shifting of population did take place, the anomalies thereby created would be as nothing compared with those set up under the Bill. There should be no mandatory provision restricting the Local Government Board to the consideration of one point only; the matter should be looked at generally.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 22, line 5, to leave out the words 'the variation of population or.' "—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. JOHN BURNSthought the hon. Member had forgotten that in the composition of the Board, each Borough Council, irrespective of its population, would have a minimum representation of one member.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL ()moved the omission of Clause 33 (saving the rights of the South-West Suburban Water Company). He said that this was a Clause of considerable importance, and Clauses 34, 35 and 36 stood practically on the same footing. There were certain voluntary agreements with the small suburban companies by which the great companies had undertaken not to supply water in certain suburban districts, and this and following Clauses converted these agreements into statutory obligations. Why had this change been made? So far as the agreements were voluntary, they were continued by Clause 45, and would be binding on the Water Board; but these Clauses went much further, and the Water Board would be forbidden from supplying water in districts which the Water Companies had a right to supply. If the companies had not supplied water in these suburban districts it was for good reasons, and those reasons would doubtless guide the Water Board.
  716
  Except in regard to the South Essex Company these Clauses had not been discussed by the Joint Committee; they were treated as agreed Clauses. The London County Council had expected the Local Government Board to state the case against the Clauses, and were completely taken by surprise when the Clauses were brought forward as agreed Clauses. They, however, altered statutory limits of supply without examination, and gave monopolies to certain companies which were not now enjoyed under any Act. He hoped the Government would not force these Clauses on the House.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 24, line 13, to leave out Clause 33." (Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
  Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 33 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid these Clauses were inserted by the Joint Committee, by whom individual rights were considered, at the instance of counsel representing the smaller water companies interested. So far from it being the case that the Water Board would be unable to supply within an area which the companies had a right to supply, he might point out that in this instance the Grand Junction Company had no power by statute to supply in the district referred to. It was not a matter for the Government; it was a matter of private rights for the Committee to consider, and the London County Council had notice of the intention to propose the Clauses. The real reason for the greater part of these Clauses was the existence of Clause 3, which provided that where a water company had been accustomed to supply water in any part of a parish the Companies Acts should apply to the whole parish. It would be extremely hard if, where a small company had allowed a bigger neighbour to come in by agreement, Clause 3 should transfer to the Water Board the whole of the parish out of the area of supply granted by Parliament to the smaller company.
  MR. LOUGH thoughtthe House ought to have more justification of these Clauses than had been given. They

  717
  were, in effect, five private Acts of Parliament for the benefit of five private trading companies. The London Members had had a greater burden thrown upon them by these Clauses than by any other part of the Bill. They knew the areas originally affected very well, but now these suburban authorities had been to the Local Government Board and obtained fresh rights and powers.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I must protest against that suggestion. The Clauses give the companies no right whatever that they did not before possess.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the companies to be bought up by the Water Board had had the right to supply in parts of the area of these smaller companies, and that right was now being taken away, so that the companies would have a monopoly where hitherto there had been competition.
  MR. WALTER LONGpointed out that the Clauses were the result of the procedure to which such Bills as that under discussion were subject. The general principle had to be approved by the House, but in order that the private rights of individuals or corporations should be properly protected the Bill had to go before a Private Bill Committee. The companies presented their case, and every opportunity was given for the opposite view to be stated. The Committee satisfied itself that the Clauses were just, and on the responsibility of the Committee they were inserted. The case with regard to competition had been altogether exaggerated. It was true the competition existed before, but that was between different companies; but now it would be between a private company and the Water Board with the rates of London behind it. That would be most unfair, and he hoped the House would uphold the decision of the Committee.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER ()said they had heard a great deal about the interests of the Water Companies, but the interests of the consumers appeared to have been overlooked. While it was perfectly proper that the rights of private persons should be safeguarded, it was the duty of the House to see that the rights
  718
  of the public at large were preserved. If the Water Board was to be the best water company in the world, with the best supply and the best management, as it ought to be unless the Bill absolutely failed in its object, the interests of the people in the districts affected by these Clauses were distinctly injured. Enactments which were practically private Acts of Parliament ought not to be passed in this wholesale fashion; there should be careful investigation made in the districts concerned, as would be done if private Bills were introduced.
  *COLONEL BOWLES ()said that Clause 35 dealt with the supply of a portion of his constituency—viz., a part of the parish of Enfield, six miles from Enfield Town. It was impossible for a supply to be given by the Urban District of Enfield, and if the Clause were omitted the only result would be that the local company at Barnet would refuse to spend money in supplying that outlying district. So far from consumers desiring the Clauses to be opposed, it was because they had no fault to find with them that the Clauses were inserted as unopposed Clauses upstairs.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that if it was impossible for the Water Board to supply a particular district, there was no object in passing the Clause, as the company concerned would have a practical monopoly, and would be neither damnified nor benefited by the enactment. Financially, he did not like the Clauses at all. It was perfectly true the Clauses were not opposed before the Committee, but the people interested were the members of the Water Board, a body not yet created, so that it was impossible for them to oppose the Clauses. The position was that at present, while certain companies had a practical monopoly in certain districts, there was a competitive supply which might at any moment, if thought advisable, be brought into operation. The companies were thereby put on their good behaviour. He did not think it would be denied that there was competition at the present moment, and these Clauses would in future give them a statutory monopoly without any power of compensation. He was afraid the position of the consumer would be very seriously injured by these Clauses.
  MR. COHENsaid that the suggestion made would be a breach of faith on the part of Parliament, which hade x-pressly informed the company that their rights should not be affected by this

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Galloway, William Johnson

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(CityofLond.

  Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Alnaos)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Arnold Forster, Hugh O.

  Godson, Sir Augusts Frederick

  Mount, William Arthur

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

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

  Murry, Rt HnA. Graham(Bute

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Gray, Ernest (WestHam)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick Geroge

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Percy, Earl

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bentinek, Lord Henry C.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F.

  Pryee-Johes, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Purvis, Robert

  Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. Joh

  Hamilton, Rt.Hn Lord G.(Midd'x

  Raseb,Major Frederic Carne

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Bull, William James

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Butcher, John George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Round, Rt.Hon. James

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Health, Arthur Howard(Hamley

  Samuel, Harry S.(Limehouse)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cavendosh, V.C.W. (Derbysire

  Higginbottom, S.W.

  Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)

  Chamberlain,J. Austen(wore.

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kenyon, Hon. Gco. T.(Denbigh)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lawrence, Sir Josoph (Monm'th

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

  Conbett, T.L.(Down, North)

  Lecky, Rt.Hn. William Edw. H.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Crossley. Sir Savile

  Lockie, John

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A.R.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Denny, Colonel

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dickijnson, Robert Edmond

  Long, Col, CHarles W.(Evesham

  Tufnell, Lieut. Col. Edward

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred Dixon

  Loowe, Francis William

  Walrond, Rt.Hn. Sir William H.

  Doughty, George

  Lueas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Ahwes.

  Lucas, RegisnaldJ. (Portsmouth

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Faber, Geprge Demoson (York)

  Macdona, John Cunming

  Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh, N.

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.

  Finaly, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

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

  Fisher,; William Hayes

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Milvain, Thomas

  Flower, Ernest

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cremer, Willian Randall

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Allen CharlesP.(Gloue., Stroud

  Crombie, John William

  Lough, Thomas

  Asher, Alexander

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Asquith Rt, Hn. Herbert Henry

  Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway, N.

  Atherley, Jones, L.

  Dunn, Sir Wiliam

  Norton, Cat. Cecil Wiliam

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Pease, J. A (Saffron Walden)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Fenwick, Charles

  Philipps, John wynford

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fitzmanrice, Lord Edmond

  Piric, Duncan V.

  Burns, John

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Rea, Russell

  Burt, Thomas

  Fuller, J.M.F.

  Rigg, Richard

  Buxton, sydney Charles

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Caldwell, James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Sehwann, Charles E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Haldane, Rt.Hon. Richard B.

  Shackleton, David James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford

  Bill, which only carried out the intention entered into by all parties.
  (6.58.) Question put.
  The House divided The House divided: —Ayes, 137; Noes,
  49. (Division List No. 627.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whitley, J.H.(Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Samuel and Mr. Warner.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

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

  Spencer, RtHn. C.R.(Northants

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Weir, James Galloway

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 23, line 38, at end to add 'but no day earlier than the 24th day of June, 1904, shall be appointed as respects any Metropolitan Water Company except with the consent of the Water Company and the Water Board.'"—(Col. Lockwood.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
  MR. LOUGHsaid this was really opening the whole question of the appointed day. During the year and a half which the hon. and gallant Member wished to stereotype, the company would be in possession, and would have no interest in providing for a new supply of water.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the alteration moved by his hon. and gallant friend had been agreed between all parties in the House. The intention of the Government was to fix an appointed day upon which all the companies were to be vested in the new Water Board unless postponed by the Local Government Board. It was pointed out at the time by his hon. and gallant friend that the words meant that the Board was to be entitled to bring forward the appointed day contrary to the wishes of the parties concerned. That might involve great injustice to the Water Companies. He did not think any such words went necessary, because he thought it was clear that the power of extension was given to be exercised if for some circumstances it seemed necessary to postpone the day; but if his hon. and gallant friend thought the words in the Clause were capable of the interpretation he had placed upon them, he could not resist the words suggested, because they carried out the original intention of the Government.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY ()moved—
  "In page 32, line 3, after 'salary,' to insert compensation or annual allowance.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB ()moved—
  "In page 32, line 8, leave out 'pension,' 2nd insert 'compensation or annual allowance.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LOUGHmoved to leave out Clause 48. He said the proposal contained in this Clause was one which had never been seen before in connection with the buying up of a Water Company, or any other private property which was required for public purposes. The Clause provider! for compensation to the directors of the Water Companies. That was a precedent which they ought not to set up so hastily in this House. It was not in this Bill when it came to the House originally. This compensation would cause a considerable extra charge on the ratepayers of London. There was no basis set out in the Bill on which compensation should take place. The directors were in a very different position from some of those officers of the Water Companies for whose protection the House had passed two Clauses. The directors probably had a considerable interest in the companies, and they would share in the high prices at which the concerns were to be bought. The President of the Local Government Board did not appear to be at all decided in his mind about the wisdom of creating this precedent by the Bill. He left it to his followers behind him. He thought it would have been better if they had not decided in a direction in which the right hon. Gentleman was not willing to lead them. One of these days, when they would have to face their constituents, they might feel that it would have been better not to have taken this course.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 32, line 32, to leave out Clause 48." —(Mr. Lough.)
  (7.18.) Question put, "That the words of Clause 48 stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 98; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 628.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hool, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morgan, DavidJ.(W'ithamst'w

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylemer

  Anstrutherm H. T,

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hapley

  Purvis, Robert

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Resch, Major Frederie Carne

  Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil

  Round, Rt.Hon. James

  Burdeat-Coutts, W.

  Hudon, George Bickersteth

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Kenyon, Hon, Geo. T.(Denbigh

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)

  Chapman, Edward

  Law, Andrew Bouar (Glasgow)

  Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(IsleofWight

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawrence, SirJoseph(Mouth'th

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lockie, John

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lowe, Francis William

  Thornton, Perey M.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Tomlinson, Sir W m. Edw. M.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lucas, REginaldJ(Portsmouth)

  Valeutia, Viscount

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Mane't

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Walrond, Rt,Hn. Sir William H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Flower, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Foster, PhilipS(Warwick, S. W.

  Messey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

  Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(CityofLond.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Gibbs, Hon. Vieary (St. Albans)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Godson, Sir AngustusFrederick

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Cohen and Mr. Bull.

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

  More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rbondda)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eafion)

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud

  Emmott, Alfred

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Asher, Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Sehwann, Charles E.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Shackleton, David James

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Spencer, Rt.Hn. C.R.(North'nts

  Burns, John

  Goddard, Daniel For

  Tully, Jasper

  Burt, Thomas

  Hay, Hon. Clande George

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Butcher, John George

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

  Weir, James Galloway

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, David Brymnor(Swansea

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Caldwell, James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

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

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Philipps, John Wynford

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Lough and Captain Norton.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Rea, Russell

  Denny, Colonel

  Rigg, Richard

  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONmoved an Amendment on Rule 1 of Schedule 3, to provide that if a member of the Water Board is appointed chairman or vice-chairman, the appointment shall not create a casual vacancy.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In Schedule 3, page 35, line 2, to leave out all the words after the Bord'Board.'"—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 35, line 5, at end, to insert the words '2. If a person appointed to be a member of the Water Board is a member of the Council or one of the Councils by whom he is appointed, he shall, it he ceases for two months to be a member of that Council, at the end of that period cease to be a member of the Water Board.'"—(Mr. John Burns.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  It being half-past Seven of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned until this evening.

EVENING SITTING

  LONDON WATER BILL
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [this day] to the Bill, on consideration, as amended.
  Which Amendment was—
  "In page 35, line 5, at end, to insert the words '2. If a person appointed to be a member of the Water Board is a member of the Council, or one of the Councils by whom he is appointed, he shall, if he ceases for two months to be a member of that Council, at the end of that period cease to be a member of the Water Board."—(Mr. John Burns.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  (9.0.) DR. MACNAMARAsaid he wished to move the omission of the word "if" in line 1, but he ought to explain that he intended if that were carried to propose consequential Amendments with a view to making the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Battersea read as follows—
  "A person appointed to be a member of the Water Board shall be a member of a constituent authority, and, if he ceases for two months to be a member of that authority, shall at the end of that period cease to be a member of the Water Board.'
  He moved this Amendment because he thought there had been some misunderstanding in the House as to the meaning of his hon. friend. The object the hon. Gentleman had in view was that nobody should be a member of the Water Board unless he was also a member of the constituent authority—that, in fact, there should not be co-opted members. The Government accepted that in substance.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: No. I did not accept it in that sense.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that certainly was the idea which animated the hon. Member for Battersea, and he himself thought, having regard to the fact that *40,000,000 of the ratepayers' money
  726
  was concerned, the least they could ask was that every member of the Water Board should be a member of a constituent authority, and so amenable to the ratepayers. They were bound to insist that people who got on the Water Board, and had to negotiate the purchase of these great undertakings, should be at all times directly in touch with, and amenable to, the ratepayers. If outside persons were allowed to be appointed, there would be no control over them, and they might do any amount of mischief before they could be got rid of.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment of the Bill—
  "In line 1, to leave out the word 'if.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'if' stand part of the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid there was no doubt that there had been a misunderstanding, but he did not think anybody was to blame. Had he thought that his hon. friend the Member for Battersea had not appreciated the full force of his own Amendment, he would have drawn attention to it. There had been no concealment on the part of the Government.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I did not suggest that.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the facts were that, as the Bill was originally presented to the House, the members appointed to the Water Board must have been selected from among the elected members of the various constituent authorities. The Joint Committee upstairs, on the representation mainly of the Middlesex County Council, altered that on the ground that the local authority ought to be untrammelled in its selection of a member, and ought to be allowed to select an outside person to represent it if it saw fit. It was all very well in theory to hold that the members of the Board should be in close touch with the electors, but the responsibility of selection rested with the governing body; and they ought surely to be allowed, if they desired to do so, to select the best man they could to represent

  727
  them, whether an elected member of their own body or not. Hon. Members opposite had dwelt on the complicated nature of this water question probably more than on anything else, and had suggested it would be impossible for the Metropolitan Boroughs to find men possessing the necessary experience for dealing with it. The House had been asked, indeed, to believe that the London County Council was the only body in London which possessed the ability. Hon. Gentlemen opposite accused him of being hostile to the London County Council, without justice; but he thought he might without injustice say of them that they took an exaggerated view of the virtues of the London County Council. They seemed to believe there was nothing in the wide world which required management and administration which the London County Council was not fit to undertake. If there was any justification for that criticism, surely, in the name of common-sense, they should give the constituent authorities the power of going outside their own body in order to get experts. He believed in the principle of popular election, but he realised also that it was possible to ride a hobby too hard, and to say that no man should be allowed to take part in the administration of local affairs unless he was first chosen by the electors would be to shut out many of their most competent men. They would, in fact, run the risk of losing something in the way of successful administration. He held that this was no real departure from the principle of local government; that it would be an advantage to the local authorities to have this option; and that it would be the best way of securing a good body.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the right hon. Gentleman had very fairly admitted that there had been a misunderstanding, and he fully acquitted him and his colleague of having in any way contributed to the confusion, or to obscuring the point they had under discussion. It was a pure misunderstanding. It was only right he should say that on November 26th last he had on the Paper an Amendment providing that a member appointed by the constituent authority should cease to be a member of the Water Board if he ceased to be a member of the authority appointing him. When he put that Amendment
  728
  down he presumed, as he believed every hon. Member on that side of the House did, that only directly elected members were to constitute the water authority. His Amendment of November 26th made that absolutely clear, but his primitive simplicity had led him into the present inadvertence. It was quite as well that it had occurred, because they now found for the first time that the Government intended to allow co-opted members to have seats on the new Water Board
  MR. WALTER LONG: I do not think the hon. Member is quite right in using the word "co-opted." It is generally used when a member is co-opted by the body itself. That is not proposed in this case. We are following precisely the precedent set in the Municipal Corporations Act, which enables a city to elect its mayor from either within or without its own body. It is not proposed to give the Water Board power to co-opt members.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he fully understood that, and he used the word in that sense. But he repeated that they now learnt, for the first time, that it was the intention of the Government that extraneous persons should be appointed by the constituent authority to seats on the Water Board. When he moved his Amendment without comment, he was under the impression that co-opted members were not intended to be placed on the Board, and he certainly only intended that it should apply to directly elected members of the Board. But he now found that its effect would be to penalise the directly elected member as against the co-opted member. For instance, the Battersea Borough Council would probably appoint one of its own directly elected members to the new Water Board. If that gentleman sought re-election to the Council in March next, and the ratepayers rejected him, he would he compelled, by virtue of his rejection at the election for the constituent authority, to resign his seat on the Water Board within two months. But suppose that Chelsea appointed as its representative an extraneous person, he would not have to go before the constituency, and for two or two and a half years, or until such time as the local authority could replace him by a member of their own body, he would be able to do practically as he liked. Surely it was not the

  729
  intention of the Government that an extraneous or co-opted person should have privileges which were denied to directly elected members.
  MR. WALTER LONG: That is not the proposal of the Government. We say that members of the Water Board should remain members for the time of their election to that Board. It was simply and solely to meet the hon. Member's objection that I accepted his Amendment, providing that when a man ceased to be a member of the constituent authority he should also cease to be a member of the Water Board.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid it would be intolerable if a Borough Council had not the power to terminate at once the official life of a representative who acted contrary to its wishes.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that point was not before the House at all. It was clear, whether the representative on the seat was a member of the Battersea Borough Council or an extraneous person chosen by that body, the Council would have no power over him during the three years he was a member of the Board.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid they might not have direct power, but it was possible to bring him in contact with the views of the district, and to subject him to allowable pressure—to, in fact, keep him straight in the narrow path that led to righteousness on the water question—if he were a directly elected member. However, under the circumstances, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, no.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the House was always a tolerant and generous body. There had been a misunderstanding, and he hoped he would be allowed to withdraw his Amendment, because it would discriminate between an elected member and a member chosen from outside the constituent authority. It had not been his belief that his Amendment would so penalise the member sent up from the constituent authority out of their own number.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  (9.30.) DR. MACNAMARAnext proposed an Amendment which, he said would express the original intention of his hon. friend the member for Battersea.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 35, line 5, at end, to insert the words,—" 2. A person appointed to be a member of the Water Board shall be a member of a constituent authority, and shall, if he ceases for two months to be a member of that authority, at the end of that period cease to be a member of the Water Board.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would reconsider his position in this matter. This did not raise a principle to which he was in any sense committed, and it was obviously not the original intention of the Government. It was put in on the suggestion of one of the outside Councils, and the arguments put forward did not justify such a considerable change. The Amendment would put the representation on a sound basis. It certainly would be illogical if a co-opted member were able to sit on the Board for three years, and a representative member were only allowed to sit while he was a member of the constituent authority. He had never desired to cast any reflection of any kind on the members of the Borough Councils, although they had said that the members of the London County Council who had taken, for many years, the greatest interest in the water question, were more likely to be valuable members of the Water Board. He would turn the tables on the right hon. Gentleman who said that the Borough Councils were eminently capable of dealing with this question. If that were true, he was casting a reflection upon them when he went outside the Borough Councils to obtain members for Water Board. He was quite content that the Borough Councils should elect one of themselves; he believed that there would always be found one righteous man amongst them. He hoped that the right

  731
  hon. Gentleman would not add to the blots on the Bill this system of indirect election.
  CAPTAIN JESSELsaid he did not attach much importance to this point. Municipal bodies were usually very jealous of co-opting anybody; but if there was co-option at all, it was best illustrated by the election of aldermen who did not wish to go to the trouble of a contested election. By co-option they might, for instance, obtain the services of an old water director, who would not take much interest, otherwise, in municipal matters. It would be better not to restrict the choice of Borough Councils, but be suggested that, as there was no great matter of principle involved, the Government should leave it an open question for Members to decide.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had already frankly acknowledged that in the Bill, as originally presented to the House, membership of the Water Board was confined to members of the constituent authorities; but the Government had adopted the conclusion arrived at by the Joint Select Committee, which had taken a good deal of evidence on the point. In fact they divided upon it, and their recommendation was carried by six to four. He desired to be perfectly frank on this matter. He did not regard the point as important, but he thought hon. Members were riding the idea of popular government too hard when they insisted upon carrying it out in the way proposed by the Amendment. As an illustration, he took such a case as that of Lord Llandaff, who had frequently been referred to. His Lordship would probably be a valuable member of the Water Board, but he was not likely to seek election on the Borough Council.
  DR. MACNAMARA: He might he made an alderman.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not agree with that idea of popular government, using the position of alderman for other than municipal purposes, or making

  AYES.

  Allen, CharlesP.(Glouc.,Stroud

  Brigg, John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Burns, John

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Burt, Thomas

  Causton, Richard Knight

  it an easy passage to something else. He altogether denied that by the proposals in the Bill they were casting any reflection on the Borough Councils. On the contrary, they were trusting in their judgment in the fullest possible manner. However, for his part he had no personal feeling in the matter; this was no principle of the Bill, and he was perfectly willing to adopt the suggestion of his hon. friend behind him, and to accept the decision the House arrived at.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid he should like to appeal to hon. Members to remember that if they were to have representatives from the Borough Councils on the Water Board these should be in daily touch with the electors.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that he understood that the right hon. Gentleman had said on the Committee stage that the constituent bodies should elect one of their own members to represent them. All that the hon. Member for Battersea desired was that if a member ceased to be a member of the constituent body he should retire from the Water Board.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid what he had stated was that it was open to the constituent body to select whom they pleased, either one of their own members or anyone else.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that there was really very little difference between the London Members and the President of the Local Government Board, who had released his followers from Party obligations on this point. They must convert this into a luck-penny, and proceed with it in the spirit of Christian charity. He appealed to hon. Members on the other side of the House to accept the Amendment.
  (9.48.) Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 629.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lough, Thomas

  Spencer, RtHon C. R.(Northants

  Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tully, Jasper

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Morgan,DavidJ(Walth'mstow

  Weir, James Galloway

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Godson,Sir AugustusFrederick

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson,HenryJ. (York, W.R.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pirie, Duncan, V.

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

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rea, Russell

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

  Rigg, Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Dr. Macnamara and Mr. Harry Samuel.

  Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex. F.

  Forster, Henry William

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Anson, Sir Willian Reynell

  Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(CityofLond.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Anstruther, H T.

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

  Purvis, Robert

  Ark wright, John Stanhope

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton

  Round, Rt.Hon. James

  Bignold, Arthur

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

  Chapman, Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lucas,ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Milvain, Thomas

  Walrond, RtHn. Sir William H.

  Crossley, Sir Saville

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  More, Robt, Jasper(Shropshire)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Murray, RtHn A. Graham(Bute

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

  Murray Charles J. (Coventry)

  Durning-Lawrence,Sir Edwin

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Bull and Mr. Cohen.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  MR. LOUGHsaid he wished to move the ommission of sub-Section (c), which was that a shareholder in any of the Water Companies concerned should not be disqualified from serving on the Board. He would not elaborate the point, because the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the principle involved in the Amendment which he had put down with reference todirectors. The disqualification which was to be imposed on directors should apply with still greater force to shareholders. When hon. Members were sent to decide a private Bill upstairs, they had to make a declaration that they were not interested in the matter one way or the other; and he thought that every member on the first board should be asked to make a similar statement. The transaction which the first Board would have to carry out would be the greatest that had ever been undertaken in this country. The Water Companies had many shareholders, and, surely, the disqualification which was to be applied to directors should be extended to shareholders. His Amendment would only apply to the first
  734
  Board, and would not entail a disqualification for more than a year or two.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 35, line 22, to leave out sub-Section (c)."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the omission of the sub-Section would not carry out what the hon. Gentleman desired. He had already stated that he thought it was altogether undesirablethat directors should be qualified to serve on the Board; but he could not see why the same principle should be laid down as regarded shareholders. That would narrow the area of selection in a manner which would be altogether undesirable. The House might rest perfectly satisfied that any shareholder in a London water company would, if elected to the Board, be actuated by the most honourable motives in the discharge of his duties.
  MR. LOUGH said he would withdraw the Amendment, and move it at a later stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 35, line 24, at end, to insert, the words, "A director of a metropolitan Water Company shall, until the compensation payable to the company is determined, be disqualified for being appointed or being a member of the Water Board.'"—(Mr. Long.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHmoved to inset, after "director," the words "or shareholder." He was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the Amendment with reference to directors, but directors had no greater interest in companies than shareholders, and very often much less.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill.
  "After the word 'director,' to insert the words 'or shareholder.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he should strongly support the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend. Circumstances had come to his knowledge during a long connection with the London water question which showed that it was necessary. Directors were perfectly well - known persons, but shareholders were very little known as such. He had known cases where men had obtained election on metropolitan Borough Councils who were very large shareholders in the Water Companies, the fact not being known at the time by those who returned them. Looking at the enormous sums of money involved, he felt that the Amendment of his hon. friend was necessary.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE ()said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist with his Amendment. The next thing that would probably be proposed was that no large water ratepayer could be elected to the Board. He was not a water shareholder or director, but he was a large water ratepayer, and he
  736
  thought if the principle of the Amendment were accepted, that large water ratepayers should not be eligible. An enormous number of men had shares in the Water Companies, and, in future, it would be found that a large number of working men would be holders of the new stock.
  MR. CREMERsaid he had previously moved that no person who had any pecuniary interest in any of the Water Companies should be eligible for election. The Minister in charge of the Bill said that he could not see his way to accept that proposal, as he considered it would narrow the area of choice if they precluded all persons who had any pecuniary interest, large or small, in the existing Water Companies from sitting on the Water Board. He wished to know why the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to exclude directors. He was very anxious that the new Board should start on its career, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. Everyone knew that one of the mischievous causes of the terrible results in connection with the Metropolitan Board of Works was that members were pecuniarily interested in questions which came before them. He wanted to prevent that, and to keep this Board clear and above suspicion. Therefore, he hoped that, even at the eleventh hour, the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment. Surely there would be plenty of men available who had no pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in the Water Companies.
  *COLONEL BOWLESsaid that if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were carried it would be impossible for a shareholder, who might have only an infinitesimal share in one of the companies, to serve on the Board, and his place would be filled by someone else, with perhaps less knowledge of the subject. If the Amendment was that a shareholder could be elected, but should not be eligible to act until after the purchase had taken place, he would quite agree.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he wished to draw attention to the fact that the Amendment would only operate for one year.
  (10.8.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 33, Noes 87. (Division List No. 630.)

