Sitting of 16 December 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
PETITIONS
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Petition from North Berwick, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL
Petition from Ratcliffe-cum-Farnworth, against; to lie upon the Table.
METRIC SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Petition from Edinburgh lation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) (POPULATION).
  Return [presented 15th December] to be printed [No. 397.]
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (REPRODUCTIVE UNDERTAKINGS)
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 25th June; Sir Henry Fowler]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 398.]
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Return presented —relative thereto[ordered 9th December;The Lord Adwcatc]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 399.]
  RAILWAYS (STOCK, ETC.)
  Return presented —relative thereto [ordered l5th July; Mr. Claude Hay]; to lie upon the Table, and to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 400.]
  GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE FUND
  Account presented—of the General Lighthouse Fund showing the Income and Expenditure for the year ended 31st March 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 401.]
  SEAMEN'S SAVINGS BANKS (MONEY ORDERS AND TRANSMISSION" OF WAGES).
  Accounts presented—of all Deposits received and repaid during the year ended 20th November 1901, and Statement as to Money Orders issued and paid from 1855 to 31st March 1902, and of Receipts and Payments in connection with the Transmission of Seamen's Wages from 1878 to 31st March 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 402.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNTAL SERIES.)
  Copies presented—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series. Nos. 2921 and 2922 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.)
  Copy presented—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series No. 586 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (LONDON.)
  Further Return relative there to [ordered 2nd August 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 403.]
  POOR LAW CHILDREN (COTTAGE HOMES.)
  Return ordered, "showing the names of the Unions the Guardians of which have provided grouped Cottage Homes or other similar establishments for Poor Law Children, the situation of such establishments, and the total cost per head per annum of the children in each establishments during the year ended the 25th day of March 1902."—(Sir. Walter Foster.)

  PRACTICE OF THE HOUSE—APPRO PRIATION OF SEATS BEFORE PRAYERS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL ()addressing the Speaker, said he had seen the hon. Member for North Monaghan remove a name card from a seat which had been appropriated for another Member before prayers. He should not have called attention to the matter, only he heard the hon. Member for North Monaghan say to the hon. Member as he was passing—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! These little private matters are not in order The hon. Member has asked me about a point of practice in the House. The practice is that in order to keep a seat the hon. Member himself must be present at prayers. That is quite clear. If the hon. Member has not been present at prayers the card is not effective.
  MR. T. M. HEALY (): This is the most shameful incident that any Irish Member has ever introduced.
  DR. THOMPSON (): Allow me to say that I would be the last person to take any advantage of a rule that was not a right one, and if I did err I am very sorry indeed for it.

  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Argentine Cattle Regulations.
    MR. SCHWANN (): To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state when the restrictions on the importation of live cattle into England from the Argentine Republic can be removed, in view of the present price of meat.
    (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) The existing position with regard to the admission of cattle from Argentina was fully explained in the reply I made to a Question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Bolton on the 9th instant kindly refer. I have not as yet received any official information as to the passing
    † See page 448.

    1323
    of the new law, and of the issue of the necessary decree there under from the Argentine Government, but my expectation is that it will not be long before these matters are placed on a satisfactory footing, and it will then be my duty, in the absence of any further outbreak of disease, to withdraw the existing prohibition.

    British Indian Subjects in the Transvaal
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEY (): To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been directed to a petition from British Indian subjects residing in the Transvaal, appealing against the special disabilities and restrictions there imposed upon them, which was forwarded to Lord Milner on 6th November; and whether the prayer of the petitioners that evidence on their behalf may be submitted by counsel before any ordinance continuing such disabilities receives the sanction of the Crown, will be favourably entertained.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonics.) The petition has not yet been received at the Colonial Office.