  AYES.

  Allen, CharlesP. (Glouc., Stroud

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R.(Northants

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Tully, Jasper

  Brigg, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Burns, John

  M'Kenna,Reginald

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Burt, Thomas

  Philipps, John Wynford

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

  Caldwell, James

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Rigg, Richard

  Cremer, William Randal

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lough and CaptainNorton

  Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Sammel. Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Ansor, Sir William Reynell

  Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lond.

  Pryce, Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gibbs, Hon. Vieary(St.Albans)

  Purvis, Robert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

  Gosehen. Hon. George Joachim

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Round. Rt.Hon. James

  Balfour, RtHn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Groves, James Grimble

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hamilton, RtHn LordG(Midd'x

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylehone, W.)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Harris, Frederiek Leverton

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Bull, William James

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Smith, James Parker (Laparks

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton

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

  Chamberlain Rt. Hn J.A. (Wore.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Chapman, Edward

  Lawson, John Grant

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Tomlinson, Sir William Edw.M.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cochrane, Hon. Th s. H. A. E.

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

  Walrond, Rt.Hn. Sir William H.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lueas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Macdona. John Cumming

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

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

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

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Montagn, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Denny, Colonel

  Morgan, DavidJ(Walth'mstow

  Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Mount, William Arthur

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Austruther.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Fisher William Hayes

  Percy Earl

  Forster, Henry William

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Words[of Mr. WALTER LONG'S Amendment] inserted.
  MR. WALTER LONGformally moved the following Amendments:—
  "Schedule 3, page 35, line25, leave out 'of the members,' and insert ' the member.'
  "Schedule 3, page 35, line 26, leave out 'one.'
  "Schedule 3, page 35, line 29, at end, add as a new paragraph,—'4. The members of the Water Board appointed by the Conservators of the River Thames and the Lee Conservancy Board shall not vote or act in respect of any question arising before the Water Board as regards the transfer of any undertaking to the Water Board under this Act.'
  "Schedule 3, page 36, line 4, leave out 'and.'
  "Schedule 3, page 36, line 4, after 'Penge,' insert 'Bexley, Dartford, Erith, and Footscray.'
  "Schedule 3, page 36, line 4, leave out 'twelve,' and insert 'twenty.'
  "Schedule 3, page 36, line 6, leave out from 'Bromley' to end of line 13, and insert 'three by each of the councils of the urban districts of Erith and Penge, two by each of the councils of the urban districts of Bexley and Dartford, and one by each of the councils of the urban districts of Chislehurst and Footscray.'
  "Schedule 3, page 36, line 39, leave out 'and.'
  "Schedule 3, page 36, line 39, after 'Surbiton,' insert 'Barnes, the Maldens and Coombe, and Wimbledon.'
  "Schedule 3, page 36, line 39, leave out 'sixteen,' and inset ' thirty-three.'
  "Schedule 3, page 36, line 40, leave out 'six,' and insert 'seven.'
  "Schedule 3, page 36, line 40, leave out 'two,' and insert 'ten.'
  " Schedule 3, page 36, line 41, leave out from the second 'of' to the end of line 3, page 37, and insert ' Wimbledon, four by each of the councils of the urban districts of Barnes and Surbiton, three by the council of the urban districts of Esher and the Dittons, two by each of the councils of the urban districts of East and West Molesey and the Maldens and Coombe, and one by the council of the urban district of Ham.'
  " Schedule 3, page 37, line 6, after the second ' the,' insert ' constitution.' "
  Amendments agreed to.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that of the many matters which had been left over from the Committee stage there was none of greater importance than the question of the limitation of the term of office of the chairman to one year. Letit be assumed that the Water Board had elected the very best possible man for the position—a man who had not only ability and tact, but had experience and knowledge of water questions in addition to a special knowledge of the London water supply. Such a man would become, not the chairman of the Board but its absolute dictator. There were, perhaps, anumber of men who might be able to fulfil the conditions he had laid down, but they could be numbered on the finger of one hand. Let the House assume a chairman of another type—a man who did not combine all the qualifications he had mentioned, but who was, nevertheless, a man of considerable ability and tact. He might be a suitable man, but would not be cognisant of the difficulties of the water supply within the London area. Then the Board would have at its head a man who was unable to completely control it, with the result that the Board would be broken up into cliques, and that factions would arise, knowing that there was no power to get rid of the chairman for four and a half years. He had a more substantial objection to the proposal in the Bill. All precedent was in favour of his Amendment. The Common Council of the great City of London elected its principal officer annually. The London School Board, the London County Council, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, the Borough Councils, the Thames Conservancy, and, in fact, everybody in connection with London, elected its chairman annually. Outside the Metropolis the same state of things existed. The mayors of the various municipalities, and
  740
  the chairmen of the County Councils, and Urban and Rural District Councils, were all elected annually. Again, in the Acts of Parliament bringing Water Boards from various parts of the country into existence, it was specially laid down that the appointment of chairman should be for one year. That provision was inserted in the Derwent Waterworks Bill and the Deal and Dover Water Bill, which were recently passed by this House. He had a still stronger and more apposite case, namely the late Metropolitan Board of Works, They appointed a special committee to inquire into the matter, and, as a result of their inquiry, they passed a resolution limiting the chairman's term of office to one year, although, of course, lie could be re-appointed. All he asked was that the Water Board should have the power of appointing a chairman for one year. He should like to direct the attention of the House to the enormous power which would be placed in the hands of the chairman. He would be the acknowledged and representative embodiment of the Board. He would be the officer who would have to be consulted on all points of importance, and therefore he would combine, as it were, the dignity and importance of a mayor of a borough with the knowledge and permanency of a town clerk. He would practically have unlimited power, and, at the same time, unlimited temptation. Under him would be some 500 officials, whose combined salaries would amount to something like£138,000 per annum. He would be the man to whom those officers would look for promotion, and, on the formation of the Board, to be engaged as permanent officers. He would have the run of the office, would be able to devote his whole time to the work, and would be able to exercise the greatest influence on his colleagues. Then, as to patronage;if the chairman was to be appointed for four and a half years, he would largely influence the selection of counsel and of experts. Again, the assessment of the purchase money was a matter of considerable importance, and the chairman, if he were a man of sensitive conscience, might desire to avoid litigation to such an extent as to endanger the interests of the public. He himself had a high regard for vested interests, and he ventured to say that as a Party they were quite prepared to do justice to vested interests.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting away from the Question before the House, which is, whether the term of office of the chairman should be for one year.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he was sorry he had digressed; and if he thought the right hon. Gentleman was convinced, he would desist. But a chairman might lose sight of the fact that the shareholders in the Water Companies would be getting superior credit, and, further, that they would be saved all future liability.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman is again digressing.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he was only endeavouring to show the enormous power that would be in the hands of chairman if he were appointed for and a half years.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  " In page 37, line 9, to leave out the words ' vice-chairmen or.' and insert the words ' and vice-chairmen shall be one year, and of.'"—(Captain Norton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill,"
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid if he wanted any argument to convince him that the course proposed in the Bill was right, he would have found it in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Everything he had said with reference to the chairman went to show the necessity of giving him continuity of office. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said with perfect truth that the chairman might become an extremely important and powerful person. First of all, the duties of the chairman would be to advise and guide the Board on all matters leading up to the purchase, the taking of possession, and the commencement of its duties. Surely it was of the utmost importance that any man going to speak in the name of a Board like this should feel that he had some continuity of power that would enable him not only to begin a transaction but to end it. If he were to be chairman for only one year, he would have a very inferior position to that now proposed in the Bill. The point had been very carefully considered. It
  742
  was perfectly true that a chairman, if he did his work properly, might look to be re-elected, but he hoped the House would remember two very important facts, which were not matters of opinion. Although he was an Englishman, he believed that the system of local government in Scotland was in many respects superior to the system in England. The provost was elected for three years, and he had heard it pointed out that the position of provost in Scotland was infinitely superior to the position of Mayor in England, because the provost was entitled to speak for his corporation, not for one year, but tor three years. If it were answered that there was the opportunity of re-electing the chairman at the end of his year of office, he would point out that the legitimate aspirations of various members to fill the chair had to be considered. The London County Council, for instance, bad deliberately decided to have an annual chairman, not because they had not confidence in their chairman, but because they thought it ought to be open to each member of the Council who was fit for it to have his turn at the chair. That was a point of view which had a great deal of attraction for many people, and he thought that in the interests of the water consumers it was desirable to enact that the chairman of the Water Board should hold office for a recognised and defined period. He did not think three years too long to enable him to carry out all the negotiations for purchase, and to commence the duties of supply. The matter had been carefully considered, and he believed that the plan in the Bill was the best.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that as the Bill now stood, the first Water Board would be elected for nearly five years, but the Councils who would have to elect the Board did not know that that duty would be put upon them when they themselves were elected. He therefore thought that a term of office of two years would be quite long enough for the first Board. That would be reasonable, especially as the purchase would be carried through in a year or eighteen months. If the right hon. Gentleman would insert "six" as a compromise he would agree.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  " In page 37, line 10, to leave out the word ' seven and insert the word ' five.' "—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Bill."
  MR WALTER LONGsaid he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment. The new Board would be practically only two years in power after the appointed day. The question had been carefully considered, and he thought the arrangement proposed in the Bill was the most convenient.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  " In page 37, line 21, to leave out the words 'the chairman or vice-chairman, or '; in line 22, to leave out from the word 'Board' to the word 'member' in line 24; and to add at the end of line 26 the words ' and shall also, if he is the chairman or vice-chairman, vacate his office as chairman or vice-chairman.'"—(Captain Jessel.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Walter Long.)
  *(10.40.) SIR CHARLES DILKE: There are two or three points which I should like to put before the House in connection with this matter, in which I take the deepest interest. I look at it from a point of view which is shared by a great number of Londoners outside this House. I fear that this measure will involve London in an enormous expenditure for the purchase of an insufficient supply of dirty water from a dying river. The first time a cholera scare affects London, I believe it is certain that the new authority will be forced to embark upon an entirely new scheme for the supply of water—a scheme which will involve enormous expenditure, to be carried out by a cumbrous body entirely unfit to undertake engineering operations, which ought to be entrusted to the London County Council. I do not wish to expand these views, but as they have not been put forward, I think they ought to be mentioned before we part with this Bill. The Thames is a dying river. It is drying up, but it is subject to enormous floods,
  744
  and they bring down a larger amount of water than ever they did before, and the largest amount came down some eight years ago. The drainage system of the valley of the Thames has been so perfected that the Thames now rises almost with the rapidity of a mountain stream, and brings down an immense quantity of water. On the other hand, the minimum amount of water in the Thames is constantly declining. and by far the smallest amount of water ever known passed over Teddington Weir only three years ago. Therefore it will be seen that the Thames is drying up in dry weather and increasing as a flood stream during flood weather.
  The Water Companies have been involved, they say, in enormous expenditure for the purpose of storing the water of this flooding, and yet they give a very poor supply. They have told us that an enormous expenditure on reservoirs has enabled them to impound large quantities of water in order to give sufficient time for settlement. The work of the Thames Conservancy has done much to purify the river, but it has allowed a sewage farm system, which as regards dry weather may work well, but during flood causes the whole of the sewage to be swept back into the bed of the stream. This water is a most unsatisfactory supply, and the figures which have been laid before the House will not stand the test of examination. The companies have told us that they succeed in preventing this spoiling of the water in the time of flood, and they state that they have adopted a system of storing the water in order to purify it. Any hon. Member of this House can easily judge for himself whether this is true by taking a bath three or four feet deep, for anyone can see within three days of the flood evidences of discoloration resulting from flood water reflected in the water given to the consumer. Therefore it is impossible to believe that the bulk of the water supplied has been purified and stored in the way we have been told it is stored. The companies tell us that they are now taking part of the water from the undergroun sand, but the water which they take from the sand is also Thames water. The Thames is a river more than half o which flows underground and out of sight. If you

  745
  test the amount of water in the Thames at different points, as you come nearer to London it will be found that there is less water in the river. It is a fact that there is more water in the river at Henley than there is 30 or 40 miles lower down. There is in many places an underground Thames; therefore this water, which is said to be taken from the sand, is essentially Thames water, and is liable to the same disturbance from flood. Therefore the more you look into the question of the supply of water from the Thames, the more thoroughly unsatisfactory it will be found to be. Consequently I fear that by this Bill the ratepayers of London are being involved in an enormous expense by transferring the administration of the water supply to a body which will certainly within a very few years be called upon to undertake a vast expenditure in order to bring good water from a distance. The Water Board is an unfit body to be entrusted with a duty which ought to have been thrown upon the London County Council.
  MR. HARRY SAMUEL: I have taken for many years the greatest interest in the whole of this question, but I had not thought it right to intervene on the Report stage of this measure. I should, however, like to say a few words on the general question. I may say that the arguments which have up to now been put forward have not altered in the least my view in regard to the formation of this Water Board. If the view put forward by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean is correct, then the new Water Board will have to take the matter up; but surely that is not an argument against this proposal. The reason I had always advocated the transfer of the Water Companies to the public board, is not that the water directors have been a failure, but because they had strained very largely the powers granted them by Parliament. Take, for instance, the district which I represent. During the recent water famine a very scanty supply of water was given by the companies to the East End of London, and yet the directors felt it to be their duty to charge the consumers for water which
  746
  they did not supply to them. Therefore I think it is wise to give the management of the water supply to the people themselves. If all the water directors had acted in the same spirit as that which was adopted by the hon. and gallant Member for the Epping Division, we should never have had any difficulty of this sort. We have been fighting in order to give representation to the municipal boroughs upon the governing body for the water supply of London. In other towns throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain the civic authorities have, long been the water authorities. Hon. Members opposite have quoted the evidence of witnesses from Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow, and they have tried to prove that London should be treated with regard to numbers on the managing body in exactly the same manner as provincial towns. But when they come to deal with the question of the Board itself, then for some reason or other hon. Members opposite want the county authority to be made the water authority without any representation being given to the boroughs. That was absolutely inconsistent. Up to the year 1892, the Corporation of the City of London was the only body that possessed the right to promote Bills in Parliament for gas and water. Now we have twenty-eight other boroughs in the Metropolis, and surely they are entitled to a share in the representation on this new Water Board.
  With regard to the Royal Commission, my hon, friends opposite have always quoted its Report as one of the reasons why they disapproved of the composition of the Board set up by this Bill. I would point out that there was no such thing as Borough Councils in existence at the time of the sittings of the Royal Commission and therefore it was perfectly impossible that it could have recommended that any representation should be given to the Borough Councils. As for the decision of the Committee upon this question, it is perfectly well known why that Committee altered its decision. The first decision of the Committee was taken without the evidence being heard on one side. Consequently the noble Lord who was the Chairman of that Committee was after wards bound to re-open the evidence,

  747
  and having heard evidence on the other side, the Joint Committee reversed its decision. Therefore, neither the reports of the Royal Commission, nor the result arrived at primarily by the Joint Committee, should have any influence upon this great question. The evidence given by a Mr. Burgess, of the Liverpool Corporation, has been quoted. One fact, however, upon this point is not known, and that is that although Mr. Burgess gave evidence in opposition to this Bill, when I brought a motion forward in Manchester the other day I received a letter from that gentleman asking permission to be allowed to second my motion, which was to the effect that this Bill should be passed into law this Session. It therefore seems rather strange that this same gentleman should second my motion declaring that this Bill was so good that it ought to be carried into law this Session. I should like to know if the House agrees with some words used by the hon. Member for Battersea on the London County Council, for he is reported to have said—
  " It was a great thing that only eight members of the London County Council sitting in the House of Commons should have been able to convert private ownership into ownership by a public authority."
  I think I may claim for those London Members who sit around me that more is due to their gentle persuasion than to anything else. I think that on this side of the House we have a right to claim that we have been active in getting what is now provided by this Bill. On behalf of East London I desire to thank my right hon. friend most sincerely for what he has done. I thank him also for the great interest he has shown in the whole question, for the enormous time he has given to it, and the pains he has taken in mastering every sort of detail. Although I have called in question the remarks of the hon. Member for Battersea, I still believe that the hon. Gentlemen opposite will do everything they can to make the action which my right hon. friend has taken productive of great and lasting good.
  (11.5.) MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not profess, at this stage of the Bill, to be able to throw any fresh light upon this question, nor to use any fresh arguments. I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite for the
  748
  kindness they have extended to me and to my hon. friends behind me, who have had a somewhat difficult task to perform. I cannot, however, let this Bill pass its Third Reading without a protest on my own behalf, and I think I may speak also on behalf of all those sitting on this side of the House. I wish to repeat the protest I have entered before in regard to this Bill being taken at all at this period of the Session. During the initial stages of this measure I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not take into his consultation those various bodies interested in order that he might have arrived at some better proposals, both in regard to the size and constitution of the Water Board, which might have given more general satisfaction than the proposal contained in this Bill. On this side of the House we have already admitted the very considerable improvements made in the Bill during its passage through the Committee stage, and many of the blemishes have been removed from the measure as it originally stood. These improvements, however, do not affect the question of the real principle of the Bill, and I shall most certainly divide against the Third Reading.
  We object to this Bill on the grounds of the unwieldy size of the governing body, which we believe will make it less effective as a real Water Board, which may have to carry out the purchase of the Water Companies. We object to the Bill still more on the ground of the extraordinary constitution of the Water Board itself, the extraordinary system of indirect election which has been adopted, and the passing over of the natural body, and which is the central representative body, and which in any other of England would have been accepted as the primary factor in creating such a Board as this. All the precedents in this matter, and most of the opinions expressed, have really been adverse to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, both in regard to the size and the constitution of the Water Board. The hon. Member for Limehouse said it was ridiculous to go back to the Royal Commission and quote that Commission as stating that they would have been adverse to this particular proposal, because, when they reported the Borough Councils were not in existence. I wish to point out, however, that three

  749
  hon. Members of this House were members of that Commission, and they included the hon. Member for Tewkesbury the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Yorkshire, and Lord Llandaff. I wish to say that in the discussion on Lord Llandaff's Amendment the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said that if the Royal Commission had had the opportunity they would not have included the Borough Councils, and I know the same view was held by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Yorkshire. Therefore I think I am entitled to say that the Royal Commission would not have brought in this question of the Borough Councils. Not only do I feel that this measure is founded upon lines adverse to ordinary municipal principles, but I feel very strongly that in a Board constituted as is proposed by this Bill the interests of the general community will be subordinated to purely local interests. If you put on any Board a majority of representatives of local interests, they are bound to attend to their local interests. My hon. friend the Member for West Islington moved an Amendment that his own constituency ought not to be called upon to pay any increased water rates.
  MR. LOUGH: I included half London in my Amendment.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think this question ought to be considered from the point of view of the interests of the general community. I fear that the general idea we have had in our minds in favour of purchase and unification and centralisation will suffer in consequence of this Bill. The only argument which the right hon. gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has advanced against the proposal of the Joint Committee is that this is the only means of harmonising conflicting interests. Where are these conflicting interests? At one time the Borough Councils acknowledged the London County Council as the water authority for London, and until the right hon. Gentleman threw down a sort of apple of discord there was really no difference of interest between those bodies. The only interests which have conflicted have been those of the outer and inner areas, and I contend that these conflicting interests
  750
  might have been perfectly met by placing this Board, not on the basis of the sanitary authority, but upon the basis of the County Councils.
  Then there is a question as to the size of this body. Its constitution is fantastic, but its greatest evil, from the point of view of the consumers and the ratepayers, is its huge size. What we want, in creating a new body of this sort, is a Board which will be workable, economical, and one which will be able to carry out its business with dispatch. Does any human being think that this large and heterogeneous body will be the best to carry out the object in view? I do not understand where the right hon. Gentleman has obtained his opinion in regard to this matter. The only authority he has given us is that expert of experts, Mr. Perrin, but the curious thing about this is that the right hon. Gentleman never produced this expert before the Joint Committee in order to give evidence on this point, although Mr. Perrin did give evidence upon other matters. The evidence given before Lord Cross's Commission declared in favour of a body much smaller than the one which is now proposed, and I am afraid that when we come to the question of purchase we shall find that this body will not be an efficient one, either to conduct the purchase of the Water Companies or to start the administration. They have got to start the matter. The members of this body will for some time hardly know one another by sight. They will have no fixed policy and no officers, and they will have to find new officers or wait until they got possession of the officers of the companies. I am afraid that the question, as put before the arbitrators, will not lead to a satisfactory result. I am quite sure that everyone feels that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has selected three men, as arbitrators, of great eminence. Nevertheless, in my opinion, while the case of one side will be put with the utmost possible skill, on the other side it can only be put in a clumsy way and without any real information in regard to the matter. I only now wish to enter my protest against the constitution and the size of the Water Board.
  In conclusion, I desire to recognise that we have had a certain number of days

  751
  discussion, and I am anxious to the full to thank the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for the courteous and the kind way in which he has listened to us and met our objections, for he has readily improved his Bill where he has been able to do so. I can only re-echo what fell from the hon. Member for Battersea, that although we differ from the principle upon which this Board is based, and although we are afraid that it cannot be as successful a body as we had hoped, at the same time we hope that those who constitute the new Water Board, whether they are Members of the London County Council or Members of the Borough Councils, will do their best to make the work of the Board as successful as they possibly can, in spite of the somewhat poor material placed in their hands by the Government under this Bill.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD (): The question of the water supply of London has been the subject of numerous debates, and has been inquired into by Royal Commissioners and Committees, and it is a topic which has given rise to a great deal of controversy. Judging by the present appearance of the House, it would seem that all the interest in this question is now almost exhausted. The Water Companies have been subjected to a great deal of criticism, and I acknowledge freely that hon. Members opposite were perfectly right in subjecting the Water Companies to such criticism. A part of those criticisms I think were very unfair, but another part of them has been productive of good. Anyhow, all that will pass away in obedience to what I believe is the sentimental cry on the part of the public, which will now be invested with powers through a Water Board. I am bound to say that, speaking personally, I shall be glad to escape from the responsibilities which have rested upon me for some time past—not that I fear those responsibilities, because I have endeavoured to provide for the future wants of the population, but I recognise the fact that the Government were perhaps within their right in yielding to what has become a very popular cry. As a good Conservative Member I am glad that the Government, which I have always been able to support, has
  752
  found itself able to set this question at rest, at any rate for a time. I think we must all acknowledge the care and trouble which the President of the Local Government Board has given to this question, and the way in which he has endeavoured to hold the scale fairly between those interested and the public. Speaking as one who knows the view of the Water Companies, I think I may say that we are wholly satisfied with the terms accorded to us, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has done his best to treat fairly the various interests affected by this Bill. I agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Board will not produce the most economical and workable body possible, and I cannot believe that the number of this body will produce either a workable or an economical Board. I confess, however, that the moment the right hon. Gentleman based his Bill upon the question of representation, he was bound to have a large body, and he certainly had on his side an expert in Mr. Perrin, and I do not know a greater authority. I may also say that the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman is supported by the engineer of my own company, although I am bound to say that I cannot agree with either of them; not do I believe that the transfer of the Water Companies from the various Boards to the Water Board will be productive of good to the ratepayers, for I believe the charges on the ratepayers in the future will be even greater than they are at the present time. I do not believe that on this question of the water supply the question of representation should have entered at all. I was in favour of an entirely nominated Board, and I would have had nominees of the Local Government Board, for I believe such a Board would have found the best men, would have been more economical and more favourable in its results to the taxpayer. The question is now settled for the time being, but how long the Metropolis will be able to favour the present system of representation and the working system now produced by the Government, time alone will show. I do not believe that it can be or will be a success, either in regard to the ratepayers of London or those who send their representative to the Water Board.
  MR. LOUGH: I wish to refer to the extraordinary circumstances under which these particular matters have been discussed in this House. Never during my experience has a matter been handled in such a way by the House of Commons. Although this Bill was introduced early this year, it was ultimately relegated to two or three days at the close of the Session, and then we were closured.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I did not use the Closure.
  MR. LOUGH: I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of using the Closure, because it is quite as much due to my own friends on this side. Somehow, there has been extremely bad management upon this question. If any impartial witness had been here on Monday last to see the mass of evidence and the numerous documents we had to go through in discussing forty-eight Clauses, all under pressure, in order to try and fall in with the wishes of the House, he would have seen that it was entirely beyond the wit of man to deal with them in this way. Today there has been the same pressure. Why should we now be asked to take the Third Reading without having the Bill reprinted? Great alterations have been made in some of the Clauses, and the schedules have been altered. Win should London be treated in this way? Two or three speakers have suggested that the Liberal Members have rather forsaken the London Liberal Members in this debate, and that we seven have been left alone. I think that is a most unjust reproach to fling at hon. Members on this side, because it is well known that there are scarcely any hon. Members qualified to go into the details of this Bill except London Members. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who is here now, has assisted us, and many other Liberal Members, deeply interested in London, have shown themselves ready and willing to do as much as they were
  754
  asked to do. No one can take an active part in a discussion like this except those who represent the locality. I do not desire to make any charge against my hon. friend, but it has been suggested that seven hon. Members were not enough to do the work connected with the opposition to this Bill. I repudiate that assertion altogether. For if my hon. friend, the Member for North Camberwell, had not been so weary after the discussions upon the Education Bill, I am sure we should have been able to give a good account of ourselves.
  DR. MACNAMARA: We have done so.
  MR. LOUGH: I do not think we have contested this matter as much as we ought to have done. With regard to the measure itself, I would ask—Has it been improved in Committee and on Report? I am willing to give credit for all that has been done. In small points we have secured improvements. The representation of the London County Council has been raised from ten to fourteen, and the size of the Water Board has been reduced by four members. I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for making the reference to the arbitrators compulsory. I must say, however, that I do not sympathise so much with my hon. friends who have been so profuse in their gratitude for these concessions. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has done the best for his own reputation, and for his Party, and I think we should have done better if we had fought this measure in the old Party way, and endeavoured to throw upon the right hon. Gentleman the entire responsibility for the passing of this measure in its present shape. As regards small things some changes have been made, but we must not forget that some of them have been made in response to criticisms on the other side of the House. I cannot help repeating that I think it would have been better to have fought,

  755
  the Bill as hard as we could, and, if we had got nothing by those tactics, to have thrown the responsibility for passing the Bill, in the bad shape in which it is drawn, upon the Government. When we leave these small points out of consideration, is the Bill better than it was originally? I do not think it is. On the contrary, when we come to the close issues and to the real point for which this Board is being constructed, we discover at the last moment, with regard to a most vital matter, that the Board we are setting up is ill-equipped, and will have great difficulty with regard to the most important part of this water question. This Water Board has to administer the water supply not only to the rich, but more especially to the poor, who from 80 percent. of the inhabitants of this great city. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the Clause which we hurriedly carried in regard to settling the charges and equalising them is a very difficult point, and that we had hardly settled it in any final or conclusive way. And we cannot do this now because we have removed the control from the central municipal authority, which controls the water question in other places. We have removed the control and transferred it to a distant and somewhat fantastic authority.
  I am for giving over the control of this business to the London County Council. I have read the evidence of nearly all the Reports of Commissions and Committees upon this subject, and I have heard all the debates, and my convictions as to the absolute utility of taking the step which is now proposed are as unshaken to-day as they were at the beginning of these debates. My conviction remains firm that the London County Council ought to have had this difficult business of acquiring the Water Companies' interests entrusted to
  756
  them; and the President of the Local Government Board has said nothing more unworthy of him, as a Member of the House and a Minister of the Crown, than what he said when he gave as his reason for depriving the County Council of the power of dealing effectively with this business, that it wished to impose rather stringent terms of arbitration. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken cruelly of the London County Council, who are not to blame because they desired to make a good bargain for the people they represented. The London County Council has built up a good record, and industriously they have worked out the water problem for the last ten years. That Council first went into the difficulties of obtaining a supply from Wales, and all the facts the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean has mentioned the London County Council has collected, and the Council are met with an insult from the House—they are put aside as unprofitable servants.
  I only wish this House may never regret the step it is taking to-day. Some of my hon. friends have expressed the very hopeful feeling that this Bill may work our right. There is not a man in this House, with regard to a matter of this kind, who will not entertain those benevolent wishes. We all hope that the worst thing we do may turn out will. As patriotic persons we must do so. We have to follow our own judgment, and if we feel that a thing is wrong we should say so to the end. There is a certain arbiter coming which will reveal who was right and who was wrong in this matter. I notice that an authority, whom I am sure everybody in this House will accept, pronounced an opinion upon this Bill last Friday in the constituency of the hon. Member for Poplar. Upon that occasion the right hon.

  757
  Gentleman the Member for East Fife said that the President of the Local Government Board had introduced into the House of Commons a most fantastic scheme, which proposed to bring into existence a leviathan body, with unsatisfactory credentials and imperfect efficiency, which was condemned in advance by the majority of the ratepayers of London; and he went on to say that a more conclusive case for investing the London County Council with the management of the London water undertaking it would be impossible to make out. Those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife. Of course I agree with everything he said, and the only thing I am sorry for is that he did not come here during the debates and help those eight hon. Members who are struggling to put forward those ideas which the right hon. Gentleman defined so well outside the House. I feel that we have made the greatest mistake we could make in regard to this Bill, for we had not given the work to the body which was ready to take it up, and we have constructed with great difficulty this fantastic, leviathan body which the right hon. gentleman the Member for East Fife has denounced. In its reflections the other The Times implied that the Opposition to the Bill is not in earnest, but at least that cannot be said of myself. Throughout I have stuck to the principle that the London County Council should have control. I hope the House will not have to regret the step taken by this Bill, but I fully expect that before many years pass the ratepayers of London will be suffering severely from the administration of the water supply by an inefficient, ex-travagant, incapable body.
  (11.35.)MR. WHITMOREsaid the hon. Member for West Islington had referred
  758
  to the action of the London Members in connection with this Bill. He was most anxious that the impression should not go abroad that they had not looked after the interests of their constituents. As a matter of fact there had been a very good attendance of London Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member had quite reasonably boasted that the Liberal Members for London had made a gallant fight in support of their principles in connection with this Bill. There had been a large and constant attendance of Unionist Members. Every Amendment introduced had been fully discussed, and he did not think that it had been in any way prejudicial to the Bill that it had been debated at this period of the Session. He must refer for a moment to the surprising speech of the right hon. Bart. the Member for Forest of Dean, who said that no one had really as yet appreciated the true gravity of this question. The right hon. Baronet said they were about to create a new Board which, at an extravagant price, was going to purchase dirty water, which was being taken from a dying river. He protested that it was almost frivolous at this time of day to describe this as the action that was being taken. The whole question was exhaustively inquired into by Lord Balfour's Commission, and the evidence taken contradicted the observation of the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he had read the evidence given before that Commission.
  MR. WHITMOREsaid that every one who had read the Report of the Commission was justified in believing that in the River Thames the consumers had a sufficient supply of adequately good water

  759
  for thirty years to come. This view was confirmed by the findings of the Llandaff Commission. Though he did not believe that the ratepayers were going to make a good fiscal bargain for years to come out of this undertaking, he maintained that the purchase of the companies and the transfer of the water to a public authority had become a political and administrative necessity; and it was on that ground that he had supported the Bill.
  In regard to the constitution of the public authority, he held that the body created by the Bill was necessary for these reasons. To his surprise, some hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to have thought that there ought to have been a small nominated body. He had even heard the hon. Member for Battersea say that the present water directors would be a more competent body than the new Water Board. That was a strange opinion coming from one who had for years described the water directors as the enemies of the human race. He himself would infinitely have preferred that the new Water Board should have consisted of nine nominated members, but they all knew that the suggestion, if it had been made by the Government, would have been scouted by everyone on the other side of the House. There was the intermediate course suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for North West Wilts, that members of the Board should be elected by each of the County Councils. That was more or less the principle underlying Lord James's proposal, but it was much objected to on the ground that on every such Board they must have a predominant representation of the London County Council. The moment that was proposed the outside
  760
  authorities would have said that they would have no more to do with it. Therefore they were thrown back on the proposals of the present Bill. They were not ideal, but as a practical man he acknowledged that they were the only kind which had the least chance of being accepted by the House. As one weary of this long controversy, he was glad to see it taken out of the region of municipal politics, and he rejoiced that the Government had shown the courage and the sagacity to bring these proposals forward. For himself he could only say that stern facts had brought him to acquiesce in the necessity for this Bill, and he hoped all parties would join in trying to make it a success.
  MR. JOHNBURNSsaid he must frankly join the hon. Member for Chelsea in wishing that this question had been dealt with in a different form some years ago. He welcomed the Third Reading of the Bill, because it would for the present terminate the contest which had been going on for several years. The hon. Member for West Islington had spoken almost with anger and irritation because the Members representing the Progressive party did not fight much better than they had done.
  MR. LOUGH: I did not say that.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that was the tenour of the hon. gentleman's remarks. He could only say that his colleagues on this side of the House had expressed their opposition to the Bill, perhaps not so often, but quite as sincerely, quite as well informed, and with precisely the same object in view. Some of them had not opposed the Bill in the spirit of the obstinate juryman. He believed that

  761
  many of the difficulties conjured up by the hon. Member for West Islington would not be realised, for London would prove itself equal to the occasion. To his mind the most sweeping condemnation of the Bill had been pronounced by the hon, and gallant Member for the Epping Division, a staunch supporter of the Government, when he expressed the view that the measure would not be economical but costly to the ratepayers. He read on the front page the significant words that this was a Bill for—
  "Establishing a Water Board to manage the supply of water within London and certain adjoining districts, for transferring to the Water Board the undertakings of the Metropolitan Water Companies, and for other purposes connected therewith."
  This was a Bill to manage the water supply, which in the main was drawn from the river Thames, which, if it was not quite so bad and so dirty as the hob. Baronet had said, was still dirty enough. Old Father Thames, which had been the water supply of this city for 800 or 900 years, was becoming, from the point of view of the Water Companies, not so profitable as it had been in the past. They were told that the ugly reservoirs at Staines were only a temporary expedient for the unremediable difficulties due to the shortage of water in the Thames itself. He wanted to tell the President of the Local Government Board that his Department made a great mistake when it did not help the Country Council in 1896 to prosecute their Welsh water scheme. The Thames was failing as a watershed, and if at any time through its failure an epidemic of cholera occureed, and the Thames failed them in the absence of a pure watershed, the County Council would be free from blame, and the responsibility for the calamity would lie upon the Government, which had prevented the County Council
  762
  from obtaining water for London from cloudland amid the Welsh mountains. He appealed to the Government not to allow Kent and Middlesex to detach themselves from their due share in the financial burdens connected with the water supply for the whole of London and surrounding districts. These counties contained wealthy districts, and they ought to contribute their quota of the cost of this undertaking, and by so doing help the poorer districts which were included in the water area. The Government ought in equity and fair play to prevent Kent and the other rich districts from exempting themselves from the liabilities which would be imposed on them by this Bill. He noticed there was a tendency on the part of Kent and Middlesex, and perhaps Essex, to leave the new water supply in the hands of London alone. Londoners would not bless the Government for bringing forward this Bill if these counties were allowed to detach themselves, leaving the poorer districts of the Metropolis to bear the cost of this undertaking. They should not be allowed, for at least twenty-five years, to detach themselves from the financial burdens of this scheme. Personally he was delighted that the Water Bill was now out of the region of municipal politics for the next three or four years. The County Council of London had given some assistance in the passing of this measure, and he hoped that hon. Members opposite who had been inclined to regard the County Council as a bete noire would in future show some reciprocity by helping them with respect to other matters to which they would now have more time to devote their attention.
  (12.0.) MR. WALTER LONG: I am glad it is not necessary for me to trouble

  763
  the House with many remarks at this stage of the Bill. I can assure the hon. Member for Battersea that I am at least as glad as he is to see the end of this controversy. I can only hope that the good wishes he and others have been good enough to express as to the future may be fully carried out, for I believe the future of this measure is not so melancholy as some hon. Gentlemen seem to anticipate.
  I would like to say one word as to the rather remarkable incursion into the debate of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean. He has told the House that the London water supply from the Thames is so bad that within a few years it will be necessary to bring good water from a distance. In the name of common-sense, what has that to do with the Bill? He told us that this was a duty which ought to have been thrown on the County Council. Does the right hon. Baronet suggest that this House should have given the County Council power first of all to buy out the companies which up to the present time have supplied London with water, and have done it, on the whole, in an admirable way, and then to secure a new supply from a distrance? I doubt very much whether the right hon. Gentleman is right in his contention. My hon. friend the Member for Chelsea pointed out that the evidence of the Commissioners was against that. The Reports of Lord Balfour's Commission and Lord Llandaff's Commission were against the right hon. Gentleman on this particular point. Inboth Reports it is stated as the result of their inquiries that there was no evidence to justify the general condemnation of the quality of London water, and as regards quantity there was sufficient in the Thames, the Lea, and the Wells, for
  764
  the supply of London and its surroundings for a considerable time to come. I do not think the predictions of the right hon. Baronet are justified by the evidence we have before us and by the Reports of the Commissioners that heard the evidence. Time alone will show whether he is right or they are right, but even if he is right, I respectfully submit it is no argument against the Third Reading of the Bill which we now ask the House to pass.
  The hon. Member for Poplar has advanced several reasons why he thinks the Bill should not be read a third time now, and amongst others he has complained that we have taken it at the wrong time of the Session. I have heard many odd statements made on the other side of the House, but I have never listened to one more remarkable than that. I happened to be a Member of the House when a certain Local Government Bill was introduced, and in order to pass it, the House was kept sitting up to Christmas Day. That was dwelt upon constantly as a virtuous act by hon. Members opposite in their speeches in the country. Why was it a virtue on the part of the Liberal Government to keep the House sitting up to Christmas Day, and even up to the following March, and why is it a vice on the part of this Government to read this Bill a third time at this time of the year? This Bill was not introduced in December. It was introduced immediately after the King's Speech and read a second time. It was then referred to the Joint Committee upstairs. The hon. Gentleman failed altogether to realise that if you are going to deal with a subject of this kind, controversial, technical, and full of detail, and if you are going to send it to a Committee upstairs, it is impossible in the

  765
  ordinary course of things that it will come back to be dealt with by this House for a considerable time.
  Why is it that we are dealing with the Bill now? It is because hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken greater interest, and made even longer speeches, on education than on the London water question. I do not think there is any justification for the complaint that the Bill had been taken at the wrong time of the year. I sympathise with hon. Gentlemen opposite in their desertion by their friends, but I do not think that we have had inferior debates in consequence. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown themselves fully capable of bearing the full burden of debate from beginning to end. I do not think there is a single point in the Bill which has not been carefully examined. There is no point of even minor importance which has not been fully debated; no question of principle on which many speeches have not been made three or four times over. What more do you want? What more could you have had if 400 Members had been present?
  I take the challenges and criticisms of an hon, friend on my own side as more the result of regret at the prospective death of his own company and other companies than of a true appreciation of the future of the Bill. I am glad that on both sides of the House there have been expressions of gratitude for the work done in the past in the interests of the community by the directors of these companies. Nobody who has studied the question will doubt that the time had come when it was necessary to deal with the London water question
  766
  definitely. When I came to the Local Government Board I found it was necessary either to allow the proposals of the London County Council to pass or to produce proposals of our own. The suggestion that I have not taken counsel of those mainly concerned in the question is absolutely unfounded. At the request of the late Sir Arthur Arnold I met the Progressive members of the London County Council and heard what they had to say. I informed them of the views of the Government, and offered to consider any suggestions as to compromise, and to meet them if I could. I consulted also with representatives of the metropolitan boroughs and outside areas. What more could I do? It is easy to criticise and condemn these proposals, but I take my stand on the solid fact that no other proposals have been successful. This Bill differs from that of Lord Cross and the proposals put forward by Commissions, but it is because of that difference that the Bill has now reached the Third Reading stage. Nobody can say whether in the result it will be entirely successful, but if the local authorities who will appoint the Board approach their work in a public spirit and with true patriotism, as I do not doubt they will, I believe a Board will be created which will find in the Bill full means to settle this difficult question. I thank hon. Members for the fairness and good humour with which the discussions have been carried on. Though attendance has sometimes been scanty, the debates have been practical and businesslike, and I hope that is a good augury for the future of the Bill, and that the people of London, will find it a real and lasting solution of a question that has long troubled the country.
  (12.13) Question put.

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Flower, Ernest Mount,

  William Arthur

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Rt.Hn Agraham(Bute

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Charles J. Coventry)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (CityofLond.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gibbs, Hin. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Perey, Earl

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Godson,Sir Augustus Frederick

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Purvis, Robert

  Bignold, Arthur

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hamilton, Rt.Hn Lord G.(Mid'x

  Round, Rt.Hon. James

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Brotherton, Edwared Allen

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(IsleofWight

  Bull, William James

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Carson, Rt.Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Smith, Abel, H.(Hertford, East)

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Smith,JamesParker(Lanarks.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A. (Worc.

  Johnstone, Heywood

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

  Champman, Edward

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (monm'th

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Lawson, John Grant

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Valentia, Viscount

  Compton, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Walrond, RtHn. Sir William H.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

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

  Denny, Colonel

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  More, Robt. Jasper(Scropshire)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morgan, David J. (Walth'mstow

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P.(Glone.,Stroud

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Lough, Thomas

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Spencer, RtHn. C. R. (Northants

  Brigg, John

  Norman, Henry

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Burns, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Philipps, John Wynford

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

  Caldewell, James

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Rea, Russell

  Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  Rigg, Richard

  TELERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.

  Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

  Shackleton, David James

  Bill read the third time and passed.

  MAIL SHIPS BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 104; Noes, 28. (Division List No. 631).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.

PETITIONS
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL
  Petitions for amendment of: of Cardinal Vaughan, Archbishop of Westminster and persons signing (8), read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPOTRS, ETC

  NAVY.
  Scheme dealing with the entry of Naval and Marine Officers and of men of the Royal Navy.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Read 2a (according to order); Committee negatived; and Bill to be read. 3a. To-morrow.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL
  House again in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 7:—
  THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid there were two Amendments to the first part of Clause 7 which very much resembled each other—the one he had placed on the Paper, and the other standing in the name of the Bishop of Winchester. He would have been glad to have withdrawn his Amendment in favour of that standing in the name of his right rev. brother, but he thought the latter was a little vague, and did not quite carry out the purpose of his Amendment. He had not the slightest desire to interfere with any direction given by the local authority to the managers of
  538
  schools respecting secular instruction, except in one particular, namely, to provide that they might give such instruction about the filling up of the time table as might make it necessary to have religious instruction either an hour before school or an hour after. If such a thing were done it would be necessary, supposing that the Bishop of Winchester's Amendment were carried, to ask the question whether they were required to give religious instruction in the hour before or in the hour after school, and whether that would give "reasonable facilities" for religions instruction? To get that question answered they would have to go to the Hoard of Education, and he was by no means certain that they would get from that body any permanent answer, because the all knew that from time to time the paramount authority at the Board of Education changed. He imagined that if a certain party were paramount, the answer would be that to require them to give religious instruction out of school hours was not to afford reasonable facilities, but he expected the opposite party might just as likely say that it was affording reasonable facilities. He wanted to make the latter answer impossible, as it would be if the House accepted his Amendment. He had once tried the effect of giving religious instruction before and also after school hours. He tried it when ho was Bishop of Melbourne, but it failed, as it was bound to fail. How could they expect that children would get up an hour before school time to attend a religious lesson, or how could they expect them when they were weary of the day's work to continue an extra hour after school? He might be told that this could be made compulsory. Yes, but complaint would be made that the strength of the child was being overtaxed and injured. That complaint would be a reasonable one, and if it were insisted upon that the children should attend, the parents could get over the difficulty by pleading the Conscience Clause and withdrawing the children from religious instruction. That was what they would do, and unless they made a regulation that religions instruction should be given during school hours, he himself thought that religious instruction would become a delusion and a snare. If they could not secure the giving of religious instruction in school hours, they would very speedily make an end altogether of religious

  539
  instruction. He did not believe that it was the intention to make religious instruction a farce or impossible. Therefore he trusted that his Amendment might receive favourable consideration.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 43, after ' grounds' to insert 'but so far as such directions have reference to the timetable of a school in which religious instruction is given they shall provide that a reasonable time be secured during school hours for religious instruction.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Manchester.)
  EARL STANHOPEsupported the Amendment and expressed the hope that His Majesty's Government would accept it. It was not of any of the supporters of the Bill to limit secular education might be crowed out unless a definite time was given for it during school hours.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHhoped the Government would not accept the Bishop of Manchester's Amendment, which went a considerable way beyond the Amendment standing in the name of the Bishop of Winchester. The Bishop of Manchester complained that as the Bill now stood children might not get religious instruction at all.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER: Not in school hours.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid arrangements could be made, and should be made, for religious instruction to be given, where so desired, out of school hours. The children attending rural schools came, many of them, from a long distance. Therefore it was only reasonable that they should not be deprived of any part of the time now allotted to secular education. The Bishop of Manchester had referred to the Conscience Clause. Some of these children came as many as three, four and five miles to attend school. Were they, while this religious instruction was going on, to be taken out of the school? If so, where were they to go? In his opinion the Amendment would not tend to solve the religious difficulty. In Church schools they would get this instruction under their trust deeds. He did not know why they should compel all the voluntary
  540
  schools to adopt the principles of the Church schools. There were a great number of voluntary schools where the religious instruction was strictly undenominational. If some Clause of this kind were inserted he feared they would have a good deal of friction. He did not speak now in the interests of party but in the interests of religious peace. He hopes the noble Duke would not accept the Amendment, for it would not assist the cause of education.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid the noble Earl who had just spoken had a little misapprehended the difference, if any, between his intention in putting down the Amendment which stood in his name and the intention of his right rev. brother of Manchester. Personally, he did not care much whether one Amendment or the other was accepted, but he thought it was most important that religious teaching should be given during school hours. The noble Earl seemed to suppose that at present religious teaching was given outside school hours. That was not so, and all that the Amendment proposed was to retain it in its present position. Religious teaching could only be given at the beginning or at the end of school teaching, and all that the Amendment suggested was that the regulation of the education authority should not be such as to render that teaching impossible.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHhoped the noble Duke would make quite clear in his reply whether, if this Amendment were carried, it would override the general principle of the time at which religious instruction should be given.
  EARL SPENCER: If it is laid down that religious instruction should only be given at the beginning or end of the school hours, that may obviate some of the objections which I feel to the Amendment now before the House. I certainly should prefer the Amendment of the Bishop of Manchester, because I think it is more consistent with the present law. If as he says,

  541
  and I have no doubt it is the case, that religious instruction must be given at the beginning or the end, I should be prepared to agree to his Amendment. But the Bishop of Manchester's Amendment is much wider, and, under his proposal, time might be taken right in the middle of school hours for religious instruction.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: There is not, I conceive, either in the Bill or in these Amendments, anything which in any degree overrides the provision of the Act of 1870, regulating the times at which religious instruction should be given. It certainly was not the intention when Government promoted this Bill, that the hours of religious instruction should be relegated to a time outside the school hours. In case there should be any doubt upon the subject, the Government are perfectly willing to accept the Bishop of Winchester's Amendment, amended as follows—
  "But no direction given under this provision shall be such as to interfere with reasonable facilities for religions instruction during school hours."
  THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERwithdrew his Amendment in favour of that which the Government were willing to accept.
  *THE LORD BISHOP Of WINCHESTERsaid he would be very glad to move his Amendment in the terms proposed by the noble Duke.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 4, after 'managers,' to insert ' but no direction given under this provision shall be such as to interfere with reasonable facilities for religious instruction during school hours.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DAVEYmoved with regard to sub-Section (d), which provides that the managers of the school shall provide the schoolhouse free of charge, to leave out "except for the teacher's dwelling house." He moved the Amendment with some misgiving, but as it seemed to be the general opinion of the House that noble Lords should move such
  542
  Amendments as they thought fit in the Bill, without regard to the question whether they might not directly or indirectly touch matters outside the control of their Lordships, he was emboldened to lay his Amendment before the House, and he hoped the Government might see their way to accept it. Perhaps their Lordships would allow him to refer to the mode in which the provision excluding the teacher's residence from the school buildings which were to be at the disposal of the public education authority got into the Bill. It was not in the original Bill. On the contrary, the original Bill provided in the clearest terms that the teacher's residence, if any, should be at the disposal of the public education authority. By the term "school house" in the Act of 1870, the master's residence, if any, was included, and this Bill enacted in one of the later sections that the words in the Bill should have the same meaning as they had in the Act of 1870. Therefore, when the Bill spoke of the school house in the sub-Section on which they were now engaged, it clearly included the master's residence as well as the rooms actually used for the purpose of teaching. In Committee in another place, Sir William Anson, who was then, lie thought, already Secretary of the Hoard of Education, proposed an alteration in the Clause including the words as they now stood. In fact, he proposed the Clause in its present form. In doing so, he stated that it was for the purpose of removing an ambiguity, and he invited the House to consider it more as a verbal Amendment than any thing else. He (Lord Davey) took the liberty of saying there was no ambiguity whatever in the Bill as it then stood, and that the Amendment which was made at the instance of the Government was an Amendment of substance and one of considerable importance. He could not suppose that the skilful and able draughtsmen who assisted the Government in the preparation of their Bills could possibly have been mistaken or not have known the meaning of the words they used in drawing the Bill, nor could he suppose that the very able and well-instructed gentleman who assisted the Government at the Board of Education did not know the meaning of the words in the Acts with which they were so familiar. Therefore, he must assume

  543
  that the original design when the Bill was placed before Parliament was that the master's residence should go with the rest of the school buildings, and be at the disposal of the local education authority. He objected to this Amendment on several grounds, but his chief ground was that it would be calculated to lead to confusion and great inconvenience and it was wholly at variance with the scheme and inconsistent with the other provisions of the Bill, Their Lordships were aware that the master's residence was frequently actually part of the same building as the rooms in which the teaching was conducted. The master's residence and the schoolrooms formed together one building or one house, and were indistinguishable. He believed that in the schools which had recently been erected under the supervision of the Educational Department the master's residence was in a separate building. But in the older schools almost invariably it was part of the same building. He thought it must have been the intention of the Government, when this Bill was submitted, that the whole building should be at the disposal of the local education authority, and to distinguish between one part of the building and another and put two parts of the same building on different footings seemed to him calculated to lead to confusion. He had said that the exclusion of the master's residence was contrary to the theory of the Bill. What was the scheme of this Bill as regarded non-provided schools? Undoubtedly that the non-provided schools should remain the property of the trustees, or managers, or private owners in whom they were at present vested. The Bishop of Manchester had said the previous day that they were leasing their schools at a peppercorn rent. That was not what they were doing. Neither the property, nor the possession, nor the occupation of the school was in any way altered; in other words, the school remained the school of the trustees, managers, or private owners. It was true they had to obey the directions of the Department who provided the funds out of which the school was maintained, but the school remained theirs, and they appointed the master. The schools were generallyheld in trust, the essential part of which was that they should be used as public elementary schools in which religious instruction should be given in accordance with the principles of the Church
  544
  of England, and the whole of the school buildings were held under that trust. The master's residence was held in trust to be used as a residence for the teacher in that school, and the trustees were not at liberty to alter the trust. Of course, Parliament might sanction anything, but they were not at liberty, apart from the sanction of Parliament, to use the building which was held in trust to be used as a master's residence for any other purpose. He was indeed surprised to read, in the course of the debates in another place, that the Attorney General had expressed the opinion that the trustees might let the master's residence and use the rent they received for another purpose. He did not think that was an opinion which the Attorney General, acting officially, would be prepared to support. It was, in his opinion, beyond question that they could not use the master's residence, apart from Parliamentary sanction, for any purpose other than that of their master's residence. The master was the master of the managers and the trustees; he was not the master of the local authority. The managers and trustees appointed him and dismissed him, and he conducted the teaching in the school which they maintained under the trust deed. If at any time it were necessary for the master to sue for his salary, he would, of course, sue the managers who appointed him and not the local authority, although the local authority furnished the managers with the funds out of which they paid his salary. Therefore, if the master's residence was retained as a residence for the master, it was but a fulfilment of and in accordance with the trust upon which they held their school buildings. It was in effect and in truth an endowment held for that purpose. An endowment of Consols producing £20 a year in aid of the master's salary could under the Clause relating to endowments go to the local authority in aid of their sources of income. Why, when the endowment was in the form of a house applicable solely for use as a master's residence, should not the benefit equally go to the local authority? Why should they be charged a rent for it? To his mind this was contrary to the theory and to the scope of the Bill. He would have been