    Pacific Cable—Vancouver—Fanning Section
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON (): To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with regard to the speed trials over the recently-laid Vancouver to Fanning section of the Pacific Cable, he will state the length of this section as laid; whether the central wire of the conductor was surrounded by small copper wires or by spiral copper strips; the average weight per nautical mile of the completed conductor; the resistance per nautical mile of the conductor at a temperature of 75° Fahrenheit; the inductive capacity of the core as laid, tested by a null method; the resistance of the dielectric reduced to 75° Fahrenheit, and whether the signals were received on the mirror or on the recorder instrument.
    1324
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) The length of the recently laid Vancouver-Fanning section of the Pacific Cable is 3457-76 nautical miles. The central wire of the conductor is surrounded by spiral copper strips and the average weight per nautical mile of the completed conductor is 607 lbs., having a resistance of 1,990 B.A. ohms per nautical mile at a temperature of 75° Fahrenheit. The inductive capacity of the core, as laid and tested by a null method, is 0'419 microfarads per nautical mile. Owing to the want of technical precision in the question relating to the resistance of the dielectric reduced to 75° Fahrenheit, there is some uncertainty as to the exact information required, but, assuming that the question refers to the dielectric resistance after one minute's electrification reduced to 75° Fahrenheit and to atmospheric pressure, this value is 1,726 megohms per nautical mile as calculated from the tests made after the laying of the cable. The signals were received on the syphon recorder.

    South Africa—Veterinary Examination of Cattle given to the Boers.
    MR. WEIR (): To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that in the case of loans to the Boers two-thirds of such loans are made in kind, will he explain why oxen and mules which are thus handed over to the farmers are not subjected to a veterinary examination before they pass out of the hands of the Government.
    (Answered Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonics.) I have nothing to add to the explanation given to the hon. Member in reply to his Question of the 6th November, except that no complaints of the arrangements under which stock is being transferred to the Boers have been received.

    Australian Commonwealth Labour Laws Exclusion of English Hatters.
    MR. WEIR (): To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that six;

    1325
    British workmen, who recently arrived It Sydney on board the steamship "Orontes," under a contract with a clothing manufacturer, have been refused permission to land under the immigration Act, and that they have been informed that the onus of proving that they possess special skill which is not obtainable in the Commonwealth rests with them; and will he state whether any steps are taken to make these conditions of the Immigration Act known to intending emigrants and to steamship companies who convey passengers to the Australian Colonics.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonics.)
    I have no infomation as to the case of the workmen on board the "Orontes" beyond what has appeared in the Press, from which it would appear that these men have been permitted to land in Australia. Full information as to the conditions has been published in the circulars of the Emigrants' Information Office.

    Lewis and Haris Weaving Industry.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate whether, with a view to assist in the production of Lewis and Harris tweeds, the Congested Districts Board can arrange for a few hand looms to be distributed in the Island of Lewis, and for special instruction to be giving in weaving.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
    The policy advocated by the hon. Member has already been adopted. For the ast four years the Congested Districts Board has employed a special instructor in weaving in Lewis and Harris, acting under the supervision of a local committee. That committee has from time to time applied to the Board for help in looms, dye-pots, etc., and in all approved cases such help has been given.

    Scottish Fishery Police—H.M.S."Jackal."
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the cruisers at the disposal of the Fishery Board for Scotland for sea police duty will be reduced in number in conse-
    1326
    quence of H.M.S. "Jackal" being detailed for purposes of scientific investigation under the direction of the International Research Committee, will he state whether he proposes to call upon the Admiralty for the services of another vessel; and, if not, will he say how he proposes to maintain the numerical strength of the cruisers at the disposal of the Scottish Fishery Board for sea police duty.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
    H.M.S. "Jackal" has been specially detailed by the Fishery Board, acting under the directions of the Secretary for Scotland and with the consent of the Admiralty, for temporary work of about a fortnight's duration, which does not recur more that once in three months, in connection with the scheme for International Research in the North Sea, and consequently the Secretary for Scotland does not propose taking the steps suggested by the hon. Member.

    Muzzling Order in Pembrokeshire.
    MR. PHILIPPS (): To ask the president of the Board of Agriculture whether he can now state when the muzzling order in Pembrokeshire will be taken off.
    (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) I had hoped to be able to withdraw the muzzling orders in force in South-West Wales at no distant date, but the position has been materially altered by the occurrence of a further case of disease at Llandovery. Very searching inquiries are being made with a view, if possible, to discover its origin, and in the meantime it would, in my judgment, be undesirable, in the interests of the complete extirpation of the disease from to the district, for any modification of the existing orders to be made.
    Merchant Shipping—Board of Trade Certificates—Colour Blindness Tests.
    MR. BOUSFIELD (): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the nature of the test for colour blindness at present adopted by the Board of Trade; whether he is