  545
  very glad if the school buildings had been transferred to the local authority as the right rev. Prelate suggested they had been. In his opinion that would get rid of a great many of the difficulties they were now faced with in the Bill. If the Bill had been constructed on the principle of the school during school hours being transferred, or, during a stated time in the day, being leased to the local authority, reserving to the managers the use of the school during the rest of the day, he thought they would have got rid of a great many of the difficulties which arose in the Bill. But that was not the scheme of the Bill. The scheme of the Bill was that the school buildings remained the property of the trustees or managers, and the latter continued to hold them and to use them exclusively upon the trusts ordained by the trust deeds. He hoped the Government would consider the point he had raised.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 15, to leave out 'except for the teacher's dwelling-house.'"—(Lord Davey.)
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid there was one remark in the speech of the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken on which he would like to have the opinion of His Majesty's Government. The noble Lord said, as he understood, that the schools were not let at a peppercorn rent. The schools were so let now, and under the Bill it was to be enacted that the managers of the school should provide the school house free of any charge. Did that mean that the peppercorn rent ceased?
  LORD DAVEYsaid he was dealing only with schools which were held in trust and not leased or let in any way—schools held upon a trust which provided that the buildings were to be used for the purpose of public elementary schools in which religion should be taught in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of England. But there was another class of school, viz., schools provided by landowners for the inhabitants of the parishes in which their property was situated. Those schools were usually in private ownership, and not subject to any trust, and the private owner was at liberty to do what he liked with his school.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDpointed out that if a building were occupied for twelve years without rent being paid, the ownership, according to the existing law, lapsed. Was it, then, a fact that if the managers were to pay no rent for these schoolhouses the schoolhouses would cease to belong to the landlord at the end of twelve years and would become the property of the managers or the local authority?
  THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTONsaid it might seem rather hard upon a poor locality that a rich man should have demanded rent for a school, but it was a wise course in view of the Statute of Limitations. Moreover, the landlord in such cases often increased his subscription by the amount of this rent. He had asked a number of private owners if they understood what would be their position under the Bill, and they said that they did not. Some persons, he remarked, were not particularly anxious to sign the trust deeds which were being prepared for them, and would prefer to take some steps by which they would not lose their control over the schools which they at present possessed. Such schools were often situated in very poor localities. The matter was, therefore, an important one, and he thought a clear explanation ought to be made by the Government.
  *EARL SPENCER: I rise on a point of order. I do not for a moment doubt the importance of the matter which the noble Marquess and the noble Duke opposite have referred to, but I venture to think it raises a very much wider question than the question which is actually before the House, and which is merely an Amendment with regard to school teachers' houses. I appeal to the noble Earl in the Chair to say whether it would not be better to discuss the subject of the trust deeds at a later time. I entirely agree with the arguments of my noble and learned friend behind me. The teacher's house, in many cases, is attached to the school building, and, in my opinion, it ought to be included in the question of the transfer of the school house, and not made a separate charge on the funds of the local authority.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): As your Lordships are aware, I have no power to give any ruling; but as the noble Earl has appealed to me for my opinion, I may say that it seems to me the question raised by the Duke of Northumberland and the Marquess of Northampton is beyond the limits of the Amendment now before the House.
  LORD HERRIESsaid that as far as he could see, the Amendment would be an absolute confiscation of the rights of proprietors. He happened to have two schools, each the only school in the parish. In one case the master's house was attached to the school. Was ho to be told that because the house in which one of the masters resided was attached to the school the local authority were to have power over that house without paying any rent? He gave the house as part of the salary of the teacher, and he was now told that because that house was attached to the school it was to become the property of the local authority. He trusted that the Amendment would be rejected.
  LORD DAVEYsaid the noble Lord was mistaken. He expressly stated that the property remained exactly where it was. The only question raised by the Amendment was whether the local authority ought to pay rent for the use by the master of the non-provided school of the residence set apart for him. He had omitted to mention the case where the school and the master's residence were in private ownership. Where there was a residence attached to the schoolrooms he thought it not unfair, as a condition of providing for the maintenance of the school, that the master should have the use of the residence; but, of course, where the school was in private ownership the owner of the school was in a position to make his own bargain.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid the school house was entirely independent and separate in many cases. Therefore, he quite agreed that this exception should be taken.
  LORD BURGHCLEREwished to say a few words on behalf of the already overburdened ratepayer in this connection.
  It seemed that if the Clause as in the Bill came into being they would either have to increase the cost of the schoolmaster to the local authority or to diminish his salary. He would put a concrete case. At the present moment a schoolmaster was paid, say, £100 a year, and had a dwelling house to live in. By this Bill the local authority would have to pay out of the rates rent for the house, say, £20 a year. Therefore, in future, the cost of the schoolmaster to the rates would be £120 a year, or his income would have to be reduced to £80.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid the result of the Amendment would be to ask the owners to make a present of £20 a year in respect of the teacher's house to the local authority.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: There can lie no doubt that the questions raised by the noble Duke behind me and the noble Marquess opposite arc not strictly connected with the Amendment before the House. They have raised a question which may be of very considerable importance; but I think that those who have charge of the Bill have some reason to complain if questions of this importance, difficulty, and intricacy are not raised in the shape of concrete Amendments. I shall devote my observations entirely to the Amendment now before the House. The noble and learned Lord entered into an argument on trust deeds which, I am sorry to say, I did not distinctly follow, owing to the difficulty of hearing. But I conceive it is quite possible that there might be trust deeds under which it would be impossible for the managers to demand rent for the dwelling house. The Clause, as I road it, does not enable the managers to make any charge for the teacher's dwelling-house under circumstances in which the trust deed renders such a charge illegal. What the Clause does say is that they shall provide the schoolhouse, free of any charge, in the building in which the school is held. They are not bound, where a house does not exist, to make any provision for a teacher's residence. I think I agree with the statement of the case put by Lord Burghclere. The provision of a dwelling-house is a part of the teacher's salary, which, under the Bill, the local authority has to provide. If the managers provide the teacher with a

  549
  house, then the local authority has to pay the teacher a smaller salary; if the house is not provided, they will have to pay a larger salary. I do not know why the charge imposed on the local authority is to vary according to whether a dwelling-house is, or is not, connected with the school. The whole charge for the teacher's salary under the Bill falls on the, local authority and the charge for the rent of a house must enter into the consideration of that charge. The Bill enables the managers, if they have a dwelling house under their control, to ask a rent for it, but, of course, I assume they would not be able to exact that rent if there are any provisions in the trust deed under which the house is hold which would make the exaction of such a rent illegal.
  EARL SPENCER: Will the noble Duke put in words to express quite clearly the admission he has just made that in some cases the house cannot be charged for?
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDventured to hope the noble Duke would not give any hasty promise in answer to the noble Earl. Time should be taken to consider this delicate and difficult point.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved to provide that the managers should receive rent from the local authority for the school furniture. He was afraid that if the Clause stood as at present they would have a divided ownership of the furniture, which would be inconvenient, because the managers had paid for the furniture and owned it, but the local authority would have to keep it up. He happened to be manager of a school, and as soon as the Bill passed he intended to advise his brother managers to sell the school furniture, by which means they would get a nice little sum of money for the benefit of the school, and they would sell it to some person who would undertake to let it again to them for eighteen months or two years till the Bill came into full operation. Then the local authority would come into possession minus any furniture at all, which would have to be supplied out of the rates. Although that was a very good
  550
  position for the manager of a school to take up, because he had first of all to consider the interests of the school, he the noble Duke) did not think it was a proper state of affairs so far as the ratepayers were concerned. It seemed to him that it would be much easier if the furniture were left in the hands of the managers. If the Government would consent to this Amendment, all that would be needed would be a consequential Amendment in the Schedule, and the situation would then be made very much easier.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 10, after 'any' to insert and for the school furniture.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The noble Duke, as I understand, suggests that the furniture is to remain the property of the managers, who may charge a rent for it. That seems to me to be an extremely inconvenient arrangement. If it is not desired that the furniture, as the Bill proposes in the Schedule, should be handed over to the local authority, it seems to me much better that the local authority should be empowered to take over the furniture at a valuation. I think it would be extremely inconvenient that the local authority should be required to pay rent for the furniture.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDasked the noble Duke whether he would accept words that would imply that the local authority was in future to take over the furniture at a valuation. His object was to make the ownership of the furniture perfectly clear.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid the adoption of the Amendment would lead to perpetual friction between the managers and the local authority.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDasked the noble Marquess whether he was to take it that, in his opinion, joint ownership caused less friction than single ownership.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND, in order to raise the point to which he had already called the attention of the

  551
  House, moved the omission of the words "out of funds provided by them" from the sub-Section, which enacted that the managers of the school should provide the schoolhouse free of any charge except for the teacher's dwelling-house, if any, to the local education authority, for use as a public elementary school, and should, "out of funds provided by them," keep the schoolhouse in good repair, and make such alterations and improvements in the buildings as might be reasonably required by the local education authority. He wanted to know out of what funds, if any, the rent was to be paid for the school, and who was to pay it.
  Amendment moved—
  " In page 4, line 17, after 'shall,' to omit the words 'out of funds provided by them.'"— (The Duke of Northumberland.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: No rent will be paid for the school.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Then if no rent is to be paid for my school, which I have allowed the local authority to use, will that school at the end of twelve years be mine or the local authority's?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: If the noble Duke is entitled to any rent that is a question between him and the managers of the school. The managers must provide the rent which they have to pay to him. The rent is not in any circumstances to be paid by the local authority.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHasked who would claim the ownership of the schools at the end of twelve years.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): The question is in respect of whom the rent is paid. If the rent is paid, no matter by whom, the hypothesis which has been suggested does not arise. I quite agree that the Statute of Limitations makes the payment of rent the test, but it is not the question that there is not to be any rent paid. The school is not to have rent paid for it by the local authority, but it is not provided that no rent is to be paid for the school.
  LORD DAVEY: A noble Lord who owns a school and manages it by managers is himself in occupation, and therefore the Statute of Limitations could not apply.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORKmoved as an Amendment to the sub-Section providing that the managers "shall, out of funds provided by them, keep the school house in good repair" to substitute the word "structural" for the word "good." The managers were the landlords of the school-house, and therefore bound to keep it in structural repair; they let the school to the local education authority, who became the tenants, and who should presumably be responsible for tenants' repairs. The Bill, however, provided that the managers should be liable for both classes of repair. In many remote parts of the country the schoolhouses, owing to the great difficulties under which they had laboured, and especially owing to the unwholesome rivalry with the board schools, had fallen into very great disrepair. If now the managers were bound not only to put the buildings in structural repair, but to carry out the tenants' repairs as well, the burden would be too heavy for them to bear, and in a large number of cases would lead to the closing of the schools, thereby compelling the local education authority to build new schools, which would necessitate a much larger expenditure than the payment of tenants' repairs.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 18, to leave out, ' good 'and insert 'structural.'"—(The Lord Archbishop o York.)
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDpointed out that the word structural would not legally bear the interpretation which the right rev. Prelate had put upon it.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid he was perfectly ready to adopt any word which would convey his meaning.
  VISCOUNT CROSSsaid it was surely right and proper that one party should bear the cost of landlord's repairs and the other that of tenant's repairs.
  LORD DAVEYwas of opinion that the most rev. Prelate had misconceived the situation altogether. The school was,

  553
  and remained, the property and in the occupation and possession of the managers, and the local authority were not the tenants in any sense whatever. The relation was not that of landlord and tenant at all, but rather that of a person carrying on a school for the maintenance of which a benevolent friend provided the funds.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORKreminded the noble Lord opposite that the managers were to provide the school, and argued that, having provide it, they were no longer tenants of the school except as agents for the local authority.
  *VISCOUNT GALWAYasked out of what funds the managers were to pay for these repairs. There was a very great difference between the managers and the local education authority, because the former had not the power to raise rates for this purpose. He would certainly support the right rev. Prelate. Supposing the windows or doors were broken, would their repair have to be paid for by the local education authority out of the rates, or by the managers? Should it not be part of the expenses of keeping up the school?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, speaking from the point of view of the County Councils, expressed the hope that the Clause as it was at present would be adhered to by the Government. It would be exceedingly inconvenient and troublesome to County Councils if they were expected to provide for the smaller repairs of the schools.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHdesired to have it made quite clear that if the Amendment were accepted they would not be in any way compromising their position as owners. If the interpretation of the right rev. Prelate was correct the local education authority would be tenants. He understood that the owners had the right of getting rid of the local education authority. If the latter subscribed towards the tenant's repairs, it seemed to him a question of grievance as to their being summarily dismissed from their position as tenants. Lord Davey had assured those who owned schools that they would really be in
  554
  occupation, and that the Statute of Limitations would not apply. It was necessary that they should take a logical position, and also assume from that that they had to maintain all the repairs.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDthought they were taking a rather too technical and legal view of the whole question. He was not prepared to contend against the argument of the noble and learned Lord opposite. Legally, the noble and learned Lord might be right, but, as a matter of ordinary everyday business, was it not the fact that the managers would have to find a school somehow or other, if they did not wish to have a, provided school, and that the local authority would provide the money for maintaining that school? If the local authority were to provide the money for keeping up the school, then, surely, the whole duty of keeping it up should be placed on the local authority. What the Bill wanted to do, as it seemed to him, was to place the duty of providing the school upon the managers, and the duty of running it in most particulars upon the local authority. There were certain repairs which would be placed on the managers, and which, as far as practical work went, might logically be placed on the one or the other; but it would be far better carried out by the local authority than by the managers themselves. He was sorry to differ from Lord Northbrook, whose position on the County Councils' Association made his words of great weight with their Lordships. But at the same time, as Chairman of a County Council, he failed to see the excessive difficulty of County Councils checking exorbitant demands upon them for repairs. All that would be required would be from time to time, where they had some reason to suppose that the managers were making an exorbitant or frivolous demand, to send down the county surveyor. Whatever trouble that might cause to the County Council was a mere flea-bite compared to the weight it would have on the managers.
  *EARL SPENCER: I quite agree with my noble friend the Earl of Northbrook that, if the Amendment is accepted, the County Councils will have a most cumbersome and difficult duty cast upon

  555
  them. I can hardly conceive that the managers of these schools should fall so low as to ask that these small sums should be paid out of the local rates. It is, in my opinion, below the dignity of those who have the care and management of these schools to make this demand. I understand that the managers will have a sum which will be more than sufficient to deal with these repairs. It has been calculated that they will have something like £300,000 a year which may be devoted to this purpose, and, as far as I know, they will actually make a profit on the transaction. I hope, therefore, the Government will not give way to this very petty demand.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONwas quite certain that the tremendous importance of this question was not sufficiently realised. He had before him the statistics of five schools, which showed the following facts in each case respectively:—Voluntary subscriptions £335, repairs £385; subscriptions £286, repairs £278; subscriptions £124, repairs £153; subscriptions £130, repairs £166; subscriptions £131, repairs £379. The sum named by him as representing the cost of denominational teaching was not at all the same as the cost of repairs, thought it had been so represented in the other House. The repairs came to a much larger sum. The Clause as it stood would hit the best schools most, for they would have the largest buildings to maintain, while the great would go to the local authority. The resolution on this subject passed by Convocation was strictly confined to extensions and landlord's repairs. It would be a terrible thing if, after all this trouble, many of these schools were to sink merely owing to the burden of repairs.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsupported the Amendment, and said he endorsed everything that had fallen from the most rev. Prelate. He was always ready to admit that it was impossible for them to have their cake and eat it. He did not deny that the principle that a certain amount should be paid by the managers towards the repair and upkeep of their school was a just one in return for the compensating advantages given them under the Bill, but it was a question of degree. It was
  556
  certain, now that the rates were to be used for the support of voluntary school's, that in the rural districts, at any rate, the voluntary subscriptions would be few and far between. In those circumstances, he was afraid that if the managers were to be responsible for repairs the burden would be greater than they could bear. It was a fair and reasonable compromise to limit their liability to the structural repairs. He hoped the most rev. Prelate would press his Amendment, and if a division were taken he should certainly support him.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid that the Bishop of London having pleaded for the large schools, he wished to say a word for those schools which were classed under the heading of necessitous schools. It was, no doubt, true that legally there was no such connection as that of landlord and tenant between the two parties to the agreement under the Bill, but one party was to provide the school and the other to use it, and it seemed a very fair and equitable division that the landlord's repairs should be paid for by the owners of the school and the tenants' repairs by the persons who were occupying it, particularly as in this case the landlord received no rent for the building. A point which had not yet been touched upon was that the local authority, after the passing of the Bill, would be in possession of funds which the managers of the denominational schools up to this stage had had in their hands. And which were applicable to the ordinary repairs of the school. One of the sources of revenue of the denominational schools in former years were the fees that were paid, but in 1891 Parliament commuted these fees for a grant. The fees were applicable to repairs, and the grant which was given in lieu of them would, under the Bill, pass into the hands of the local education authority. The latter body wished to get rid of the burden of repairs, but yet they took the grant. In addition, there was a further sum given in 1897, on account of their poverty, to the necessitous schools, which considerably lightened the burden of repairs. But that grant would also be transferred under the Bill to the local education authority. He thought that

  557
  in those circumstances these schools had some claim on the local education authority for the payment of the cost of repairs.
  *EARL SPENCER: I wish to raise a very important point with regard to this Amendment. I am distinctly of opinion that this is a question of privilege, as the Amendment involves an addition to the rates. Sub-Section 3 contains the words that—
  "The question shall be determined by the Board of Education, and compliance with this section shall be one of the conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain a Parliamentary grant."
  The carrying out of repairs is one of the conditions on which the Parliamentary grant is to be made. I shall, therefore, oppose the Amendment not only on its merits, but as a distinct breach of privilege.
  THE EARL, OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that the noble Earl, if he were of that opinion, ought to move that the Amendment be not put. He took exception to these points of order being addressed to His Majesty's Government, who had no power to determine such matters. The House of Commons was surety able to protect itself without the assistance of the noble Earl. Some noble Lords seemed to be much more anxious about the rights and privileges of the other House than of those of their own House.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not for a moment impute any bad faith to the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London. I am perfectly aware that the Resolution to which the Joint Committee of Convocation agreed, pledged that body only to structural repairs, and that they carefully guarded themselves against offering to undertake, on behalf of the managers of voluntary schools, any liability for internal repairs. At the same time, I must point out that it was no doubt the general intention of the Bill, as introduced by the Government, that the managers should undertake to do everything which was necessary, not only in providing the buildings, but for keeping them in a suitable condition for the work of the schools. The question was raised in the course of the discussions in the House of Commons, and this view of the Government was sustained by a very large majority—a
  558
  majority far larger than the ordinary Party majority of the Government. I quite admit that since that decision was come to in the House of Commons, our attention has been called to cases of considerable hardship, such as had been referred to by the right rev. Prelate, which would arise in some of the large towns where the burden of repairs may be extremely heavy. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that we view this Amendment with a considerable amount of sympathy, even if we are not able to give it our support and approval. I fear that any attempt to meet these cases of exceptional hardship would go very far beyond those cases, and would disturb to a very serious extent the general arrangements which are contemplated by the Bill. The noble Earl opposite has referred to the question of privilege. I do not feel called upon to express any opinion on that point. Every one of your Lordships is as competent as we on this Bench can be to form an opinion as to the views which are likely to be taken in the other House of such an Amendment as that which is proposed. I think, however, that it is worth while to consider, having regard to the very large majority by which the present form of the Bill was sustained in the other House, whether an Amendment of this character would not be one which would be extremely likely, at all events, to raise difficulties with the other House. It is impossible, I think, that we should look at this question entirely by itself. It is closely connected with others we have been discussing, and which we shall probably have still further to discuss. What we have attempted to do in this Bill is to make certain arrangements as between the managers of the voluntary schools and the local education authority in regard to their pecuniary relations, and those arrangements cannot be looked upon individually, but must be taken as a whole. What we have proposed is that the managers shall make themselves responsible, not only for the structural, but also for the internal repairs of the school; that is to say, they must put the building in that state in which the local education authority will be able to use it for the purposes of the school. We further require

  559
  the managers to give to the local authority the use of the school-house three nights a week for other purposes free of any charge and (this is a point we have just been discussing) we require the managers also to give to the local authority the use of the existing furniture without any charge. On the other hand, we have never suggested that this Bill would enable voluntary subscriptions to be entirely dispensed with. My noble friend Lord Galway asked from what sources these repairs were to be provided for. No doubt voluntary subscriptions will have to be continued for the purpose of keeping up these structural and internal repairs, and probably for some other purposes also. But, as has been pointed out, we have gone some way in relieving the necessity for very large voluntary subscriptions in the future. We propose to provide that the managers shall continue to receive a certain portion of the existing endowments, and that where fees are maintained a certain proportion of those fees shall be devoted to the charges which fall upon the managers. We have also just decided to enable the managers to charge a rent for the teacher's house. In my opinion, your Lordships must look at all these provisions as part of an arrangement which is the best we have been able to suggest in regard to the financial relations between the local authority and the managers. I therefore deprecate as strongly as I can any proposal materially to modify that arrangement in favour of one party or the other. It is for that reason that we declined just now to depart from the arrangement arrived at in regard to a rent for the teacher's house, and it is in the same spirit that we ask your Lordships to adhere to this arrangement. Your Lordships must not forget that this Bill has never professed to relieve those who are interested in denominational schools from the necessity of finding some portion of the expenditure which will be required to maintain them. I trust that it may not be beyond the power of a body like the Church to provide, by means of general subscriptions, extending over large and wealthy areas, for the cases of hardship and necessity which undoubtedly will occur in the case of the voluntary schools
  560
  such as those referred to by the right rev. Prelate; and I have very little I doubt that the zeal which has up to now been shown by the Church in supporting, under far more difficult circumstances, voluntary schools all over the country, will enable them to find some mode of meeting these difficulties, which I trust will be to a great extent exceptional.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid they all admitted that the Church must be ready to give some return for the privilege accorded to her of providing and maintaining religious instruction in the schools. But the Church had given to the State the use of these school buildings, not only during the school hours but also three nights a week. Estimating the rent of these buildings at ¾ per cent, of their cost, the rental amounted to £715,000 a year. The Church was giving that up, and was also willing to provide for the improvement and alteration of the buildings, and for other repairs that were not due to wear and tear. The Church was willing to repair all damage to the buildings except that caused by the wear and tear of the children under the control of the local authority, and that would come to about half of what the whole of the repairs would be. The average cost of repairs in the board schools was 2s. l0d. per head. On that basis the repairs in the Church schools would amount to £700,000 a year. Therefore, the Church was asked to contribute £1,400,000, not for the privilege of controlling the whole of their schools, but for being allowed to give religious instruction according to their belief. That was a splendid bargain for the State; it was too good a bargain. The State ought not to extort from the Church this enormous sum; they ought to share with the Church the cost of repairs. But for the labours of the voluntary schools in many overcrowded districts the destitute population would be allowed to become pagans. He mentioned that in an area in Manchester containing a population of 100,000 people there was not a single resident Nonconformist minister, and the whole pastoral care of the people was left to the clergy of the Church, and, he might add, of the priests of the Church of Rome. It was said, "Why don't you go to the great

  561
  millowners?" But the millowners were for the most part converted—he did not mean religiously—into limited liability companies, and it was about as easy to get subscriptions out of these corporations as it was to get water out of a stone. It was because he saw the grave issues involved that he urged that it was only fair and honest that the State should take one-half of the expenses of the repairs. It was, in fact, a very good bargain for the State.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHsaid it would be convenient to know whether the House was discussing the Archbishop of York's Amendment or the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the Bishop of Manchester. He respectfully appealed to His Grace not to press his Amendment to a division. He could hardly think that the parishes which the Bishop of London had given the House statistics of were typical of all the parishes throughout the country, and he thought this was a case where the richer parishes must be prepared to come forward and support the poorer. Much as he would like to see the Amendment accepted by the Government, he feared that from the resolutions passed at Convocation, it might be supposed that the Church was acting with something like a bad grace.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: No, no.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHsaid that was his personal opinion. He should not like to see the Church left open to the charge of being grasping in its demands He, therefore, could not support the Amendment.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid he was willing to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that standing on the Paper in the name of the Bishop of Manchester. Not only did both Amendments cover the same ground, but the Amendment of his right rev. brother had the advantage of being supported by a powerful speech.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid he should move his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 20, after 'authority,' to insert 'provided that all damage due to wear and tear shall be made good by the local authority.'" —(The Lord Bishop of Manchester.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I only wish to interpose a very few words with regard to the Amendment now before the House, if I am quite sure what it is. The Bishop of St. Asaph, who has been so long in this House, seemed to be a little perplexed as to the particular Amendment we are discussing. We are apparently browsing about among Amendments, and are not confined to any one. I think, however, that the speech of the Bishop of Manchester will produce a very great effect in the country, and an effect which was anticipated by his right rev. successor in debate. I confess that when I listened to it I could hardly believe my ears, and when he wound up by saying that this was an excellent bargain for the State, I could not help feeling that the State in future would not be very anxious for bargains with the Church if that was the Church's notion of a bad bargain for itself. To listen to the right rev. Prelate, one would think that before the evil interposition of this arbitrary measure, which is almost to break the backs of the Church, the structures of these schools were maintained by some invisible fund which could no longer be available, and that this burden was a completely new one for the Church.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid what the Church complained of was, first, that a portion of the fees was withdrawn, and, second, that there were withdrawn from the schools charges which they were accustomed to make for internal repairs, which were allowed by the Board of Education.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: But, at any rate, there is no pretence, I imagine, that these sources of revenue, however considerable they may have been, were sufficient to meet the cost of the structural maintenance of the schools.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER: I think they were.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: That is altogether new light to me, and I bow to the statement of the right rev. Prelate. But, on the other hand, the right rev. Prelate altogether omitted to state that there are any counter-balancing advantages for the very cruel disadvantages which he represented the Church to labour under in this matter. Are we really to understand, as the right rev. Prelate would have us believe, that this is a perfectly one-sided bargain, in which the Church gives everything and gains nothing? I think, if he will allow me to say so, that the right rev. Prelate endeavoured to prove a little too much. You must take your cake one way or the other, and when he stated his budget to the House it varied with the course of his argument. Sometimes he spoke of the structures of the school as structures of enormous value which the Church was surrendering to the State for no consideration at all except for the right of giving religious instruction, and sometimes they were ruinous and costly to repair, and according to the changes in his argument so were the changes in the structures.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid he did not say anything about
  their being ruinous. He said they were old buildings, and that, as old schools, they were more likely to need repairs than new schools.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I a pologise if I misrepresented the right rev. Prelate. I condensed a sentence into an adjective; it shows the danger or condensation. But taking his speech with that of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London, who read out some rather striking figures from his parochial budget, I am inclined to think that the epithet "ruinous," from the structural point of view, is not altogether an unworthy one. After all, I think it will go forth to the world, and even to Australia, of which the right rev. Prelate must have some reminiscences, as a matter of some astonishment that at this stage of the Bill a Bishop of the Established Church of England should rise and state that the measure placed upon the Church a most intolerable burden, and that it was to the State an excellent bargain.
  On Question, that the words proposed to be inserted stand part of the Clause, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 88.

  CONTENTS.

  York, L. Abp.

  Manvers, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Mayo, E.

  London, L Bp.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Mount Edgeumbe, E.

  Manchester, L. Bp.

  [Teller]

  Nelson, E.

  Newcastle, L. Bp.

  Newcastle, D.

  Romney, E.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Northumberland, D.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Rutland, D.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Somerset, D.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Stanhope, E.

  Southwell, L. Bp.

  Bristol, M.

  Strafford, E.

  Truro, L. Bp.

  Hertford, M.

  Verulam, E.

  Winehester, M.

  Whatnecliffe, E.

  Addington, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Cross, V.

  Basing, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Falmauth, V.

  Boston, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Derby, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Brougham and Vaux, L

  Doneaster, E.(D. Becelcuch and Queensberry.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Hutchinson, V.(E. Donough-more.)

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Knut-ford, V.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  De Frevne, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Dormer, L.

  Hchester, E.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Lichfield, E.

  Chester, L. Bp. [Telaer.]

  Dunmore, L.(E. Dunmore.)

  Londesborough, E.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Lucan, E.

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Forester, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Ely, L. Bp.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Lichfield, L. Bp.

  Glenesk, L.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston)

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Hatherton, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Herries, L.

  North, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  O' Brien, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)

  Penrhyn, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Pirbright, L.

  wrottesley, L.

  Meldrum, L.(M. Huntly.)

  Robertson, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Rowton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Farrer, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Glanusk, L.

  Hillingdon, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Hindlip, L.

  Portland, D.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Hothfield, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Hylton, L.

  Hampden, V.

  James, L.

  Camden, M.

  Ridley, V.

  Kenyon, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Northampton, M.

  Allerton, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Zetland, M.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Lindley. L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Balfour, L.

  Ludlow, L.

  Barrymore, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Belper, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Reay, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Burton, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Carew, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Lathom, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Rosmead, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Morley, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Davey, L.

  Shand, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Portsmouth, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Denman, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Erskine, L.

  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to provide that no charge should be made for the teacher's dwelling-House where it was vested in trustees for the purposes of the school. He hoped, in view of the statement of the Duke of Devonshire in the debate on the Amendment of Lord Davey, that the Government would accept this. It was merely intended to safeguard the case of schools under trust deeds.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 20, after 'authority' to insert 'but no charge shall be made for the teacher's dwelling-house where the same is vested in trustees in trust for the purposes of the school." '—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD DAVEYsupported the Amendment, although he thought it might require a little alteration exactly to
  566
  express what he understood the noble Duke to say in the discussion on a previous Amendment—namely, that where the trust deed provided that the residence should be held as a residence for the master, and for no other purpose, no rent should be charged.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid that if the local authority did not provide the teacher with a dwelling-house they would have to give him its equivalent in salary, and naturally those who had built a house for the benefit of the teacher had a right to demand rent for it. It would be the height of injustice to those who had been generous enough to build a house in connection with the school that they should not have the benefit of it when the local authority took over the school.
  LORD DAVEYsaid the noble Marquess had evidently mistaken what the Amendment meant. It was not a question of the owner of the school having generously provided a schoolhouse as well. The house in the cases contemplated by the Amendment did not belong to the managers. It was vested in them as trustees on trust, to be used for the purposes of the school. They had no power under the trust to be either generous or the reverse, and all that the Amendment demanded was that they should continue to fulfil their trust by allowing the schoolhouse to be used for the purposes of the school.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved to insert a new sub-Section in regard to non-provided schools. He said he put the Amendment on the Paper because he found nothing in the Bill to say that any of these schools should open with daily prayer and religious worship. By inadvertence he omitted to move a similar Amendment in regard to provided schools, but he would be glad to secure a provision that in all elementary schools Biblical instruction should be given daily under the Cowper - Temple Clause, by which he meant without any formularies distinctive of one denomination or another. In his opinion the Cowper-Temple Clause had hardly been fairly treated. It had been very unfortunately misunderstood to mean that when the managers of a school were about to appoint a teacher they should not inquire as to the religious denomination to which he belonged, or as to his character in that denomination as a religious man. For his part he would entirely decline to appoint a man to the responsible office of teaching young children the Gospel in any elementary school without inquiring as far as he could whether that man was an honest and religious member of his denomination, whatever it might be. He believed that in the country the Amendment would be generally acceptable, in all their country schools, at any rate, and that it would make for peace.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 36, after 'sub-Section (2.)' to insert '(3.) The managers of the school shall
  568
  provide that: (1.) The school shall open and close daily with religious worship; (2.) Religious instruction, based upon the reading of the Bible, shall form part of the regular instruction of the school for all children whose parents do not object under the Conscience Clause; (3.) The foundation managers may claim that the duly appointed clergyman or minister of the denomination that owns the school buildings shall have free access to the school at reasonable times to superintend or to give religious instruction in accordance with the doctrines of the denomination to those children whose parents belong to it.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This large Amendment might reasonably claim a prominent place in an Education Bill framed by the right rev. Prelate, but it can have no possible place in the Bill of the Government. The Amendment does not state whether it applies to provided or maintained schools, or to both, but in any case our objection to it is insuperable. If passed it would dislocate the Bill, the scheme of which is to leave the question of religious instruction exactly where it is now, both in provided and in maintained schools.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: Would the attitude of the Government be the same if the sub-Sections were moved separately?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Exactly.
  On question, Amendment negatived.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved an Amendment to provide that in maintained schools all teachers might be appointed without reference to religious creed and denomination, instead of only assistant teachers and pupil teachers. His Amendment was not compulsory; he wished simply to give the managers the option in this important matter. He saw no reason why the managers should not be free to appoint a good Wesleyan mistress as head mistress of the infant school if they saw fit. Under the Clause as it stood, however, they would not be able to do so.
  "In page 4, line 44, to leave out 'assistant' and to insert 'all.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ELYpointed out that in many cases it was provided by the trust deed that the teachers should be appointed with reference to religious creed. He thought that the head teacher should undoubtedly be of the particular denomination to which the school belonged.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid he asked that, notwithstanding any trust deed, this liberty should be given. He desired the liberty of managers to be extended so as to include all teachers.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Clause overrides the provisions of the trust deeds to a certain extent—to the extent of enabling them, in spite of anything which may be contained in the trust deeds, to appoint assistant teachers and pupil teachers without reference to their religious views; but the right rev. Prelate proposes still further to override them. We believe that such a power as that proposed, if possessed by the managers, would cause a great deal of alarm among Church managers, and that this alarm would be produced for really no practical purpose whatever. We think we have gone quite as far as, in the circumstances of the case, it is desirable to go, and we are unable to accept the Amendment.
  *EARL SPENCER: It does not follow, because the head teacher is included in this Clause, that he should be a Nonconformist. What I always feel about these matters is that the Church has not confidence in itself. The adoption of this proposal would tend to remove the felling on the part of Nonconformists that they labour under a very onerous disability, knowing as they do that in something like 8,000 schools Nonconformists will almost certainly be excluded from the position of head teacher. I earnestly hope the Government will agree to the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid that one of the objects of a denominational school was to teach the religion of that denomination, and the proposition that the head teacher need not believe the religion for the teaching of which the school was founded seemed to him not only inadmissible, but absolutely contrary to common sense.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid that, while he had the greatest sympathy with the line taken by the Bishop of Hereford, he feared he could not support the Amendment, because it seemed to him it would take away the very character which they felt must belong to denominational schools, and which it was the very object and purpose of this legislation to maintain.
  THE EARL OF COMPERDOWNsaid that, as he read the Amendment, it applied to all public elementary schools which were maintained but not provided by the local education authority. Apparently that would include schools which were under trust deeds. The Amendment would, therefore, enable managers who were governed by trust deeds to defeat the expressed conditions of those deeds. To that extent he could not agree with the Amendment but if the right rev. Prelate would limit his proposal to those schools which were not bound by trust deeds he should be ready to support it.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: The Amendment would then be unnecessary. That can be done now.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause,"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 167; Not-Contents, 27.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Portland, D.

  Camden, M.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Rutland, D.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Somerset, D.

  Hertford, M.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Wellington, D.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Bedford, D.

  Winchester, M.

  Newcastle, D.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Zetland, M.

  Northumberland, D.

  Bristol, M.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Llandaff, V.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Ridley, V.

  Forester, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Belmore, E.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Glenesk, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Ely, L. Bp.

  Coventry, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Hatherton, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Manchester, L. Bp.

  Herries, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Newcastle, L. Bp.

  Hillingdon, L.

  Derby, E.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Hothfield, L.

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

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Hylton, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  James, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Southwell, L. Bp.

  Kenyon, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Truro, L. Bp.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Feversham, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Lindley, L.

  Hchester, E.

  Addington, L.

  Ludlow, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)

  Lauderdale, E.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Lichfield, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Middleton, L

  Londesborough, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Lucan, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Basing, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Belper, L.

  North, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Boston, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Penrhyn, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Pirbright, L.

  Romney, E.

  Braye, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  bertson, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Briugham and Vaux, L.

  Rosmead, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Burton, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Colchester, L.

  Stalbridge,

  Verulam, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Cottesloe, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Teynham, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  De Freyne, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Dormer, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Colville of Culross V.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Wenlock, L.

  Cross, V.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Wimborne, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Erskine, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Fairlie, L.(E. Glasgow.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Northampton, M.

  Hampden, V.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Monkswell, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Reay, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

  Burghclere, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Portsmouth, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Davey, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Spencer, E.

  Denman, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Farrer, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Kinnaird, L.

  Welby, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  LORD COLCHESTERmoved that in public elementary schools maintained, but not provided, by the local education authority assistant teachers and pupil teachers "not belonging to the denomination with which the school is connected"
  572
  might be appointed, "if thought to be required by the circumstances of the school." At present the words in the Clause were, "if it is thought fit, without reference to religious creed and denomination." His Amendment was intended

  573
  to avoid the impression being given that the question of religions creed and denomination was to be altogether disregarded, and to meet the case of schools where, there being many children of other denominations than that of the school, it might be desirable to appoint assistant teachers more or less in sympathy with them, not "without regard to," but because of their denomination. It seemed to be the view of a portion of the teaching profession that the school existed for the sake of the teacher; he contended that the interests of the school should take precedence of those of the teacher.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 44, after the second 'teachers,' to insert 'not belonging to the denomination with which the school is connected'; and in page 5, line 1, to leave out from 'appointed' to the second 'and' in line 2, and to insert 'if thought to be required by the circumstances of the school.'"—(lord Colchester.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I cannot help thinking that this is practically an Amendment of a verbal character. Whatever you may introduce in the way of indicating the intention of Parliament, I do not imagine that the words would have the slightest different signification from those in the Bill. I think it would be regrettable that Parliament should give an indication that there are only a particular set of schools in which this greater freedom should be exercised by the managers. I think the intention of the Clause is that, if the managers should think that a teacher of a denomination other than that with which the school is connected is the best male or female teacher, they should have the liberty to appoint him or her to that position, and I do not think the indication which the noble Lord desires to give to the managers, that this right should only be exercised in the case of certain schools in which there are a certain number of undenominational children, should be inserted. In these circumstances, and as, in my opinion, the alteration would not produce the slightest difference in the legal effect of the Clause, it had better remain as it is.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  *THE EARL OF HALSBURYrose to move the first of a series of Amendments on sub-Section 5, which is as follows—
  "Religious instruction shall be given in a public elementary school not provided by the local education authority in accordance with the tenour of the provisions (if any) of the trust deed relating thereto, and shall be under the control of the managers."
  He said: My Lords, as your Lordships will no doubt observe, the first two Amendments are of a purely drafting character—to omit the words "shall be" before the word "given" and to insert the words "shall, as regards its character, be" after the word "authority." I have undertaken, on the part of the Government, to redraft and remodel that which has been known in another place as the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, and it is for your Lordships to decide whether you will discuss the whole question of that Amendment on those drafting Amendments or wait until the alteration of substance which I shall propose comes up.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 7, to leave out 'shall be.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  *EARL SPENCER: With regard to the first Amendment, which is merely of a drafting character, I shall offer no opposition, but I am not prepared to say that I agree with the subsequent Amendments. I prefer another form, and I reserve my judgment.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I need not refer in detail to the doubts existing as to the meaning of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, but it is generally agreed that there is no very confident opinion in the mind of anyone of the meaning of the sub-Section. There have been several definitions of it. There was the celebrated definition given by a high authority at the Albert Hall; definitions have been given in the House of Commons by the Attorney General and others, but not one has agreed with the other. Therefore I think it would be well to make the intention clear. There are two courses open to your Lordships—either to strike out the sub-Section and frame a new one, or to retain the old

  575
  sub-Section and work upon it. I have taken the first course, and my Amendmen is on the Paper. Lord Davey also proposes to substitute a new sub-Section for the old one. The Government, however, through my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, have placed Amendments on the Paper which will have the effect, not of striking out the sub-Section, but of amending it. As to the matter of form, the Government have a right to deal with their own Bill, and if the Bill goes back to the other House substantially amended in respect of this sub-Section, the Government will have to take charge of it. It has already in its present form passed the ordeal of the House of Commons. If an entirely new sub-Section is substituted, that new sub-Section will have to be discussed word for word in the other House, and I can well under stand the desire of the Government tohave the old sub-Section retained and amended in order to save time. As to substance, the Amendments proposed by my noble and learned friend substantially produce the same results as my own Amendment, and, indeed, are more favourable to my own view than the Amendment which I have myself placed upon the Paper. I therefore think it is better to proceed with the Lord Chancellor's Amendments than to begin de nouo.
  *VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: I would point out to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that his first Amendment is not entirely a drafting Amendment, and that it is open to this inference—that the managers, if they choose, may not give religious instruction at all. [The LORD CHANCELLOR dissented.] If this was a matter of law I should bow to the opinion of my noble friend, but it is a matter of common-sense, which anybody can decide as well as a lawyer. The sub-Section, as it is proposed to amend it, would read—
  "Religious instruction given in a public elementary school, not provided by the local education authority, shall, as regards its character, be iu accordance," and so on.
  I can well understand managers, in order to avoid wrangling and disputes, saving,—"To cut this matter short we will give no religious instruction at all
  576
  in our school." I am sure that was not what my noble and learned friend intended.
  *THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I cannot I help regretting that my noble friend, after his own distinguished career at the Bar, should draw a marked distinction I between common-sense and law. With regard to the particular point he has raised, I think the noble and learned Lord has not displayed his usual astuteness. It is true that the words "religious instruction shall be given" are struck out, but the whole theory of the Clause is that there is a trust deed by which those responsible for the management of the school are bound to give religious instruction. That is the only reason why the words are unnecessary. The operation of the Clause would be exactly the same whether these words are there or not. If the managers were to abstain from giving religious instruction, and there was an instruction in the trust deed that religious instruction should be given, they would be guilty of a breach of trust, and the mode in which they could be forced to do their duty in that case would be exactly the same, whether these words were in or not. If, on the other hand, there are no directions in the trust deed that religious instruction should be given what right have you to put those directions in the Clause? If you did so, you would be enacting something which was not in the trust deed, and you have no right to do that. This Bill does not contemplate that where religious instruction is not given under a trust deed the Legislature should interfere.
  *VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: The Clause, as I read it, exempts from the control of the managers one provision in the trust deed—namely, the provision giving an appeal to the bishop as to the character of the religious instruction bestowed. As to everything else, the control of the managers overrides the clergyman. Every part of the trust deed except the part reserved, and only one part is reserved, is under the control of the managers. Therefore, the answer of the managers to such a suit as the Lord Chancellor suggested,

  577
  would be that in the exercise of their discretion they had determined to give no religious instruction in the school.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDasked what the effect of the sub-Section would be on schools which had no trust deed.
  *THE EARL OF HALSBURY: No effect at all.
  *THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBEmoved to insert in sub-Section (5) words providing that religious instruction shall be given in the non-provided schools in accordance with "the principles and doctrines of the Church or denomination to which the school belongs," and (at the end of the Clause) that they should have the right of appeal in case of differences arising as to the character of the religious instruction. He said the meaning of the Clause on this important point was not clear as it stood, and he wished to secure that the religious teaching given up to the present time should be continued in the future. He always believed that was the vital principle of the Bill, but it was not stated in this sub-Section. The sub-Section only referred to schools with trust deeds, and did not say what was to become of all the other denominational schools which had not trust deeds, the greater number of which were Church of England schools. He supposed there was hardly a Roman Catholic or Nonconformist school in the country that had not a trust deed. In fact, it was difficult to understand how such a school could well come into existence without one, but the schools of the Church of England were in a totally different position. They had grown up from small beginnings during the past 100 years—at any rate, long before 1870—as part and parcel of the parochial system which was intimately wrapped up with the Established Church of this country. They had held that position and taught the doctrines of the Church of England rather by a kind of prescriptive right than by virtue of any legal instrument of which they felt no need. He imagined that the Government wished that teaching to be continued, but, if so, it ought to be clearly stated in
  578
  the Bill. He desired to ensure in connection with all schools, not merely those possessing trust deeds, the right of appeal to the constituted authority in case of any difference as to the religious teaching, which right was given in a modified form by the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor. It was only Church of England schools that were affected. The schools of all other denominations, he believed, had this right of appeal to their own ecclesiastical authority. If they had not, it was because they had tied down their managers so tightly that no appeal was required. The Government had declared, through the lips of their law officers in another place, that they had considered this right of appeal to the Bishop as the essential and only safeguard against wrangling, deadlock, or litigation. He could hardly understand how they could now abandon a large number of Church of England schools to these ruinous alternatives. They would be told, no doubt, that schools could obtain trust deeds if they wished. That was a point upon which he hoped to have some definite information from the Government. It might be easy for schools without a trust deed to obtain one, but was it easy or inexpensive for a school which had a trust deed which did not give this important safeguard to have it so modified as to give it? There was another point. If deeds were to be obtained they must be obtained before the Act came into operation, and therefore by the existing managers. It was quite possible that in some schools in which the Bishop's arbitration was most specially needed there might be circumstances which would induce either the clergyman or the managers to feel a disinclination to have a trust deed, and in such a case, owing to some temporary circumstances, that school would be excluded permanently from getting this important safeguard. There were certain causes which made this right of appeal more necessary now than in past times. It was impossible to deny that there were a few of the clergy who, to use a very mild expression, were inclined, and he might say determined, to take a line of their own in religious instruction, and especially in the religious education of children. Although no doubt Nonconformists who had to send

  579
  their children to Church schools when there was only one school in the district did not as a rule object to their children being taught in accordance with the formularies of the Church of England, and although some of the violence which had been displayed in the opposition to the Bill had been stirred up by those militant political Dissenters whose extinction Lord Rosebery so bitterly deplored, but who seemed to have been in exceeding good fettle during the last few months. Still, he was certain that, in the minds of a great many of the more moderate and thoughtful Nonconformists, there was a feeling of bitterness and of suspicion, which was due to their dread that extreme men might teach in the schools doctrines and practices which they could not find in the formularies of the Church of England, and which they regarded as poisonous to the faith of their children. He knew that feeling was also shared by a large number of lay members of the Church of England. In considering the special need for this appeal they had to take into account the elected managers. Of course, those managers would not have, under ordinary circumstances, any direct control over the religious teaching in the school as they were in a minority, but they would certainly watch that teaching closely, not necessarily in a hostile, but certainly in a critical, spirit, and they were likely enough to stir up questions which might otherwise remain quiet, either for good or for evil. Both for the clergy's and the managers' sakes he considered this safeguard was entirely needed, and he believed it would be welcomed by a great many Nonconformists as well as by Church of England people. The feeling of distrust to which he had referred, avowedly produced its Kenyon-Slaney Clause. It had inflicted an irrevocable slight upon the clergy, which fell on the great majority in consequence of the insubordination of a few. He was sure the feelings expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury were fully shared by his right reverend brethren. He feared that any attempt on the part of the Bishops to change this feature of the Clause, such as was to be attempted by the Bishop of London, could hardly end in anything but a demonstration. He felt any such change would have no chance in the House of Commons. Surely the right reverend Bench would be acting more practically
  580
  if they endeavoured to protect their clergy, and the children under their care, by asking the Government to recognise the rights of the Church as a body to be the arbiter, as the ecclesiastical authorities in other denominations were the arbiters, in their schools. Among all the Churches and denominations the Church of England stood alone in this respect. It had a right to expect consideration, not merely because it was the Church of England, established by law, not merely because of what it had done for religion and education, but because it was the only Church bound down by Acts of Parliament and legal fetters in a way no other Church or denomination was bound. It was bound and to a great extent crippled in its self-government and discipline, and above all in its power of self-improvement and reform. It had a right, therefore, to special consideration at the hands of Parliament, not in order to give it an advantage over any other Church or denomination, but in order to see that because of its special position it was not placed at a grievous disadvantage in comparison with other Churches and denominations. This would be the case unless Parliament assisted in giving the Church of England this recognition of its ecclesiastical authority. If the Bishops realised, as they must, the ruinous effect upon the position and work of the Church which came from the uncertainty and unrecognised character of episcopal authority, he thought they would press upon the Government every chance of having that authority openly and publicly vindicated by Parliament. It was an opportunity which if now lost might never recur. The Government were conscious of the importance of this right of appeal, and he asked them to have the courage of their opinion, to leave the shelter-trench of trust deeds and come out into the open and boldly assert that the Church of England should have the same right of appeal as all other Churches. Let them cut off the red tape from this Clause and make it clear and practical instead of patchy and uncertain in character. The Amendment was not inconsistent with the principle of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, and if the Government proceeded

  581
  with the matter in the way he proposed they would earn the thanks of a large number of laymen of the Church of England and of the most thoughtful Nonconformists.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 9, after 'with,' insert 'the principles and doctrines of the Church or denomination to which the school belongs, and with.'"—(The Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe.)
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKsaid that those whose religious convictions were the same as his own would support Amendments which appeared to modify this sub-Section, but he did not believe that any proposals could be carried by which their objection to the sub-Section itself would be removed, because they regarded it as involving a principle which it was wholly impossible for them to support. The present Amendment admittedly did not affect the principle of the sub-Section; it was, however, a slight improvement on the provision as it stood, and he should be disposed to accept it. They would probably be beaten in dividing against the sub-Section as a whole; therefore it would be wise to do their best to secure the accceptance of Amendments which, in their opinion, tended to its improvement. He approached the subject from two points of view, which, to some extent, were analogous. In the first place, they, as Roman Catholics, felt the strongest obligation in their own minds not to support a Bill containing the principle involved in this Clause without doing their utmost to make it perfectly clear that it was only in spite of their strenuous opposition that the principle remained. The principle involved was that the religious upbringing of the children was to be committed to a body of six managers. The trust deed would undoubtedly bring in many safeguards, but that was the principle. It was not a necessary part of the enactment that there should be any trust deeds at all. According to their religious law it was part of the sacred duty and responsibility of the Bishop to take charge of and watch over the religious education of the children, and they could not accept a principle which took from the Bishop that charge and responsibility, and vested it in this body of managers. The Amendment before the House suggested a means of
  582
  bringing in the Bishops, or those holding similar positions in other denominations, and giving them a power of interference in certain parts of the religious instruction, but where there were no trust deeds the principle would remain unchecked in any degree. Roman Catholics maintained that it was not upon the priest or laymen, or any one but the Bishop, that the responsibility rested, and although he might, and probably would, look upon the priest of the parish or mission as the individual to carry out his directions and work out what he believed to be right, still it was upon the Bishop the responsibility rested, and from that responsibility they could do nothing to relieve him. Then looking at the question on general grounds, if the religious education of the children was so important that special steps were to be taken for the preservation of the denominational schools in order that the children might be brought up in the religion of their parents, it seemed to be a most unhappy and unfortunate scheme to throw that religious education on a table to be wrangled over by these six managers. It would probably work out that four of the managers would be of the denomination to which the school belonged, but it was specially enacted that two should be elected; there was no guarantee that those two would be of the same denomination, and they probably would not be. Therefore, this question, as to the necessity of which being carried out in a peaceful manner they had heard so many exhortations, was to be made a bone of contention among the very body of managers that were to carry it out. It had been argued that the two elected managers would not interfere in the matter. No doubt there were men of discretion who would feel that in the interests of the work to be done it would be better not to interfere, but there were a great many others who would say, "What are we here for at all? We are here for the distinct purpose of preventing the denominational schools being too denominational; we are here to represent the broader thoughts from outside, and to permeate the deliberations of the four managers by other views; our whole business is to interfere as much as possible with the religious control of the school." The position would be absurd. It had been said that the reason for this extraordinary scheme was that in many parishes in

  583
  England the clergyman asserted an independent spirit, would not be guided by the counsel of his Bishop, paid no heed to the wishes of his parishioners as to the religious instruction they desired to be given to their children, and that some control was necessary to prevent the vagaries and eccentricities of such clergymen in the interest of the religion they professed and of the well-being of the children under their charge. But this was surely a most complicated and extraordinarily ponderous machinery to bring to bear upon an evil of that kind. Could not the Bishops have been obliged to receive, duly consider, and adjudicate upon complaints made by the parishioners, or by the managers, or by the managers as representative of the parishioners? It seemed to be a very elaborate system for curing an evil which might be dealt with by a much simpler process. Instead of effecting something by which action might be brought to bear in the particular localities, the Bill would set up in every parish this grotesque council of amateur theologians. He ventured to think it would bring discredit on the denominational system and seriously interfere with the harmonious working of the scheme. There were many noble Lords whom nothing would distress more than that the sphere of religion should be made a battle-ground, and their ideal of religious education was that it should be as vague as possible, and that dogmas and anything of a definite nature should be eliminated. He could conceive of no machinery more likely to bring about that result than the scheme of this Bill. But those who held that view had plenty of schools in which to carry it out. There were a large number of supplied schools in which "Cowper-Ternpleism" was supreme, and these theories were carried out to the full. Those of other views had established denominational schools which had been fostered by the State, and by this Bill were placed upon a statutory footing in order that they might remain denominational schools, and yet these very schools, established to give denominational teaching, and supplied at the cost of those desiring that teaching to be given, were to be handed over to
  584
  this unhomogeneous body. It was an infringement of the whole idea of the Bill. He and his co-religionists looked upon this sub-Section as being so objectionable that they would be obliged strenuously to oppose it, and they would record their strong opinions as to the character of the principle involved by dividing the House upon it.
  *THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I cannot help thinking that a great many of the observations to which we have listened in this debate are absolutely irrelevant to the question before your Lordships. The Amendment assumes the existence of the managers and the state of the law under which these schools will work if this Bill passes. With reference to many of the observations of my noble friend I can only say that they have my hearty concurrence, and I would do a great deal, if I could, to aid him in what he desires. But the noble Earl, I think, must have forgotten how his Amendment differs from that which I should move hereafter. He wants the religious instruction to be in accordance with—
  "the principles and doctrines of the Church or denomination to which the school belongs,"
  and he points out that my Amendment deals only with schools in connection with which there is a trust deed. That is quite true, and I observed that at the end of his speech he suggested that the Government should come out into the open, and not shelter themselves behind trust deeds—phrases the value of which I am afraid my noble friend did not himself quite appreciate. Unless there is a trust deed how does a school belong to the Church of England? What sort of proprietorship is there? That there are schools in this country that are administered by and in a loose general sense belong to the Church of England, and yet have no trust deed, I quite agree: but if you deal with those schools as private schools, whether Roman Catholic, Weslcyan, or Church of England, an owner may change his religion tomorrow, and with it change the whole character of his school. You are legislating here only for those schools which are confined by trust deeds to teaching specific doctrines; therefore, it seems to me that my noble friend is entirely in error in supposing that we could do this if we wished. In what way are the