    1327
    aware that three dangerous varieties of colour blindness escape detection by this test, whilst many normal-sighted persona are rejected by the test; and whether he can see his way at an early date to appoint a small Departmental Committee to re-consider the test in the light of the recent discoveries and present opinion of medical specialists thereon.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am aware of the nature of the tests for colour blindness adopted by the Board of Trade, but I am not aware that under the tests dangerous forms of colour blindness escape detection or that persons of normal sight are rejected. The present system was adopted on the recommendation of a Committee appointed by the Council of the Royal Society, and composed of gentlemen of the highest position in the scientific world, while the Board of Trade have in all doubtful cases the advantage of the assistance in the conduct of the tests ot the gentlemen who acted as Secretary to the Committee, and who is a well-known authority in this country on the subject of colour vision. The tests are those invented by a distinguished Swedish scientist, and are, I believe, adopted in Foreign countries where any tests are made in examinations for colour vision. Froeign the information at present before me, I do not think that there is any necessity for a Committee such as that suggested by my hon. and learned friend.

    Coal and Pit Wood Returns.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can now say what changes will be made in the Monthly Returns next year in respect to the information supplied as to the export of coal and the import of pit wood.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) It is proposed to distinguish the exports of coal in the Monthly Returns next year under three heads, viz., "Small," "Through and through (unscreened," and "Large," with a further heading for the "Total" of the three descriptions, in order to preserve comparison with the particulars published in previous years. The information to be given under each
    1328
    head will distinguish the quantities and values of the exports as follows:—

    Quantities.

    Values.

    To—

    Tons.

    £

    Russia

    Sweden

    Norway

    Denmark

    Germany

    Holland

    Belgium

    France

    Algeria

    Portugal, Azores, and Madeira

    Spain and Canaries

    Italy

    Turkey

    Greece

    Egypt

    Brazil

    Argentine Republic

    Uruguay

    Chile

    Gibraltar

    Malta

    British South Africa

    British East Indies

    Other Countries

    Total

    Anthracite

    Steam

    Gas

    Household

    Other Sorts

    Total

    The imports of pit wood will be shewn under a separate heading in the Monthly Returns for next year.

    Light Railways in Derbyshire
    SIR WALTER FOSTER (): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a scheme for making a light railway between Burton-on-Trent and: Ashby-de-la-Zouch by the Midland Railway Company, which has been approved by the Light Railway Commission; and whether, seeing that a similar light railway scheme was rejected last year after opposition by the Midland Railway Company, he can see his way to alter the terms so as to give the Derbyshire County Council, or the Urban District Councils through whose districts the line passes, the right to acquire the undertaking at the end of thirty-five years at cost price, as in the only

    1329
    similar line sanctioned in the county of Derby, instead of on the terms proposed, viz., the full value as a going concern, with the obligation to lease the line to the Midland Railway Company, seeing that the line is made for a considerable portion of its length on land belonging to the County Council.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Order referred to by the hon. Member has not yet been made by the Light Railway Commissioners and submitted to the Board of Trade for confirmation as provided by the Light Railways Act. when it is submitted due notice will be published in the London Gazette and a local newspaper to enable objectors to the confirmation to lodge objections, which will in due course receive" full attention from the Board of Trade.

    Weybourne Beach.
    SIR BRAMPTON GURDON (): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the injury to the Weybourne beach caused by the erection of two case groynes; and whether he will send an inspector to report and advise thereon.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) An officer of the Board of Trade has already been appointed to make an inspection.

    Manchester Post Office Electric Lighting Staff.
    MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that officers employed in the electric lighting department at the Manchester post office are called upon to work eight hours when on night duty, although the Tweedmouth Committee recommended that seven hours should constitute a full night duty; is he also aware that these officers do not receive time and a-half for Sunday duty; and whether he will take action to bring these alleged irregularities into harmony with the recommendations of the Committee.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I will inquire into the case of these officers.

    Belturbet Telegraph Staff.
    DR. THOMPSON (): To ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the lack of accommodation for the telegraph staff at Belturbet; and whether, in view of its unsuitability, he will take steps to provide a new office.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) A scheme for providing a new post office at Belturbet has been sanctioned, and arrangements are in progress for the acquisition of a site. It is intended to begin the building when the necessary funds have been voted by Parliament.