  585
  principles and doctrines of the Church or denomination to which the school belongs to be construed? What court of law is to determine that it belongs to this or that denomination unless there is something by which in law it is vested in that denomination? Under these circumstances we cannot possibly accept an Amendment which would be as inoperative as in some respects it would be absolutely unjust, because if it had any effect it would operate as a confiscation of private property with which this House, in the present Bill, has nothing to do. As I have, said, with a great many of the noble Earl's observations I entirely agree, and I think they will be carried out by my Amendment, but it is absolutely impossible to accept the present proposal. The noble Duke will forgive me for saying that a great part of his speech might very properly have been delivered on the Second Reading of the Bill or upon the Clause itself, but that so far as the Amendment before your Lordships is concerned I am wholly unable to see the relevancy of it.
  THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBEsaid he had used the word "belong" because it had been stated in another place that it was the proper word to use. It was intended to refer to those, schools which had trust deeds, and at the end of his second Amendment he had inserted words of a somewhat tentative character describing what "belonging to a particular denomination" might mean. With regard to private property, he felt very strongly that if they had been fighting for schools that were private property they had been fighting all along on false pretences in saying they were fighting for the Church of England.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYpointed out to the Lord Chancellor that there were many schools, the bequests in regard to which simply stated that they were conveyed to the vicar and churchwardens of the parish for the education of the young. Those schools belonged to the Church of England, but there was no direction in the trust deeds as to the kind of teaching that should be given. It was to the case of schools like that, which were a great deal more numerous than was generally known, that they wished the Amendment to apply.
  *THE EART, OF HALSBUKY: That would be a trust deed, in my view.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY: I am quite aware of that, my Lord.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY, in moving to omit the words, "the tenour of," said: This, again, in one sense, is an Amendment of form, though I think that in some respects it would be considered to affect the substance very much. The object of the Amendment is to make clear what before was indefinite. A great many people took the view that the words "the tenour of" conveyed no definite meaning to the ordinary mind, and I am not quite certain that among the lawyers there was not considerable difference of opinion as to their meaning. I have endeavoured in the substance of the Clause, by an Amendment I shall move hereafter, to expound in the clearest terms possible what they do mean, and therefore, in order to arrive at that, I propose to omit these words which have been justly condemned as having no definite meaning at all.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 9, to leave out 'the tenour of.'"—(The Lord Chaucellor.)
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXmoved to omit the words" the provisions (if any) of," so that, in conjunction with the Amendment already made, the Clause would read—
  "Religion instruction should be given in accordance with the trust deed relating"
  to the school. It was not a point of much consequence, and if the Lord Chancellor thought the words should remain he would not press the Amendment.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the words "the provisions of," are required by the rest of the sub-Section.
  Amendment, by leave, of the House withdrawn.
  *LORD KINNAIRDmoved to provide that the Clause should apply to trust deeds which were in existence on 1st January, 1902. Having to act under a great many trust deeds, he was anxious to know who would be the authority to decide on the trust deeds, and how far under the new Act any competent authority would examine these trust deeds. From various statements that had been made, it seemed that a great many new trust deeds were being prepared, and old ones re-formed according to new models, so as to be ready for the passing of this Bill. It was possible that in many cases the objects of the old founders would be completely changed, and properties intended for public purposes and secondary education devoted to other purposes. Unless some such proviso as he suggested were passed, therefore, serious difficulties and injustices might arise.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 9, after 'deed' insert 'as existing on 1st January, 1902.'" —(Lord Kinnaird.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he had placed on the Paper an Amendment similar in spirit to that now proposed, but somewhat more merciful to intending trustees, inasmuch as it would allow trust deeds dating from 1st March, 1902, instead of from 1st January, 1902. As he understood it, after the passing of the Bill, if such an appeal existed under the trusts, there would be an appeal to an ecclesiastical authority, who would probably be the Bishop in cases connected with the Anglican Church, in the event of dispute among the parishioners as to the religious teaching in the schools. But there were a large number of schools in connection with which trust deeds did not exist, and it had been said that many such schools were now rushing to obtain trust deeds. While that was a somewhat objectionable course, it was not his principal reason for supporting the Amendment. If carried, the Amendment would undoubtedly limit the appeal to the ecclesiastical authorities in many schools, a result he was in favour of for reasons he had some delicacy in stating in the presence of the Episcopal Bench. He had the greatest possible reverence
  588
  and respect for the right rev. Prelates, and should he refer to a bishop in whom he had not such trust, it would be a purely hypothetical bishop, and, as the Bill would pass for all time, he hoped a highly improbable bishop of the future. There were undoubted differences in the Church of England in regard to ritual and other matters. Reference had been made to them by the Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe and the Duke of Norfolk, but he might quote an even higher authority, who, in reference to matters of discipline in the Church of England, wrote—
  "There is not one single tenet, with perhaps the exception of the Bishop of Rome, round which reformers and anti-reformers fought so fiercely in the 16th century, which is not equally the subject of contention now inside the Church of England."
  The author of those words was the late Duke of Argyll, whose name would be received with great respect by noble Lords opposite, and especially by the noble Duke, the Leader of the House. While he would welcome an appeal to the Bishops in such matters in the Church, and believed it would be most useful if they could enforce discipline—though he was aware that it was in many cases a most expensive process—when they came to the question of religious education they stood on somewhat different ground. If practices were carried on in a Church with which the parishioners did not agree, and if, on appeal, the Bishop was of the same way of thinking as the incumbent and confirmed the practices, the parishioners had a certain, though lamentable, remedy, and one he would deeply regret to see used; they need not attend the church, or send their children. But that was not the case with regard to the schools, If the education was conducted in a religious atmosphere with which the parents disagreed, and of which they conscientiously disapproved, how were they treated by the State? The State insisted on the children being sent to the school, so that, if the Bishop agreed with the practices carried on in the school, not only would the parents be compelled to continue sending their children, but actually to pay for the process. That being the case, he thought the appeal should be somewhat limited, and therefore supported the Amendment.
  *THE EARL OF HALSBURV: I give the noble Lord credit for desiring to do as he says, but I am unable to see in what manner the Amendment would effect his object.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: It limits the appeal to the Bishop.
  *THE EARL OK HALSBURY: No, what this Amendment does is to prevent you making trust deeds which did not exist before January of the present year. why should not these schools be allowed to make trust deeds? If you recognise the fact that there are schools which in one sense are attached to the Church of England, without trust deeds regulating them, why should they not be allowed to make trust deeds? Are you going to prohibit people dedicating their own property to that which is a pious use? What evil is being contemplated that would be prevented by this Amendment? It seems to me that the suggestion is the most tyrannical I have heard for a long time. It would not apply only to the Church of England, but all denominations would be under a ban and precluded from having trust deeds unless they were made before January, 1902. I am a little surprised at such an Amendment being suggested, and more at it being supported and argued.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHthought the noble and learned Lord had misrepresented his noble friend. There was no desire to interfere with the pious intentions of the founders. The idea of the Amendment was simply to prevent trust deeds being entered into with the intention of checking or evading the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. The important element in the consideration of the Amendment was the extent to which it would achieve that object.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Their Lordships adjourned at eight o'clock, and resumed at nine.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving an Amendment providing that the religious instruction should be under the control of the "foundation" managers, said his proposal occupied little space on
  590
  the Paper, but was, nevertheless, one of considerable importance, inasmuch as it affected all the denominational schools throughout the country. The principle of the Sub-Section was that the control of the religious teaching in denominational schools should be in the hands of the managers. That principle had been adopted by a large majority in the House of Commons, and probably coincided with the view of the majority of their Lordships and of the people of the country, but the Amendment, though he greatly disliked the principle, did not aim at disturbing it in any way. What it sought to do was to limit the control of the religious teaching to the foundation managers, who would probably be of the denomination to which the school belonged. What would those Members of the House who had served in the Army think of a measure under which the commanding officer of a regiment was compelled to hand over the control of all questions at issue, whether as regarded discipline or the daily issuing of regimental orders, to a Board consisting of the colonel, three other officers of the regiment, and two officers appointed by a totally different regiment, and, possibly, of another branch of the service? Or, to bring the matter nearer home, what would be said of a proposal that the Leader of either House of Parliament should refer all matters of parliamentary procedure or policy, not only to their own Party Whips, but to the Opposition Whips also? Such proposals would not be supported for a moment, and yet, under this Bill, it would be perfectly possible for the two outside managers to be of a totally different denomination from that to which the school belonged, or even to profess no religious belief at all. Such a position of affairs was neither reasonable not logical. He hoped their Lordships would accept his Amendment, by which such a condition would be rendered impossible, and which would tend to preserve the peace they all desired to see in regard to questions of religious education.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 10, after the second 'the' to insert 'foundation.'" —(The Eart of Shaftesbury.)
  *THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Your Lordships will not be surprised when I say that His Majesty's Government are wholly unable to accept such an Amendment. It is absolutely contrary to the policy of the Bill. It cuts out the two managers, although complaint has been made that the others are already in too large a majority. It is impossible to support such an Amendment.
  THE EARLOF SHAFTESBURYthought the remarks of the Lord Chancellor did not in any way get over his point. While it was true the Amendment would cut out the two outside managers, the fact remained that those two managers might be of a denomination to which the school did not belong. Under these circumstances, he hoped he would receive support for his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXthought their Lordships failed to realise what would be the result of the Board of Managers as proposed by the Government. The whole of the religious teaching was to be under the control of six managers. In many trusts the managers were specified to be the incumbent and the churchwardens. It frequently happened that one of the churchwardens was a member of the Church while the other was a Nonconformist. In such cases, assuming the two managers appointed by the local authority did not belong to the Church, instead of two-thirds of the Board belonging to the denomination, the managers would be equally divided, three belonging to the Church and three to bodies outside the Church. The Bill professed to save the denominational rights of the Church of England and of the Roman body, but how was it possible to save those rights if the body which had the control of the religious education was equally divided? The thing was impossible. The appointment of the teacher rested entirely with the Board of Managers, it being expressly taken out of the appeal to the Bishop. The managers would make the syllabus of religious instruction. Was it tolerable,
  on any Church principle, that, say, two Unitarians should have a voice in deciding the religious syllabus for a Church school? If he stood alone, he would protest against any such proposal. The position would not be made much more tolerable by limiting the power to the foundation managers, but it would be an improvement if the Church were not exposed to the dishonour of having it said that this House proposed to place the teaching in her schools wholly under the control of persons who did not belong to her. He should support the Amendment, and hoped the noble Earl would press it to a division.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDconfessed that he found it difficult to sit still when the Lord Chancellor treated an Amendment of this kind in so cavalier a manner. The Government were naturally unwilling to accept Amendments, because the fewer they accepted the better for them, but this Amendment was the natural outcome of the principles on which the Bill was based. The measure professed to say that so far as religious education of a particular character was taught in the denominational schools the schools should be free, but that so far as the secular education was concerned the local authority, Which supplied the funds, should have a voice in the management. But here, in a sub-Section referring exclusively to religious education, two managers were put in who had nothing whatever to do with the religious education of the school. He failed to see why the Government, as a matter of course, should refuse to accept, or even consider, such an Amendment. The proposal would not remove his objection to the Clause as a whole, but it would be an improvement; it would make the Bill logical, which at present it was not. He would have pleasure in supporting the noble Earl if he pressed the Amendment to a division.
  On Question, "That the word 'foundation' be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 28; Not-contents,87.

  CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Derby, E.

  Crose, V.

  [Teller.]

  Malmesbury, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Northumberland, D.

  Nelson, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]

  Adingdon, E.

  Ely, L. Bp.

  Lincoln, L.Bp.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Oranmore and Browone, E.

  Norwich, L. BP.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Stanmore, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Botreaux, L. (E. Londoun.)

  Herries, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  Braye, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Dormer, L.

  North, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Coleridge, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Somerset, D

  Wharneliffe, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Denman, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Falkland, V.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Danmore.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Falmouth, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Northampton, M.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aderdeen.)

  Elphinstone, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Enskine, L.

  Clarendon,E.(L. Chamberlain.)

  Farrer, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Forester, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Ganusk, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Hatherton, L.

  Doncaster.(D. Buccleuch and Queenberry.)

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Hylton, L.

  London, L. Bp.

  Kenyon, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Manuchester, L. Bp.

  Lindley, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Newcastle, L. Bp.

  Ludlow, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Londesborough, E.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Monekton, L. (V. Galaray.)

  Lucan, E.

  Southwell, L. Bp.

  Monkswell, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Morley, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Beay, L.

  Porsmouth, E.

  Asdhourne, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Romney. E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cokand Orrery.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Burghelere, L.

  Winborne, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Burton, L.

  Zouche of Haryngoworth, L.

  *VISCOUNT HALIFAX*VISCOUNT HALIFAX, in moving "to leave out from 'deed' to the end of sub-Section, and insert 'Provided always that, in school belonging to the Church of England, any one or more of the foundation managers, if any question arises in regard to the religious instruction given in such school, may appeal to the Bishop of the diocese, whose decision shall be final,'" said: In view of much that has been said during this debate in regard to the character of the Bill as amended in the House of Commons, the first point I desire to press upon your Lordships is the debt that this country owes to the clergy for their exertions in the cause of education. In the past they strove for education when almost everybody else was indifferent to it and many opposed it, and in the present they have, by the greatest self-denial and self-sacrifice, maintained their schools. I must say that the way in which they are being treated in regard to this matter shows very little gratitude for what they have done in the past. This Bill, as it now stands, is
  594
  not the Bill as it was introduced into the House of Commons. The Bill has been amended—or, I would venture to say, disfigured—by the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. There are some interesting questions which might be raised as to when and how that Clause was introduced, but I shall not enter upon that subject. The Prime Minister has told us that the purport of this Clause was always intended by him, and he asked us why we were surprised at the Clause being introduced. He says that the Bill has meant what the Clause enacts all the time. If this be the case, if it be the case that the Bill from the beginning was intended to enact what the beginning was intended to enact what the Kenyon-Slaney Clause enacts, I ask why was it not introduced into the Bill in the first place? Why was this Clause, which is of a revolutinary character—because it really upsets the arrangements for the religious teaching in nearly all the Church schools in England—left to a private Member to introduce in the House of Commons? It is not true that those who supported

  595
  this Bill in the first instance ever understood that such a provision as the Kenyon-Slaney Clause enacts was included in the Bill. When they heard of the control of the managers, they supposed that it meant the control of the managers as against the local authority in regard to the religious instruction given in the denominational schools, and the feeling that was aroused throughout the country when it was made clear that this Clause was going to be accepted by the Government is the best proof that Churchmen, lay and clerical, did not in the least understand that a Clause of this sort was contemplated when the Bill was introduced.
  In regard to this Clause there are certain things which have to be said which I would rather not say, but it is impossible to deal with the matter without saying them. I shall, however, say as little as I can. The Church is a teaching body, and the clergyman in each parish is the representative of the Church to give the teaching of the Church, subject to the authority of the Bishop. The clergyman, who has the cure of souls, because he is the representative of the Church, and, whether the trust deeds specify it or not, is the parson, the persona, the person responsible for the religious teaching in the parish, and one of the chief objects of a Church school is the religious education of those belonging to the Church in that parish. It is not necessary for the clergyman himself always to give the instruction, but it is of the very essence of the principles of the Church that he should, as long as he has the sanction of the Bishop, and as long as he is acting under the authority of the Bishop, be responsible for the Church teaching given in the Church school. By this Bill you deny what I maintain is a fundamental principle of the Church in this respect. You disestablish the clergyman in the Church school, and you transfer the authority of controlling the religious teaching in the Church school from the clergyman to a body of lay managers, two of whom need not belong to the denomination to which the school belongs. I would ask your Lordships to consider for a moment what the power of these managers will be. They are to have the entire control of the religious instruction given in the school. I suppose that the Amendment to be moved by the Lord Chancellor will be carried, and that the
  596
  right of appeal to the Bishop will be made clear, but however much you may grant the appeal to the Bishop, that does not meet the principle in the matter, which is the primary authority of the clergyman in the parish to be responsible under the Bishop for the teaching of the Church to Church children in Church schools. These managers are to have the control of the religious teaching. I want your Lordships to remember that the appointment of the teachers rests with the managers, and that an appeal to the Bishop in regard to the appointment of a teacher is expressly excluded by the Bill. The managers will have the settlement of the syllabus of religious instruction given in the Church schools. They will set the questions; in fact, the whole control of the religious instruction is taken from the clergyman and put into their hands, and they will have the power, if they desire so to do, to exclude the clergyman from teaching, in the Church school, those who have been entrusted to him, by his institution, "to the cure of souls, "the religion he is bound to teach. In regard to the Amendment moved by the noble Earl opposite it is quite possible that you might have amongthese managers two Unitarians. I ask your Lordships, is it tolerable that Churchmen should vote for a Clause which in principle admits that two Unitarians may have a voice in determining the syllabus of instruction in a Church school? The noble Lord the Chairman of the London School Board said last night that I was incorrect in what I had said about the teaching given under the London School Board. I will ask the noble Lord whether it is not true that not long ago, in the syllabus determined by the London School Board for their schools, the Gospel of St. John was expressly excluded. I admit that it has been altered since, but it was at first excluded. Moreover, there were in the syllabus of religious instruction questions as to the prophecies in the Old Testament such as, "He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief," but teachers were expressly forbidden to associate those prophecies with any person. Suppose there is any personal quarrel with the clergyman, quite irrespective of doctrinal or ritualistic questions, and under a Bill the object of which is to protect and defend the denominational rights of the Church of England and

  597
  the Roman Church in England religious teaching may be left—left to the discretion of persons who care nothing whatever for the teaching of the Church, and you may have a syllabus such as I have described as having been determined by the London School Board. I say that is not tolerable. It is not just, and I cannot conceive how anyone who cares anything about the Church of England can vote for such a Clause.
  I would ask your Lordships to believe that I am not speaking in the least in the interests of any one section of the clergy of the Church of England. It is very probable that the clergy of whom Earl Carrington spoke in this debate will be the clergy least affected by this Clause. But if they were the clergy most affected by the clause it would not make me a bit more anxious than I am to obtain an Amendment of the proposal. I care about this Clause, not at all in the interests of a section of the clergy, but in the interests of the whole of the clergy of England, and still more for the sake of the honour of the Church of England to which we belong. It is said that there are cranks among the clergy. Are there no cranks among the laity? Granted that there may be some cranks among the clergy; granted that there may be vagaries the result of action of clergymen here and there—and let me say I know much too well how these stories are got up and used for political purposes to attach much credence to them—but granted all that, look at the irony of the situation. Because two or three clergymen have been unfaithful to their vows, if it be so, and because the Bishops have not kept them in order, your Lordships are going to endorse a principle which is in fundamental contradiction to the principles of the Church to which you profess to belong. If you play fast and loose with first principles in this way, you will inevitably rue the consequence of such conduct when it is too late. It was said in the lower House, and it has been said by some noble Lords in this House, that if this Clause were rejected it would bring the question of disestablishment within the range of practical politics. I can assure you that disestablishment has no terrors for me. In regard to a Clause of this sort, much as
  598
  I dislike every speech I have heard on this side of the House, unfair and unjust as I think they have been to the Church, I would almost prefer to be disestablished wholesale than to be disestablished piecemeal by my friends. I entreat His Majesty's Government not to do this thing. It is a matter which touches the whole of the clergy; the Government make a great mistake if they suppose that only a section of the clergy are affected. Your Lordships will have read an admirable letter published in The Times some days ago, signed by Mr. Dibdin, the Chancellor of Durham. Mr. Dibdin is an old friend of mine, but his religious opinions are not in the least like mine. But Mr. Dibdin says exactly what I do in regard to how this Clause touches the clergy throughout the whole length and breadth of the land.
  I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer than I can help; therefore I will ask your attention to only one further point. In The Times of last Wednesday or Thursday a letter was published from the Prime Minister, in which he took exception to the criticisms of this Bill made by Dr. Clifford, and he explained what the object of the Bill was. At the end of the letter occur these words—this is the Prime Minister's account of the measure which we are now discussing; it is his explanation of it as against Dr. Clifford's version—he says—
  "A measure which requires that the control of the clergy over secular education shall be withdrawn, and that their control"
  —I ask your Lordships to mark the words, it is the same word "control" in each case—
  "their control over secular education shall be withdrawn, and their control over religious education he justified."
  These words are directly and categorically a contradiction of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. I ask the Prime Minister to justify himself, and to consent to such an Amendment of this Clause as shall preserve the rights of the clergy. Let him make the appeal to the Bishops as stringent as he will, and I shall vote for it with pleasure, but let him justify himself, and consent to an Amendment which will preserve the rights of the clergy, which will save them from this grave injustice, and which, more important still, will save the Church of

  599
  England from being exposed to the dishonour of seeing this gross infraction of her first principles voted for by your Lordships' House.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 9, leave out from 'deed' to the end of the sub-section and insert 'Provided always that in schools belonging to the Church of England, any one or more of the foundation managers, if any question arises in regard to the religious instruction given in such school, may appeal to the Bishop of the diocese, whose decision shall be final.'"—(Viscount Halifax.)
  *THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The noble Lord's Amendment is open to an observation which I have already made— namely, that where he uses the words "belonging to the Church of England," he either means belonging to the Church of England by reason of some trust deed, or belonging in such a sense as may be intelligible popularly, but in a sense with which your Lordships cannot deal. If he means "belonging to the Church of England" according to the trust deeds, it appears to me that the Amendment that I am about to move deals with what the noble Lord desires, namely—
  "That nothing in this sub-Section shall affect any provision in a trust deed for reference to the Bishop or other denominational authority, so far as such provision gives to the Bishop or authority the power of deciding whether the character of the religious instruction is or is not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed."
  If that is what the noble Lord means then that is sufficiently provided for in the Amendment I am about to move. But if I am to understand that that is not what the noble Lord means, then I would say that there is no such thing as a school belonging to the Church of England, except it has a trust deed. If there is a trust deed the Bill provides for the preservation of that trust and of the rights thereunder, of which the noble Lord desires to get rid. The trust deed is that which I should have thought the noble Lord would have considered ought to be preserved and kept. But if it is outside the provisions of the trust deed, and there is no such provision, I do not understand why the noble Lord confines the right of appeal which he proposes to one or more of the foundation managers. Does he desire by the authors of the Bill should work in harmony, you
  600
  should divide the responsibility; that one set of managers should have a right of appeal to the Bishop, and that the other set should not? It appears to me that the noble Lord has not contemplated the whole consequences of his own Amendment. First of all, he wants to over ride the trust deed—which I assume to be what he means by the words "belonging to the Church of England" —and when he has done that he further desires that the managers, who are by the whole theory of the Bill to act together, should be divided, and that some should have the right of appeal and others should not. It is impossible to suppose that the Bill could stand with such a conflict of jurisdiction, and His Majesty's Government are unable to accept the Amendment.
  LORD HALIFAX: I may just point out that the trust deeds of the National Society provide that the education of the schools shall be under the control of the clergyman. Under the Clause of this Bill, that part of the trust deed is absolutely torn up by the roots.
  *THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Certainly, but that has already been disposed of, and the House has not to deal with that.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: There is one point in the Amendment on which I should like to say a few words, in comparison with the Amendment standing in the name of the Lord Chancellor. The noble Viscount proposes that any one or more of the foundation managers, if any question arises in regard to the religious instruction given in such school, may appeal to the Bishop of the Diocese. I shall not touch at all upon the point to which the noble and learned Lord has just referred, of confining the appeal to one side of the management, because on that point I do not agree with the noble Viscount. The point to which I wish to direct attention are the words "in regard to the religious instruction which is given in such school." In the Amendment to be proposed by the Lord Chancellor we have the words—
  "That so far as such provision gives to the Bishop or authority the power of deciding whether the character of the religious instruction is or is not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed."

  601
  I think I am right—if I am not I am sure I shall be corrected by the noble and learned Lord—that in practice, in a Church of England school, that would be the equivalent of deciding whether the religious instruction is in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of England. I would desire to point out the very different effect of those two provisions. I cannot but feel that in the future the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor may produce a situation of a very difficult, entangled, and disagreeable kind. What I suppose those who are interested in the welfare of the Church of England would desire, and what I think probably the great majority of your Lordships will desire, is that when in a Church of England school some question arises about which there is local division touching religions instruction, that question should be referred to the Bishop of the Diocese for decision, and however little confidence, in spite of the compliment the noble Lord was good enough to pay us, there may be sometimes in the episcopal decisions, yet I believe your Lordships would probably think that was the best solution of the difficulty. But it is very important to consider what question the Bishop would, under such circumstances, have to decide. If he is to decide that such and such doctrines are or are not within the limits of the Church of England, he may be deciding a question of a most vital and far-reaching character, and precipitating issues which, while touching one particular school, will actually affect the whole condition and prospects and welfare of the Church of England. In fact, the Bishop would be deciding pro tanto the questions which would come before the Supreme Courts and so on, and even if he followed the decision of the Privy Council he might have to pronounce that such and such doctrine was within the limits of the Church of England, though at the time he so pronounced he would be perfectly convinced that the particular way in which that doctrine had been taught at the particular school was contrary to the welfare of the Church of England in that place, contrary to the interests of peace and harmony, and contrary to the good of the children who were being taught. If we take the language of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, we do not
  602
  find that such words occur. There is to be an appeal. The noble and learned Lord may say that what in my judgment is the strength of those words is also their weakness; in other words that it is because they are vague that they escape the danger which I have ventured to point out in his words. But, however, that may be, that very perilous issue seems to me to be avoided. You would then go to the Bishop—I use the words somewhat hastily, but I hope they are sufficiently correct—you would go to the Bishopas the supreme administrator of the diocese; you would get from him a decision which ought, I think, to be well with in his pastoral responsibility to give as to whether such and such teaching was or was not rightly, prudently and charitably given in the school, and he would not have to decide as to whether such and such a doctrine was within the limits of the Church of England. There is a good deal else that I feel anxious to say a word or two about on this question of appeal to the Bishop, but it I may be pardoned for rising again later on, I would like now to leave the point I have raised for the consideration of the noble and learned Lord.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I am afraid I cannot quite appreciate the full argument of the right rev. Prelate, but I think we had better make clear the points we are about to discuss when we come to give a final decision on this matter. The Amendment of the noble Viscount opposite seeks to give an appeal to the Bishop "if any question arises in regard to the religious instruction given in such school." There are some of us who think that no such appeal should be given to the Bishop. Those words cover questions of administration. If any question arises as to the time during which religious instruction may be given, or as to the circumstances under which, or the day on which, it should be given, there would be an appeal to the Bishop, because that would be a question "arising in regard to the religious instruction." That would make the Bishop paramount in that school. If any manager objected to the religious instruction being only half-an-hour instead of an hour, it would be a question arising in regard to the religious instruction; and there

  603
  would be an appeal to the Bishop, 'whose decision would be final. Therefore the Bishop would be able to say whether the instruction should be for an hour or only for ten minutes, and he would be able to decide that you should use certain books. That, I think, makes the Bishop paramount in the school. That is not the intention of those who framed this Clause. All that refers to administration must go to the managers. They are to be paramount in regard to that. I would, if I could, avoid entering into the broad discussion upon this question, but there was a view expressed by the noble Viscount which, if it should prevail, would render this Bill unworkable. He claimed that the Church of England was represented by its clergy, and by its clergy only. That position does not represent the strength of the Church of England. It shuts out the laity, and if you shut out the laity from carrying on its educational course, the Church of England, instead of being strengthened by the legislation of the noble Viscount, will be weakened to its very foundation, and instead of this being a Bill for strengthening the Church it will be the worst weapon that could be employed against it. 1 hope we need not venture into these general considerations; I think we had better deal with the question practically. I would ask your Lordships to look at the Amendment of my noble friend the Lord Chancellor. He passes away from all questions of administration. Between the Amendment of the noble Viscount and that of my noble friend a great gulf is fixed. According to the Amendment shortly to be moved there is to be no appeal to the Bishop on questions of administration, but there will be an appeal to him upon certain questions.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord for a moment. I am afraid he is playing on the word that 1 have been emphasising—the word "administration. "I should like to explain that I have no desire whatever to bring the whole of the matters to which he is now referring under the control of the Bishop. I was keeping in view the religious teaching only, and pointing out that it ought not to be impossible to find
  604
  words enabling the Bishop to give a final decision on questions affecting the teaching, without having to say whether or not that teaching was within the extreme limits of the Church of England.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I quite appreciate the words of the right rev. Prelate, but I am dealing with the Amendment of the noble Viscount. The words of that Amendment do leave the whole administration open to appeal to the Bishop, whose decision would be final. The Amendment of the Lord Chancellor gives an appeal to the Bishop wherever such an appeal is given by the trust deed — that is, by those who founded the school. This appeal is to go to the Bishop, not to the full extent to which there may be an appeal under the trust deed, but only so far as regards the character of the religious teaching. I suggest that that is the proper measure of appeal that should be given. In one sense I could wish for popular control in these schools. The noble Viscount has spoken of the breaking of the sanctity of trust deeds. The trust deed has already been broken; but it has been broken by those who opened the door of these schools—I will not say they sent the rate collector forth, but at any rate they have beckoned him in, and taken as much money from him as they could. It is they who have asked for a readjustment of the trust deed, and whenever popular control is given you must draw a clear line between what shall be the popular control and what shall be governed by the terms of the trust deed. From an abstract point of view I would give no appeal at all, but looking at the question practically, I say that where a trust deed has defined the doctrine that is to be taught you cannot make that a subject of debate between six managers; it must be determined by a more judicial tribunal. It is not a question to be discussed or voted upon; a question of doctrine must be decided by some better tribunal. But where can you find that tribunal? I know of none that can be suggested, except, perhaps, the Board of Education. But that is a political Department. I know of no other but that representative of the Church to which the school under consideration belongs. Although the

  605
  members of the Episcopal Bench have drawn us more closely to them during the debates on this Bill, there are some of us who have no inherent devotion to the Episcopal Bench as a court of appeal, but still the Bishop represents in each diocese the head of the Church, and I must confess that upon points of doctrine I know of no better tribunal in regard to the Church of England than the Bishop of the diocese. The Amendment that I had intended to move dealing with this point is exactly similar to that of my noble friend. The Lord Chancellor's Amendment, however, has one point of superiority over that of the noble Viscount. We all admire the noble Viscount's chivalrous devotion to the clergy of the Church of England, but it must be pointed out that his Amendment deals with the Church of England only. For legislation that is not sufficient. There are other denominations which have their schools, and they want an appeal too. You have no right to deal with the Church of England and not with the Church of Rome or with the Noncomformist denominations. The Wesleyans are a powerful denomination, and have a right to ask that their trust deeds shall be carried out, and that an appeal shall go to their Pastoral Conference. This is a matter to be considered as a matter of common-sense, and I hope your Lordships will now enter upon the consideration of the Lord Chancellor's Amendment and deal with it according to its merits.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER: There are apparently two questions which might be made the ground of appeal to the Bishop. First, who shall give the religious instruction? and secondly, what shall be the nature of the instruction given? As an individual I should very much have preferred that an appeal should lie on both these points, but I recognise very clearly that in the present state of affairs it may be exceedingly difficult for the Government to grant an appeal upon the first of those questions. We are in this position in respect of this Amendment, that we must either take what the House of Commons have passed and be satisfied with it, or we must agree to receive the concession which has been made on the part of the Government in the Amendment to
  606
  be proposed by the Lord Chancellor. If we reject what is offered by the Lord Chancellor, the Bill will go back to another place, and it will be said that we have not received this concession. What will be the consequence? The House of Commons will most certainly revert to its original Resolution, and the Clause will remain unaltered. I look upon this practical necessity as determining, at any rate, my vote in respect to the matter. I know we all have to suffer for the faults of our brethren, and I know that in this case I am going to suffer for the faults of some of my brethern. They have produced so widespread a feeling of disgust and distrust amongst many of the laity that I must bow my head in sorrowful acquiescence to the behest of the Government. I do not like it, but it is a practical necessity, and so, as the Government have granted to us this very important power of an appeal on questions of doctrine, I gratefully accept it. If the Government had not granted that, it would have been impossible for me to stand up here to-night and speak on behalf of the proposal of the Government—totally impossible—because I agree with the noble Viscount to this extent, that it would be not merely unseemly, but impossible, to submit to half-a-dozen very good, but unlearned, men in a village council, the determination of what was or what was not the doctrine of the Church of England. It would be unseemly to submit even the question introduced by the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, namely—Do the particular words which we have taken down as being used by the clergyman comply with the conditions required in a person teaching the doctrines of the Church of England? I say it would be utterly unseemly. Further than that, it would have been contrary to the whole precedent of English law. In another place a person of very great wisdom and high political position pointed to the fact that in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, laymen were entrusted with the determination of such a question as that referred to in the Lord Chancellor's Amendment. I have two remarks to make upon that. To compare any six good men appointed to be managers of a voluntary school with the men of high erudition, of great legal practice, and skilled in judicial matters who form the Judicial

  607
  Committee of the Privy Council is trifling with the matter. Moreover, no matter goes to the Judicial Committee unless it has first gone to the Bishop of the diocese. It may be appealed from the Bishop to the Archbishop's Court, and then, perhaps, to the Judicial Committee. No man who is charged with heresy in the Church of England can be prosecuted on that charge except under the Church Discipline Act, and that Act makes an appeal lie to the Bishop. The Prayer Book of the Church of England is—if we can speak of so venerable and distinguished a document in such a manner—a Schedule to the Act of Uniformity. Parliament has approved of all the rubrics in that book and of the words in it. If a question arises about doctrine, what is the direction of the Book of Common Prayer which Parliament has approved? It is that if people differ in the interpretation of the words of the book, the question shall be submitted to the Bishop, and if the Bishop is in doubt, he shall pass the matter on to the Archbishop—as was, in fact, recently done. The precedents of English law, therefore, if the question be whether certain words agree with the standards of the Church, require an appeal to lie to the Bishop. The Government have complied with that requirement, therefore they have given us a most important concession, and I do not want to risk the loss of it by rejecting it now, for we shall never get it offered again. I am persuaded, consequently, that the wisest course that can be adopted by the members of this Bench, and by those of your Lordships who agree with us, is to bow, as I have said, with melancholy acquiescence to the decree of the Government. They will not allow the question as to who shall teach to be submitted to the Bishop, but they will grant an appeal to us on what is infinitely more important,—namely, whether the teaching of a particular clergyman is or is not in accordance with the doctrine of the Church. I am in favour, therefore, of heartily supporting the proposal submitted to us by the Lord Chancellor, and of rejecting the Amendment of the noble Viscount.
  *LORD ROBERTSON: I am afraid the speech of the right rev. Prelate, however
  608
  convincing, does not cover the real subject at issue in this debate. I speak as a convinced supporter of the Bill introduced by His Majesty's Government, and I will say in a word what I took the principle to be. It was to discriminate between secular education and religious education; the State was to avail itself of the secular education afforded in denominational schools, to have that governed by the representatives of the ratepayers, and to leave the religious instruction aside, apart from that altogether. I hold that to be a perfectly sound principle, and one of easy application. Until the introduction of this unfortunate Amendment that principle was well carried out. It is, of course, difficult to draw a clear and, sharp dividing line all through the system of instruction between what is secular and what is religious. But, fortunately, the Code has done that for us already, and, accordingly, there is no difficulty in distinguishing between what belongs to the secular region of education and what to the religious. Up to the time when this Amendment was introduced, the principle adopted has been that the State should take the denominational schools, so far as religion is concerned, as they stand, and not meddle with them. What has been done by the Kenyon - Slaney Clause, and what is proposed to be continued by the Amendment of the Government, is that the trust deeds shall be ripped up and reconsidered, and that religious instruction shall be given, not by the person directed in the trust deed, but by a new and lay body. I do not venture to follow in those high paths which are trod with so much confidence by the noble Viscount opposite. I take a much more mundane and, I think, a much more perceptible ground—I take the trust deed in its ordinary form. I say that the Government in the present instance have taken the trust deed and subverted it altogether. What does the trust deed say on this subject? I am taking the ordinary form of trust deed as printed in the Blue-book in the Library. On this particular question it says—
  "The principal officiating minister of the parish shall have the superintendence of the religious and moral instruction of all the scholars."

  609
  That is a clear and definite statement as to who is to have the superintendence of the religious instruction. In contrast to that, the trust deed then says—" but in all other respects the control and management of such school and premises, and of the funds and so on," shall be vested in and exercised by a Committee consisting of "so and so." Therefore your Lordships will see that this very distinction upon which my noble friend Lord James has bestowed so much emphasis is clearly recognised in the trust deed already, because it has given the control and management—using those very words—in lay matters to the Committee, while it has given the superintendence of the religious instruction to another person altogether. I ask the Committee this: Is it possible to say that the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, which has been adopted by the Government, does not enact that the superintendence of the religious and moral instruction shall not be with the minister, but with this new-fangled body? What is the result of that? You have a new body of managers, unaccustomed to their duties, and they are told that they are to superintend the religious and moral instruction of these young people, and the Government come forward with an air of triumph and say, "We have solved the question, because we have given an appeal to the Bishop." But the odd thing is that they give an appeal, not from the minister in charge, as is the case under the trust deed, but from this new body of laymen, who are to experiment in knocking up some popular religion which will suit the susceptibilities of the ratepayers. That is the plain English of it. Let me press that home still further. What is the reason of the introduction of this Clause at all? How does it fit in with this hybrid tribunal? The avowed object of the author of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause, who is an old Parliamentary comrade of mine, was to aim a blow at Ritualism being taught in the schools. I have no opinion at all adverse to that suspicion; nay, I go this length, that I think there is a good deal of folly in Ritualism, and a very great deal in anti-Ritualism; but l am ready to suppose that there are excesses in the direction of Ritualism, or of the doctrines associated with Ritualism, which ought to be checked.
  610
  But for that check, I, for one, look not to this irregular and hybrid tribunal, but to the constitutional authorities of the Church. I have no licence to teach, much less to lecture, and least of all to lecture my pastors and masters; but I make no doubt of this, that among the signs of the times which will be taken to heart by the Bishops of our Church this is not the least, and I believe it constitutes a strong appeal to them to exercise more firmly than they have done before their powers of superintendence both in schools and in church. But is that a reason why we should do this great wrong? Is it a reason why we should subvert the trust deeds which have created the schools? It seems to me that you are merely making an excursion out of the region of education into that of theology, and trying by a side-wind to correct errors which ought to be faced boldly, if faced at all. May I add one word more? If it is thought well to have a crusade against Ritualism in the wrong place, may I ask whether you have prospered so well in previous crusades against Ritualism? Have you succeeded in cheeking the Ritualism which you are now condemning? Is it likely that in this roundabout way you will succeed in achieving that which you have failed to do by open measures? Standing here, not as a Churchman—because this is not a Church question at all—but standing here in defence of the rights created by trust deeds—for that is the ground on which I go—I, as a Tory supporter of the Government, most heartily protest against a measure which is certain to be cited as warranting incursions, inroads, and forays upon trust deeds.
  Having ventured to speak with this freedom, may I turn from the Eldons and Sidmouths of the Front Bench to—what shall I say?—the Pyms and Hampdens on the other side of the House. I should like to ask on what principle they are going to support this new establishment. I think it was a sound principle that, if denominational teaching was to be tolerated at all, it was at least to be held apart from secular education, and was not to be mixed up with it. Now, noble Lords opposite are going to vote for setting up a delegation of County Councillors to regulate some sort of Church of England

  611
  teaching and doctrine. What warrant is there for that? I suppose it will be said that those crying injustices which have driven noble Lords into such extremities of speech warrant irregularities in legislation. I should like to remind them of the broad facts of the case. First of all you have in your board schools education exactly to your liking, and you have your rating. Noble Lords speak as if the whole rates of the country were paid by Nonconformists, but they are rating the whole country for the education which they prefer. Now turn to our Church of England schools. There is a Conscience Clause which absolves yon from the necessity of sending your children to the religious part of the education in Church schools. Those two precautions and safeguards of the Nonconformist conscience have been supplemented by the Church of England in a manner which, I believe, will be remarked upon in history. Not merely by individual Members of Parliament, who represent the opinions prevalent in the Church of England, but also by the Houses of Convocation, this offer has been made: "If in Church of England schools you dislike the teaching, come and take your children and teach them in your own way." That has been formally offered, and it is a standing offer; but it has never been accepted. Of course it is impossible to suspect Nonconformists of being arrogant; but if it had been anybody else but Nonconformists, I should have said that it was the height of arrogance—first to rate us for the schools which suit them in religious doctrine, and then, having a Conscience Clause, to insist upon managing the religious teaching which they do not require their children to receive; and, finally, to reject what I have described as this standing offer, which I say is conclusive as to the fairness and equity of the position of the Church of England. There is much more to be said on this most interesting subject, but I hope I have said enough to justify my intervention in the debate; and the only remaining duty I have to perform—speaking as I do for the first time in this House—is to thank your Lordships for the great indulgence with which I have been heard.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: We have just heard, not for the first time, that the reason why this Kenon-Slaney
  612
  Amendment was brought forward was to put down Ritualism in the Church. There is surely a great difference between Ritualism in the Church and Ritualism in those schools of ours which are governed by trust deeds. As some of your Lordships may be aware, in my diocese there are altogether 2,300 beneficed clergy more than in any other diocese in England. East Anglia is supposed to be a part of Great Britain which is not particularly under the influence of the Church, and which has always been distinguished for Puritan opinion. I have now been Bishop of the East Anglian diocese for between nine and ten years, and how many complaints do you suppose I have had of mistaken teaching in the Church schools? East Anglians are by no means disinclined to make complaints to the Bishop, and I have had a good many complaints on different grounds. But with regard to this particular point I have had one complaint, and one only, of mistaken or disliked teaching in our Church schools. That complaint was made not by a Nonconformist, but by a representative of the Church. No specific charge was brought against the clergyman in question, but he was unpopular because his Ritualistic opinions had alienated many of his people. He was teaching in his school, a certain number of children had been withdrawn from the religious teaching, and I was appealed to, quite properly, in accordance with the trust deed. I found that the complaint was well grounded. It was quite undesirable that the clergyman should continue teaching in the school. I desired him to desist from teaching, and he desisted, and the matter ended. I do not see why that should not occur in every case. In nine-tenths of our Church schools it is distinctly laid down in the trust deed that an appeal shall lie to the Bishop, whose decision in writing shall be final. Upon that, therefore, there can be no question at all. If the people appealed to the Bishop under the trust deed I believe the matter would be satisfactorily decided, as was done in the instance I have mentioned. I am not aware that any of my Episcopal brethren have ever failed to adjust the matter satisfactorily when they have been appealed to. It seems to me, therefore, that you have a remedy at hand already. Mention has been made of clergy who err by giving Ritualistis teaching. I have no doubt that there are a, few such, but in

  613
  my diocese I have met only one such case. On the other hand, there is a very large class of clergy with whom, thank God, many of your Lordships are well acquainted, venerable and venerated men, such as your Archdeacons, men of large and high scholarship, perhaps Fellows of their. College, who have been living among their people, loving them, and being beloved, and who, likely enough, have built the schools themselves, or have been instrumental in getting them built, and through whose efforts they have been maintained for several years—these men have taught unquestioned in their schools. But what do you do by this Clause? You tell these venerable and venerated clergy, who may be counted by hundreds, that their position with regard to the young of their flock is to be entirely changed. They are no longer to be allowed to teach in their schools unless they meet with the consent of a body of men, three of whom are their own parishioners—very worthy men, but perhaps quite illiterate—and two imported by an extraneous, if not alien, body. Is that right? Must you not feel that these men will be very deeply wounded at the treatment they are receiving? The clergy feel that they are being treated in this matter in an ungenerous manner. When we consider the zeal of the clergymen of the Church of England on behalf of their schools, and remember that 11,000 schools have been built mainly through their exertions, is it surprising, now that this slur is to be cast upon them, and the right they have hitherto had of teaching the lambs of their flock is to be taken away from them, and they are only to be permitted to discharge that duty, if they are allowed, by two or three of their parishioners, and two or three strangers, that they should feel that they are being treated in an ungrateful and ungenerous manner? I am persuaded that many of our clergy will feel it very sorely; they will be disheartened at being thus slighted, and, human nature being what it is, will lose, in some degree, their interest in the schools. Can that be for the good of the education of the young? It is quite evident to me that there is no real dissatisfaction with the religious teaching given by the clergy in our schools. In ray diocese, thanks be to God, we have nearly 72,900 children being taught in the Church schools. Out
  614
  of those 72,900, only 329 have been with drawn from some portion of the religious teaching, while those who have been taken by their parents from all the religious teaching number only thirty five, and I am told that the majority of those thirty-five are children either of members of the Roman Church or of Jews. Does not that show beyond all possibility of doubt, that the parents speaking generally, are thoroughly satisfied with the teaching given by the clergy in the schools? Concerning the general well-being of Concerning the general well-being the Church in this matter, your Lordships are aware of the great difficulty which we Bishops find in obtaining clergy to fill the vacant cures and curacies. Are you doing that which would move men to come forward for the sacred ministry? Is it not the desire of the laity that the clergy of the Church of England should in the future, as in the past, be men of learning, high education, scholarship, culture, and gentleman-like manner. Hitherto the clergy have been men of high education and culture, and one reason has been that the status of the English clergyman, though not bringing him in great wealth, has been one of comparative independence. If you thus limit his prerogatives, hinder him in the discharge of his duties, and cramp him by allowing him no longer to discharge what he regards as his duty—namely, to teach the young of his flock, do you not think it likely that men of independent minds will become less and less inclined to enter the ministry of the Church? Surely in this matter the interests of the clergy and of the laity are precisely the same. If you in any way depress the clergy or seem to cast a slight upon them, it must surely end in injury to the Church at large, including the laity. I should just like to point out that, from my point of view the Kenyon-Slaney Amendmentinfringesan essential principle, of the Church. What do we Bishops say when we commission a man to go down into his parish? The solemn words we use to him in the name of the Church are "We commit unto you the cure and government of the souls of the parishioners of the said parish," that is to say, the Church, acting through the Bishop, gives to that individual man jurisdiction or spiritual authority in the parish to which he is going, and in that parish he is recognised, not only by the

  615
  Church, but I believe by the law of the land, as being the minister of the parish, whose duty it is to minister to all the members of the Church of England within the bounds of his parish. By this Kenyon-Slaney Amendment yon really take away a portion of the parish clergyman's jurisdiction. You withdraw from him the children; you take the lambs from under his charge, and say he shall not teach them unless allowed to do so by the managers. That is surely in some degree an infringement of the principle of the Church. I earnestly hope that something will be done to remedy the evil I have referred to.
  *EARL SPENCER: I rise simply for the sake of advancing business. I confess myself that I am in a great state of confusion. We have had a particular Amendment brought forward, and we have had an exceedingly able and interesting speech, which I am sure your Lordships appreciated very much, from a noble and learned lord who comes from Scotland: but he did not even allude to the Amendment, and I am not in the least aware of which way he would vote. We have also had a very interesting speech from the right rev. Prelate, which was perhaps somewhat more to the point. We were, however, discussing an Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, but we have wandered from it. I suggest that it would be better to adhere more closely to the Amendment before the House, instead of making Second Reading speeches.
  *THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The noble Earl has, to some extent, anticipated what I was about to say. I also found great difficulty in following the course of the debate, as we were not discussing the particular matter before us, but were talking rather at large upon general questions, the applicability of which to the particular Amendment it was sometimes extremely difficult to follow. I would like to associate myself with the noble Earl in congratulating the House upon having, as an addition to its wisdom, such a speech as that just delivered by my noble and learned friend. I am familiar with him as a coadjutor in our judicial proceedings; but I think your Lordships will all agree that if he would favour us
  with a little more of his wisdom on other occasions it would be greatly to the advantage of your Lordships' House. Having said that, let me add that I think he did make one point which, although I did not agree with him in it, was applicable to this particular Amendment. That point, which I will endeavour to answer, was that this Clause was an improper interference with the trust deeds. I know that he is a great lawyer, and, as he said, a great Tory (I do not hesitate to associate myself with him in this respect), but there is one point which he will forgive me for saying he entirely omitted to consider. This Bill is not dealing only with trust deeds. If it were, nobody would interfere with them. The question we are dealing with is not only that of trust deeds, but also that of the distribution of public money; and as the distribution of public money is part of the administration under this Bill, which we hope will become an Act of Parliament, it is impossible to suppose that those who have the responsibility of subscribing public money, whether they are called State or Civil Government—I care not what particular form of words is used—should not so far intervene as to say, "Before we are called upon to subscribe public money for the purpose of aiding and assisting schools in which these things are being taught, we will have some voice as to what shall be taught therein." Whether that is right or wrong I am not now stopping to discuss. It is one of the conditions of this Bill, and it is one of the things which caused this Bill to be brought before your Lordships' House. In supposing that that can be answered by the suggestion that you have no right to interfere with trust deeds while he omits to take into consideration the contribution of public money, and the intervention of the ratepayers, my noble friend has, if he will forgive me for saying so, done in his political course what he never does in his judicial course—namely, entirely missed the heart of the Question.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 157; Not-Contents, 20.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Portland, D.

  Wellington, D.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Somerset, D.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Dubboyne, L.

  Breadalbane, M.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Bristol, M.

  Cross, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Camden, M.

  Falkland, V.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberteen.)

  Erskine, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Hardinge. V.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgone.)

  Winchester, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore)

  Farrer, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Forester, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Glanusk, L.

  Rideley, V.

  Glenesk, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chaniberlain.)

  Hylton, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  lveagh, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  James, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Kenyon, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Ely, L. Bp.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Denbigh, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Derby, E.

  Manchester, L. Bp.

  Lindley, L.

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

  Newcastle, L. Bp.

  Ludlow, L.

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Ducie, E.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)

  Eldon, E.

  Southwell, L. Bp.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Truro, L. Bp.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Harewood, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Middleton, L.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Monkswell, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Addington, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Lauderdale, F.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Newton, L.

  Lichfield, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  North, L.

  Londesborough, E.

  Basing, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Belper, L.

  Reay, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Boston, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Manvers, E.

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

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Morley, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Rowton, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Romney, E.

  Burton, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Shute, L. (V Barrington.)

  Sandwich, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Spencer, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Cottesloe, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Davey, L.

  Welby, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Wenlock, L.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Denman, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Dormer, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Herries, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Shafteshury, E.

  De Freyne, L.

  Robertson, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Halifax, V. [TelIer]

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Teynham, L. [Teller.]

  Llandaff, V.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Wentworth, L.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to

  *THE EARL OF HALSBURY: In asking your Lordships' attention to the Amendment I am about to move, I cannot but feel that that attention has had a considerable draft already made upon it by discussions which have more
  618
  or less anticipated the consideration of this Clause. The most convenient course, I think, would be to state at once that the object of this Amendment is not to make any alteration in the intended meaning of the sub-Section known by

  619
  the name of Colonel Kenyon-Slaney. My best plan will probably be to read to your Lordships the Amendment, and in doing so, to explain as well as I can what I believe it means, what it is intended to do, and what it is intended not to do. Let me say at once that we are dealing now with denominational schools, schools attached to a denomination by a trust deed, and that the discussion cannot properly wander over questions which do not arise within that circumscribed limit. The Amendment I desire to move is, after the word "managers" to insert—.
  "Provided that nothing in this sub-Section shall affect any provision in a trust deed for reference to the Bishop or other superior ecclesiastical authority,"
  And let me pause here to say that I propose with your Lordships' permission to add there" or other denominational authority." It was originally intended that the word "ecclesiastical" might, and it was supposed to, include all other authorities to whatsoever denomination they might belong, but some question has arisen as to whether in the peculiar condition of the Church of England and the legal language applicable to the Church of England, the word "ecclesiastical" might not be considered too narrow, and not to include, for instance, the Wesleyan body. It was certainly not intended by the authors of the Clause to exclude any religious body that might have a trust deed, and in respect to which the power of appeal might be given. The Amendment will consequently read—
  "Provided that nothing in this sub-Section shall affect, any provision in a trust deed for reference to the Bishop or superior ecclesiastical or other denominational authority so far as such provision gives to the Bishop or authority the power of deciding whether the character of the religious instruction is or is not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed."
  For the moment I do not intend to deal with the question of whether or not that is right. What I propose to point out first is what the provision does not do. It does not propose to give any appeal on the question of the administration of the schools. It does not propose to repose in any body but the managers of the schools the control of the religious teaching. It does not propose to make anything but the character of the religious teaching appealable to the
  620
  Bishop. For the moment I do not say whether that is right or wrong. Rightly or wrongly, the Government have deliberately and intentionally reserved that portion of the religious administration, of the conduct of the schools. I do not care what phrase is used for the decision of the managers of the school, subject only to the question of whether or not the religious teaching is in accordance with the provisions of the trust upon which the school is to be administered. That reservation does not comprehend the details of management, or the mode of management, or the person managing, but simply the question of the religious teaching. To put it in plain terms: If it is a Roman Catholic school, it is the question of whether the teaching is Roman Catholic; if it is a Church of England School, it is the question of whether the teaching is Church of England, and so forth. The mode in which the teaching is to be given, and the person by whom it is to be given, and the rest of the administration of the school, is intended to be left in the hands of the managers of the school.
  On the subject of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause generally, I must say that I feel an apology is needed. I do not hesitate to say that some reason ought to have been given why the whole of this Clause, including the provision I am now moving, required to be inserted. I deprecate as strongly as possible the suggestion that the Clause is any reflection upon the clergy of the Church of England. It is not so intended. It is not founded upon any suspicion or distrust of or disbelief in the goodness of the work they have done, or any desire to overlook the incalculable amount of gratitude which this country owes to the Church of England for its services in the cause of education. But, after all, the question is only one of the sort of inconvenience from which we all suffer from time to time, because there are some persons who are not so scrupulous in the performance of their duties as they ought to be. We must make a general law by which they can be reached. Let your Lordships take the administration of any institution you please. Take a railway company. Why is it that whilst travelling on the lines of our railway companies we are worried

  621
  about our tickets—that officials nick them and snick them, and frequently waken us from our slumbers? Millions of people travel by the railway, but only a small number are mean enough to try to cheat the companies, but we are all obliged to submit to annoyance on their account. The same sort of thing takes place if you travel abroad. Every passenger has to submit to a search because half-a-dozen people will smuggle if they can. So it is here. In dealing with great institutions it is impossible to pick out individuals; you must make a law applicable to everybody. I believe that the object of this proposal will be largely achieved by the fact of its existence and by its administration. Every now and then the fact that there is an appeal to the Bishop will tend to prevent clergymen abusing their position. I have been for fifteen years in a position in which I have had good reason to know the good work done by clergy of the Church of England under circumstances of great privation, sometimes privation which affects them in their dearest and nearest relations, because they will do their duty. I cannot say how much I should feel it if I was supposed to be undervaluing the work which these men have done. If they had been in another class of life they would probably have gained stars and stripes and honours by what they havedone, but they have doneit unknown and unnoticed, because they believed it to be their duty. I thought it right that somebody speaking from this Bench should say that we at all events do not share the suggestion which has been made—viz., that this Clause was introduced because of any general distrust of the clergy of the Church of England. On the other hand, it is impossible to deny that there have been those who have thought proper to avail themselves of their opportunities to do that which is repugnant to the whole general body of the laity of the Church of England. They have sought to get rid of the old traditions of that great Reformation to which the English Church is indissolubly wedded. Everybody knows what is done from time to time by persons whose personal vanity and desire for ribbons, and nonsense of that sort, disgust the whole body of the English Church. The cases of the people who do these things are published in the newspapers, but the cases of
  622
  those who are working daily and hourly for the benefit of their parishioners, with the hearty support and love of their people, never become known. It is by the aid of these persons that such a Clause as this may he made to work harmoniously and without any friction in the Church. This Clause has been accepted by the Government with a view to making it something that should be used in terrorem against those who are disposed to depart from the true doctrines and practices of the Church of England.
  Then, I cannot forbear from saying that with my knowledge and experience of the work of the Church of England, I could not help feeling something like horror when I heard the attitude of the clergy on this subject described as one of grab, and that by a Bishop of the Church. What that means distinctly I admit I do not know, but it was intended to be vituperative, I presume, and to indicate that their attitude is that of selfishness and a desire to obtain that which is not their own. I hold that that is absolutely unjust. They have but one interest, I believe, and that is the interest of teaching the Word of God as they believe it ought to be taught, and in the eternal interest of their parishioners to see that that duty should not be neglected. It would be idle now to say anything of what the clergy of the Church of England have done, and what the Members of the Church of England have done from time to time for the religious instruction of the people; but I believe that no one could gravely get up here or elsewhere and for a moment deny the enormous debt of gratitude which the country owes to them. But there is, I admit, another side to that. You may have persons who are disposed to look to their own interest, irrespective of such supreme considerations. The true line to take on this question is that, where you are dealing with the administration of these schools, you should, on the one hand, have due regard to the religious character of the institution for which you are providing, and, on the other hand, that you should have associated, at all events presumably, though, I admit, not necessarily, with the clergyman some laymen. May I be permitted to say. with the utmost respect for some observations which I have heard

  623
  from the Episcopal Bench, that the Church does not mean the clergy alone? In early life I had as an undergraduate of the University of Oxford, to give my allegiance, to the Articles of the Church of England, and those Articles did not speak only of the clergy, but of the congregation of faithful men, I do not myself understand why it should be thought inappropriate that in such a provision as this some of the laity should be associated with the clergy in continuing and administering the religious instruction of the parish. My own belief is that, properly administered and properly understood, this Clause will be a great assistance to the clergy, and will fortify them in what they have to do. If it operates, as I believe it will operate, in spite of the elements of discord that seem to have been scattered around a little recklessly, I entertain very little doubt that the Clause itself need never be brought into action at all. A great many laws are operative by the mere fact of their existence, and not by the irvindication, and in the same way, if this Clause is accepted in the sense and in the spirit in which it is enacted, and with the precautions by which it is surrounded, so far from its being an impediment to the Church and to the administration of the clergymen of the parish, my belief is that it will be a great assistance The only clergymen who are likely to be excluded from participation in the teaching of their parishes will be such as have entirely lost the confidence of their parishioners by the fact of their disloyalty to the Church to which they profess to belong. If that is the only operation of the Clause, I for one shall regard it as a very wholesome operation.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 10, after 'managers,' to insert ' Provided that nothing in this sub-Section shall affect any provision in a trust deed for reference to the bishop or superior ecclesiastical or other denominational authority so far as such provision gives to the bishop or authority the power of deciding whether the character of the religious instruction is or is not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed. '"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  *EARL SPENCER: It will perhaps tend to expedite the business of your Lordships' House if I state at once the course
  624
  my friends and I intend to take with regard to this proviso. I wish there had been some one else to speak after the very able speech to which we have just listened with such deep interest. I desire to say at once that I am in favour of this Kenyon-Slaney Clause. I entirely concur with the noble and learned Lord in not placing any general distrust in theclergy of the Church, and I agree with him in a great deal that he had said with regard to the devotion and the work of the clergy in the past and in the present, and in the hope that they will continue that work in the future. I know that in the old days they were among the first to help to spread education in this country, and though I fear I now differ from them in many points, I differ from them without wishing to attach or to place any distrust in the general body of the Church.
  I entirely agree with what the Lord Chancellor said as to why it is necessary very often to introduce penal legislation. It was not on account of the general conduct of the body, but rather on account of the misconduct of a few. I should put it in exactly the manner in which the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Manchester put it, who said he had to accept this, and regretted it. Why did he accept it? Because he felt he was obliged to on account of the misconduct—I do not know whether I am using the exact word—of some of his reverend brethren. I regret that this should be so, but it is on account of these clergy who go beyond what many of us think are the true doctrines and ritual of the Church of England, and who may be the persons who wish to excite the same atmosphere in the schools, that we consider some check must be put upon them, and some power given to those who directly represent the parents of the children.
  We have heard a good deal about the parents of the children, but I cannot for a moment say that too much has been said on this subject. The parents have distinct views on all these points, and it is because I believe that in some cases, I hope not in many, there are parents who have just cause to complain of the teaching and religious influences brought to bear on the school, that I think some Clause like this is absolutely necessary. I confess I should prefer the Kenyon-Slaney Clause as proposed in the other

  625
  House, and as very properly corrected and improved by the Amendments we have already carried. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord where in this proviso the words "or other denominational authority" will come.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: They will come after "superior ecclesiastical," and the proviso will then read—
  "…any provision in a trust deed for reference to the Bishop or superior ecclesiastical or other denominational authority."
  *EARL SPENCER: I prefer the simpler and plainer form of the Clause, which expressed exactly the meaning of its mover and supporters in another place. I shall, therefore, when the proposal is put say "Not Content."
  THE EARL OF FEVEHSHAM, Who had given notice of his intention to move the insertion, after "manager" in line 10, of the words, "who shall recognise the duty of the clergyman or minister of the Church or denomination to which the school belongs to give such instruction," said: We have to express our gratitude and thanks to the Clergy of this country for the hard work they have done and the many sacrifices they have made for the maintenance of the voluntary schools, It has been acknowledged that the reason for this Clause is that a few clergymen have exceeded their province, have allowed their zeal to outrun their discretion, and have been guilty of certain practices contrary to the principles of the Church of England. By this Clause, therefore, you are punishing the whole body of the clergy for the shortcomings of the few. Indiscriminate censure is eminently unjust. That is the main reason for our strong opposition to the Clause. I do not think we can speak too highly of the work of the clergy, and I was anxious by my Amendment to secure to them their right of giving religious instruction to the children in the schools. I did not intend to interfere with the Clause as it stood, but to add certain words to effect my object. As the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor has been carried, my Amendment would not now fit in, but if the Duke of Northumberland proceeds with his proposal mine will be unnecessary. I do desire,
  626
  however, to add my voice to the protest against there being added to the Bill a Clause which may lead to great difficulty and dissension hereafter, but which I hope the proviso of the noble and learned Lord will in some respects mitigate.
  THE DUKE OFNORTHUMBERLAND, in moving the insertion of a proviso that any person having under the trust deed duties in respect of the religious instruction should not be prevented from discharging those duties except with the consent of the recognised authorities of the denomination to which the school belonged, said: Your Lordships heard, no doubt, with great satisfaction the words which fell from the Lord Chancellor in praise of the clergy, but I cannot help agreeing with part, at least, of what fell from my noble friends Viscount Halifax and Lord Robertson when they declared that the position of the clergy of the Established Church had been lowered by this Bill. I could not help being reminded, while the Lord Chancellor was speaking, of the well-worn adage—"You may have been right to dissemble your love, but why did you kick me downstairs?" What the noble Viscount said with regard to the position of the country clergyman—that he is the personer of the parish, that he occupies a position in teaching and in general authority which is unique in a certain sense—is true, and it is also true that by this Bill you have lowered that position. By this measure you have made this curious assertion, that while such a clergyman is lit to administer the sacraments, to preach to the congregation, to comfort the sick and the dying, he is unfit to educate your children unless he is supervised by a body of managers, with or without an appeal. I cannot help regarding this Clause as one of the most serious steps towards the disestablishment of the Church which has been taken for many years. I do not understand the attitude of the Church of England in this matter. I could have understood it if the Church had been prepared to stand by her position, which, I assume, she believes to be a just one, and refused for any advantage she may get from the rates

  627
  or other sources to sacrifice the station she has so long occupied in connection with this country. But she has not done so. It is not for me to attempt to unravel the mystery. The fact remains that this is a serious stigma on the clergy, which I trust, in moving this Amendment, I shall do something to remove. I confess I have not gone very far but I have done what I could to secure that the person entrusted by the trust deed with, the duty of giving the religious instruction should not be displaced from that position except by the proper ecclesiastical authority, and not merely by the direct or indirect intervention of any other people or class whatsoever. I entirely endorse what has been said with regard to the impossibility of confining the direction to any party denomination. I do not know whether that confession is not an admission that the Church of England no longer occupies the position in connection with the State which formerly she did. It used not to be impossible to legislate for the Church of England, as an established and State Church, upon a totally different footing from any other denomination; but it that day is past, and past by the general acquiescence of all sides, I accept the situation. bring forward this Motion, not by any means as a heroic measure, but merely as a small instalment of justice. I cannot imagine what possible objection there can be to it on the part of the Government, and I trust your Lordships will support it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 10, after 'managers' insert 'provided always that any persons having under the trust deeds duties in respect of the religious instruction, shall not be prevented from discharging such duties except with the consent of the recognised authorities of the denomination to which the school belongs.'"(The Duke of Northumberland.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I rise to second the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke, and in doing so I should like to explain on, behalf of myself, and I think of many of my right rev. brethren, why we did not support the other Amendments which have been moved. In the first place, having ourselves in Convocation invited two extra men to be put on, it seemed inconsistent not to allow them to be on in any way
  628
  at all. We, therefore, could not support the Amendment touching that matter. In regard to the Amendment giving the right of appeal to the foundation managers only, that again seemed unjust, and it is a positive relief to reach an Amendment which I can support with all my heart. I shall speak for only a few minutes, but I do want your Lordships to listen to the most earnest plea I can possibly make. You have no conception of how the clergy themselves feel in regard to this matter. I have received hundreds of letters from all parts of the country on the subject. If you had been with me yesterday as I went with a clergyman to his schools in one of the poorest parishes of London, you would have seen what the right of superintendence and entry into those schools meant to him. As was said by Viscount Goschen at an earlier stage of our proceedings, it was the one bright spot in the clergyman's parish. In the first place, the right of superintendence, subject to appeal, is given by the trust deed; in the second place, it is right and natural that he should have it; and, in the third place, I venture to think that the influence of the kindly, educated man moving about among the children has been the soul of the school for years. That influence has been an untold benefit to hundreds of thousands of children in England; and yet this superintendence and right of entry are being taken away by this Bill. The clergy of the diocese of Manchester have made an appeal in a sense different from that in which the right rev. Prelate spoke; they say that a Church Discipline Bill ought not to come in the guise of an Education Bill; and the communications I have had from different parts of the country lead me to suppose that the feeling is equally strong throughout the kingdom. It should be noticed that the noble Duke, in this Amendment, does not propose to do away with the Kenyon-Slanoy Clause; he simply desires to safeguard that which the clergy value most. Speeches have been made as though it were only on questions of ritual that the right of superintendence on the part of the clergy was in danger. I was speaking to one of the most popular clergy in London the other day, a man almost adored by the laity, and he said that down in his country parish he would certainly be excluded from his school because of the unpopularity of his teetotal principles. Let me turn for a moment to the

  629
  objections which may be urged against this Amendment. It in no way contradicts the proviso already passed by the House. It might be said that we were restoring the one-man management. To allow the right of entry and superintendence, subject to appeal, is a totally different thing from allowing the clergyman to manage the whole thing himself. None of us on this Bench desire to have one-man management restored. Then it may be said that we allow members of the Government and others to make speeches in which the effect of this Clause was implied, and made no protest. All I can say is that when I heard or read those speeches it never passed my mind that it went so far as to exclude the clergyman from his school. When it is urged that in our Houses of Convocation we ourselves asked that two managers should come in, as the mover of the motion I can say that it never occurred to me that those two managers should have any voice in turning the clergyman out of the school of his parish. Then it has been urged that we desire to allow the clergyman to ride roughshod over the feelings of the people in matters of ritual. That has already been safeguarded, and on behalf of the members of the Episcopal Bench I may say that if any complaint on that matter is made to us there is no sort of doubt as to the verdict we should give. I want your Lordships to look at this question without prejudice, not from a Party point of view, but from the point of view of right. We desire to preserve to the clergyman the one thing he most loves in the whole of his work. I have worked in the slums of London for years, and I speak with knowledge of what it is to the poor clergyman to have this priceless privilege to his hand. I urge most earnestly your Lordships to pass the Amendment, assuring you that by so doing, while it may not satisfy all, you would take away the bitterness of spirit which, although we should urge the clergy to make the best of the Bill, would go far towards spoiling the work of the measure.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I have listened with great attention to the speech of the right rev. Prelate, but I missed from it the one declaration which
  630
  might have induced your Lordships seriously to consider the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke. It has been said on both sides of the House that this sub-Section and the acceptance it had received had been inspired by no distrust of the clergy as a whole. If it has been inspired by any feeling of distrust, I am afraid I must say it is inspired by distrust, not of the willingness, but of the power, of the Episcopal Bench to restrain certain of their clergy from excesses which we all deplore. If it had been in the power of the right rev. Prelate to assure your Lordships that the Bishops were prepared to undertake that their consent and that of the recognised authorities of the Church would not be given to any clergyman who gave instruction of a character distasteful to, and contrary to the opinions and feelings of, the large body of their parishioners, there might have been a reason for recommending your Lordships to accept this Amendment. But the right rev. Prelate carefully abstained from giving any such undertaking on the part either of himself or of his rev. brethren. When we do not believe that in a great many cases the Bishop of the diocese would be able to exercise that restraint over the proceedings of some of his clergy whom this Clause is intended to restrain, I think your Lordships and the other House would feel it extremely to accept an Amendment which so materially alters the Clause. It has been said over and over again that, while we are perfectly willing and desire that the appeal to the Bishops should remain for the purpose of defining what is or what is not contrary to the doctrines of the Church, the intention of the Clause has been openly and avowedly to transfer from the clergyman alone to the managers, amongst whom he ought to exercise a predominant influence, the control and administration of religious teaching. I do not think it would be in consonance with the pledges which have been given on this part of the subject, to accept this modification.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: I am anxious to associate myself with the appeal which has been made in favour of the Amendment. The course of the discussion has in many respects been instructive on the all-important point of lay opinion as it is represented in this

  631
  House. I am sure the clergy are not likely to forget the lesson that has been taught us as regards the anxiety with which the vast majority of the laity look upon disturbances and eccentricities in our Orders. Above all, I think it is manifest that it was widely felt to be unfair to use the parochial schools for the inculcation of doctrines in reference to which there are acute differences within the Church of England itself. In spite of this, I cannot in silence allow the claim of the vast majority of the parochial clergy as I know them to lie thus dealt with—that they should be left, without appeal, to be excluded by a vote of their own parishioners from their own schools. I do not mean by that that laymen should not be consulted on questions of Christian doctrine, but I doubt whether a board of laymen so constituted are competent, without appeal, to decide upon the pastor's proper place in relation to his school.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I think the noble Duke in charge of the Bill gave, on the whole, a very sympathetic reply to the principle which underlies the proposition of the Bishop of London, and I believe the right rev. Prelate and the noble Duke are not far apart. The noble Duke asked for a declaration on the part of the Episcopal Bench that they intended to carry out the spirit of the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor, and that if appeals were made to them they would decide them in the practical sense the noble Duke desired. I believe I am right in saying that the language of the Episcopal Bench throughout the course of these deliberations points to the conclusion that they are with the great majority of the House and of the country in desiring to put down those excesses which, if they were a cause of regret before, will be a cause of yet deeper regret to all Churchmen after the passing of this Bill, looking to the fact that to them is due what I must call the disestablishment of the parochial clergy, and as the instructors in religious education in their schools. We may rely upon the Bishops that they will do their utmost, in the interests of the Church as well as in the interests of education and of peace, to decide these appeals entirely in the sense indicated by the House in the adoption of the Lord Chancellor's Amendment. If that is so, I might almost claim the support
  632
  of the Government for the proposal which has been made. I will not dilate upon the subject at this late hour; I desire only to put what is perhaps a new view of the case before your Lordships. It is admitted, I believe, that there are cranks amongst laymen as well as amongst clergymen, and it is perfectly possible that in a certain number of cases—perhaps not less numerous than the cases of the excesses against which we hear so much—the lay managers will take what would generally be considered an inequitable view of the religious education in the school. The clergyman will appeal to the Bishop, and the Bishop may decide in favor of the clergyman, who will then go back to the managers, and say, "Here is the decision of the Bishop in my favour." But we must remember that the managers are to have the entire control of everything except the decision on points of doctrine, including the question of by whom the religious education is to be given. Consequently, if the clergyman goes back to the managers with the Bishop's decision in his favour, the managers will still be able to carry out their view by deciding that the clergyman, although in the view of the Bishop he has been teaching proper doctrine, is no longer to conduct the religious education in the school. In other words, unless you adopt some such Amendment as that now proposed, I do not see that there is much value in the appeal to the bishop, so far as it is any protection to the clergyman. The managers will practically have the power of appointing whatever teacher they like for religious as well as for secular education. Their control is so absolute that unless you safeguard the appeal as I suggest, and as is proposed by the Amendment, it appears to me that the appeal itself is in danger in the sense that it may not be equitably accepted by the managers. I will venture to put one further consideration only before your Lordships. We have been assured on high authority that the first duly of a Liberal Government will be to change the management and to give more effective popular control. In that case, this protection, if the Amendment were adopted, would still exist, and would be invaluable. I admit that I do not think the Church has much chance of maintaining a majority amongst managers beyond the next General Election, but there would possibly be a

  633
  security, which even noble Lords opposite would not care to attack. If in the case of a clergyman who was in the right according to the doctrines of the Church of England the trust deed was not to be over-ridden, but would still remain in force, giving the clergyman who teaches the doctrine of the Church of England, and is not guilty of excesses, the right contained in that trust deed, under which the school has been founded, endowed, and carried on up to the present. I trust the Government will consider this Amendment in a sympathetic spirit. It contains, I believe, the minimum of controversial matter, because I am sure most noble Lords would wish that if an appeal has been made and decided in favour of the clergyman, it should not be used as an engine by which the clergyman might be dispossessed of the right and the duty he has hitherto enjoyed.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I should not have intervened in this debate, least of all when the hands of the clock point to the hour of midnight, but for the remark made by the noble Duke as to the absence of a declaration on the part of the Bishops, which might have induced the Government favourably to consider the Amendment. I have no hesitation in answering that appeal. The noble Duck may rely upon it—I suppose he would not expect a formal dsocument—that if legitimate opposition were made in a parish to a clergyman because of his real unfitness, for whatever reason, to carry on the work of teaching in the schools, the Bishops would support the managers. I hope that declaration which is exactly what we understand him to desiderate, may cause the noble Duck favourably to consider the Amendment. I believe that such appeals would be few indeed. it is an utter misrepresentation of our attitude to say that we distrust the laity, and expect such things to happen everyday. We expect nothing of the kind. We believe there may be exceptional cases here and there, that incalculable hardship may be inflicted in those cases, and that the clergy ought to be safeguarded against it. We have no fear of natural and legitimate opposition to the action of the clergy in carrying on, as heretofore, their labour of love in the teaching of religion in Church schools; the cases are exceedingly rare in which such opposition would be probable or
  634
  would have the slightest chance of receiving popular approval in the parish.
  But, my Lords, we have something to fear now from an unexpected source. The position has somewhat changed within the last few days. The Nonconformists of England have received encouragement to endeavour to make this Bill unworkable, and the encouragement has come from high quarters. Is it inconceivable that men will be found to take seats on the board of management in order to carry out the task which has been laid upon them by such high political authority? I welcome the presence of Noncomformists on our managing bodies. I believe they will do us good in a score of ways; but I ask that they should come thither with an honest intention of endeavouring to make the Bill work well, and not of endeavouring to make it work ill. We have been told that it is now too late to suggest this Amendment, and that we ought to have spoken last summer if we were to speak at all. It is true that the whole question of the appeal which exists under our trust deeds was simply overlooked, but we are all—celrgy and laity, members of the Government and of the Opposition, Members of Parliament and members of the Episcopal Bench—in the same boat. When this subject was discussed in the summer, no single person on either side alluded to the question of the exclusion of the clergyman from the school as likely to come up under this Bill. No doubt we Bishops were to blame—and I, for one, accept a full share of blame—for not seeing that this peril lay behind. But if it be true that a mistake was made so many months ago in that matter, is that any reason why it should not be set right by the acceptance of the Amendment before the House?
  The LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY: As the Bishop of a Diocese I entirely associate myself with the Bishop of Winchester in this matter, and I believe the Bishop of London gave utterance to the same sentiment.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I can give the same assurance.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Would the noble Duck say whether these declarations have had any effect on his decision?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I cannot say that the declarations that have been made from the Episcopal Bench are sufficiently explicit to enable me to accept the Amendment. I do not doubt that many, probably most, of the members of the right rev. Bench, greatly deplore the excesses which are said to exist in some of the schools. The doubt that we entertain is as to the power of the right rev. Bench to exercise a proper control and restraint over these clergymen, some of whose proceedings they may deplore. If they have this power, why has it not been exercised before? These cases which we have in our minds have taken place in schools under trust deeds securing a right of appeal to the Bishop, but have any of your Lordships ever heard of the proceedings of an indiscreet clergyman in the school being restrained by the Episcopal authorities? No doubt they deplored the practices, but it is easy to see that a Bishop must find his relations with a considerable body of his clergy greatly strained if he attempted to exercise the authority required in such cases. I cannot understand why it should be found more easy for the right rev. Bench in future to exercise the necessary control over their clergy in this respect than it has been in the past, and therefore, in the absence of more explicit assurances than the Government have yet received, I feel it impossible to accept the Amendment.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ELY: May I ask whether the noble Duke has considered the last words of the Amendment— "should not be prevented from discharging such duties except with the consent of the recognised authorities of the denomination to which the school belongs?" At present, we Bishops have no power to turn a schoolmaster out of his school, but the managers, with our consent, will be able to do so under this Amendment. In the case of an extremely foolish, mismanaging clergyman, such as has been supposed, the managers would demand his dismissal, and we should consent to it. Therefore, we have not the power now which we should have under this Clause.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: I venture to say that the urgency of this matter is such that, even at this hour, we must plead for a further word of reply from the noble Duke. He has
  636
  pointed to the conduct of the Bishops in the past as justifying in some degree the rejection of this Amendment. I wish to point out how entirely different this case is from some, at any rate, of the cases to which the noble Duke was probably referring. With regard to the schools, would it not be necessary to find a case in which an appeal had been made against the conduct of a clergyman in a school, and had been either neglected or dismissed by the Bishop? I will not say that no such case exists; a universal negative is exceedingly difficult; but even if one or two could be found, I do not conceive that the noble Duke would desire to found on them a policy against which could be brought opinions so weighty and reasons so serious as have been voiced tonight. I imagine that the scope of his objection is really wider than that. He is probably thinking of the general attitude of the Episcopate towards certain developments or eccentricities in the Church. I do not want to go into that large subject; I think that possibly some of the criticisms upon the laxity of the Episcopate must themselves be more open to criticism than is sometimes assumed. The policy of restraint is not quite so easy as some people imagine. But I want to point out the very clear difference that exists between the case of the schools and cases of a more purely ecclesiastical kind. In ordinary Church matters, the Bishop, if he takes action, has to take action touching thequestion—and can there be any question from any point of view more difficult?—of the religious limits of the Church of England and its law. In the matter under discussion you have a much narrower question to decide. You have to decide—or, in my judgment, it is what you ought to have to decide—whether, in a school consisting of young children, perhaps in many cases the only public school in the district, and which, therefore, is sure to contain the children of Churchmen of all shades of opinion, and also children of Nonconformists, doctrines or practices of an accentuated, extreme, or peculiar kind are to be allowed. I should have thought that that was a question on which a Bishop, without any great or excessive measure of administrative sagacity or wisdom, might easily give a decision in which he would be backed up by general consent. In the other case, besides the difficulty of the question to be decided

  637
  upon, there is the extreme difficulty of the procedure by which ecclesiastical law can be enforced. Is there any parallel to that in the case of the schools? Surely not. Your lay managers, vested by this Bill with full control of the school, go to the Bishop and ask for his practical decision on this practical question; they get that decision, which in this case would restrain the clergyman, and they have in their own hands the simplest possible power of enforcing it. I venture to put it to the noble Duke whether, under these circumstances, considering by whom among the lay Peers that opinion has been backed up, there is not the plainest evidence that this is not asked for merely in the interest of any small or extreme party of the Church of England, and that it is not intended to be used in any spirit of hostility to the body of the laity or to Nonconformists at large. I fully acknowledge what has been done in the Bill to acknowledge the principles of the Church. I do not forgot that the clergyman is a manager, and, where the trust deed requires it, ex-officio chairman of the managers. I do not think any of us regret that the clergyman's monarchy in his school is to be an extremely constitutional monarchy. We regard with gratitude the justice the Government have done to denominationalists; I do not regret that they have asked us to give the representative of the public authority, not necessarily, but very likely, a Nonconformist, an opportunity to sit with us, to see what we do, to hear how we intend to deal with religious instruction, giving his views on the matter, criticising our proposals, and so forth; but I do regret that His Majesty's Government, not, I believe, at the dictates of their own judgment, but in consequence of the pressure of certain currents of opinion in
  the House of Commons, has been induced to insert such a Clause as that to which we object. I ask whether it is not possible, even now, to recognise that the particular modification for which we ask in this Amendment is a reasonable modification? The Government started out to do justice to the claims of denominationalists, not of the Church of England only, though very largely hers; we recognise that in the main they have succeeded in their task. Is it not piteous that the result of their labour should be thus marred, and that while their opponents still adhere to their attitude of bitter antagonism towards the Bill, they should insist on spoiling the allegiance and gratitude of those whose grievances they had undertaken to meet, simply to enter upon a side issue, and comply with a passing current of temporary opinions?
  THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON: I think there is one aspect of the question which has not yet been considered. By the vote of your Lordships' House, a great responsibility has been put into the hands of the Bishops. If an appeal is made to us, we have to decide on important questions of doctrine. Suppose our decision is given, is it not almost necessary that you should give us some power by which that opinion can be enforced? It seems to me that the Amendment of the Duke of North-umberland is precisely calculated to supplement the appeal which has been given. I ask whether you are putting the Episcopal Bench in quite a fair position when you throw a responsibility upon them on the one hand, and scarcely give them the power of carrying out the responsibility on the other?
  On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided.—Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 96.

  CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Yarborough, E.

  Lichfield, L. Bp.

  Northumberland, D. [Teller.]

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Falkland, V.

  London, L. Bp.

  Hertford, M.

  Goschen, V.

  Newcastle, L. Bp.

  Halifax, V.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Abingdon, E.

  Knutsford, V.

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Feversham, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Ridley, V.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Mount Edgeumbe, E. [Teller.]

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Nelson, E

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Southwell, L. Bp.

  Romney, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Truro, L. BP.

  Sandwich,E.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Durham,L. Bp.

  Stamford, E.

  Ely, L. Bp.

  Addington, L.

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Penrhyu, L.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Robertson, L.

  Braye, L.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Rowton,L.

  Burton, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Hatherton, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Herries, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  De Freyne, L.

  Meldurm, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Dunboyne, L.

  O'Brien, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Selborne, E.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Spencer, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Forester, L.

  Portland, D.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Glanusk, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Verulam, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Hylton, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Iveagh, L.

  Camden, M.

  Kenyon, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  kinnaird, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Winchester, M.

  Cross, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Hardinge, V.

  Ludlow, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain)

  Manchester, L. Bp.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)

  Bathurst, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Carrington, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

  Chesterfield, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Basing, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Derby, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Muncaster, L.

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

  Belper, L.

  Reay, L.

  Boston, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Eldon, E.

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

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Burghclere,L.

  Seaton, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Lathom, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Lichfield, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Davey, L.

  Welby, L.

  Lvtton, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Wenlock, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Denman, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  Morley, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Windsor, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: As the hour is so late I will formally move that sub-Section 5 of Clause 7 be omitted from the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "To omit sub-Section 5."—(The Duck of Norfolk.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: It is some what irregular to put a sub-Section separately; it is usual to put the Clause as a whole; but the present condition of
  things is rather remarkable, and I propose, with the assent of the Houses, to put the sub-Section as amended.
  THE DUCK OF NORFOLK: I am merely moving that which is in my name on the paper, and which, I presume, is in order.
  On Question, "That sub-Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided.—Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 25.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Wellington, D.

  Camden, M.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Hertford, M.

  Portland, D.

  Bristol, M.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Winchester, M.

  Knutsford, V.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Ridley, V.

  Farrer, L.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Forester, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Glanusk, L.

  Durham, L.Bp.

  Glenesk, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Ely, L.Bp.

  Hatherton, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Hylton,L.

  Carrington, E.

  Manchester, L. Bp.

  Iveagh, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Newcastle, L. Bp.

  Kenyon, L.

  Derby, E.

  Ripon, L.Bp.

  Kinnaird, L.

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

  Southwell, L. Bp.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Ludlow, L.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Addington, L.

  Macnaghten,L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)

  Lathom, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Lichfield, E.

  Basing, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Londesborough, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Belper, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Morely, E.

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

  Penrhyn, L.

  Mount, Edgcumbe, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Reay, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Braye,L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Romney, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Burton, L.

  Rowton, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Colchester, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Sudleey, L. (E. Arran.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Cottesloe, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Davey, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Denman,L.

  Welby, L.

  Colville of Curlross, V.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Wenlock, L.

  Cross, V.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Windsor, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) [Teller.]

  Llandaff, V.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  London, L. Bp.

  Northumberland, D.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Herries, L.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Feversham, E.

  Botreaux, (E. Loudoun.)

  O'Brien, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]

  De Freyne, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Teynham, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: In moving that this Committee be adjourned, I may say that we propose that the House should meet tomorrow at three o'clock to continue the discussion on the Education Bill, with an adjournment between eight and nine o'clock if necessary. I am afraid it will be necessary for me to ask the House to meet on Saturday at twelve o'clock for the Report stage of the Bill, as the Report stage could hardly be of any value without an interval of one day for the consideration of the Amendments. On Friday we shall take Second Reading of London Water Bill, and Third
  642
  Reading of the Education Bill on Monday.
  EARL SPENCER: As far as we on this side are concerned, we are ready to agree to the arrangement for a Saturday sitting.
  Resumed; and to be again in Commiteee Tomorrow.

  LONDON WATER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next. (The Lord Balfour.) (No 193.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes before One o'clock a.m. till half-past Ten o'clock a.m.