    Eastern Telegraph Cables.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON (): To ask the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to the dates for the expiration of the licences for the two Cable Companies to Spain, viz. the Direct Spanish in 1903, and the Eastern in 1904; whether, in view of the purchase and working by the Governments of the cables between England and France, England and Holland, and England and Germany, steps will be taken to establish Government cables between England and Spain.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am aware that the licences to which my hon. friend refers will expire on the dates he mentions; reference was indeed made to this in the case of the Eastern Telegraph Company in the answer I gave him on the llth instant, in which I stated that, on the recommendation of the Inter-departmental Committee on Cable Communications, certain action would be taken in connection with the renewal of that company's landing rights at Porthcurno. I am not in a position to afford my hon. friend any further information, but the whole question will receive the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government.

    Congo—Arrest of Herr Rabinek.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE (): To ask the Under Secretary of Slate for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government are yet in a position to say whether the arrest of Herr Rabinek took place on board the

    1331
    "Scotia;" and, if so, whether that ship was in British or in Congo State waters at the time; and what course in reference to the arrest it is proposed to adopt.
    (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) As the right hon. Baronet is aware, His Majesty's Government have applied to the owners of the "Scotia" for definite information on the point mentioned. That information we have not yet received. The course to be followed must depend on the facts as eventually ascertained.
    Newfoundland Fisheries Commission MR. PARTINGTON (): To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state when His Majesty's Government propose to publish the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Fishing question and the French Treaty Shore in Newfoundland.
    (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) As stated in this House, in answer to a Question on the 8th of July last year, there is no intention of laying the Report before Parliament.

    Tuberculosis Commission
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCE (): To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state when the Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis which was appointed in July 1901 is likely to be issued.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.)
    I am not in a position to state when the Commission will be able to report, but looking to the fact that they have to carry out a prolonged series of experiments, it is not likely that the Report will be issued for a considerable time.

    Khairpur—State Sales of Salt.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that salt is sold by the Government of India to the native State of Khairpur at nine annas per maund on the understanding that it is not to be resold to the people for less than the price charged in the adjoining British district, vi., three rupees twelve annas per maund, will he say whether the
    1332
    other native States of India are enabled to purchase salt from the Indian Government at a similar rate.
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The rate at which salt is obtained by certain native States, in virtue of treaty engagements, from the British Indian Government, and the conditions under which it is to be resold, vary in different cases. The condition that such salt is not to be resold at less than the price charged in the adjoining British district is not unusual.

    Savings Bank Deposits—Rate of Interest.
    MR. WEIR: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the desirability of allowing the rate of interest on savings bank deposits to continue at the present rate so long as Consols remain under par; and will the question of widening the area of investment for saving bank deposits be considered by the Government.
    (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The hon. Member may be assured that every point bearing on the impending change in the income account of the savings bank funds will receive the fullest consideration before any proposal is made for the reduction of the rate of interest on deposits.

    Dublin Corporation Medical Officers.
    DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Local Government Board have refused to sanction an increase of salary to the Medical Officers of Health of the City of Dublin, as recommended by the Corporation of the City of Dublin, and notwithstanding that their work has been increased and a portion of their salaries paid by the Treasury; and will he direct that in accordance with the Local Government Act and Order No. 4 remuneration shall be paid for increased duties.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The work of the Medical Officers of Health has not been increased by reason of the provisions of the Local Government Act Their existing duties were merely defined by Sanitary Order No. 4, of the 3rd

    1333
    May, 1900, and this Order was made under the Public Health Acts. The Board carefully considered the proposed increases of salary and felt unable to approve of them.

    Auxiliary Forces—Establishment Statistics
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the present deficiency in officers in the Auxiliary Forces, Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers, as compared with the establishment, and also in relation to the numbers actually serving in the ranks.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The figures are as follows:—Deficiency: Militia, 675; Yeomanry, 419; Volunteers, 2,095. Included in the numbers deficient are seconded officers numbering 381, 60, and 239, respectively. The numbers deficient in establishment of the various arms are:—Militia, 20,407; Yeomanry, 8,106; Volunteers, 71,398.

    Garrison Regiments.
    MR. GOULDING (): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of garrison regiments, and where they are stationed.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) There are at present five battalions of the garrison regiment, three of which are at Malta, one at Gibraltar, and one at Halifax. Nova Scotia.

    Reserve Forces—Supposed Re-engagements for Indian Service
    MR. GOULDING: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of men in the Reserve Forces re-engaged to serve in India.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The hon. Member's Question is not understood. There are no men in the Reserve Forces re-engaged to serve in India.

    Education Bill -—Rating by Urban District Councils.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask Mr. Attorney General whether, under the Education Bill, an Urban District
    1334
    Council acting as the local education authority will levy and collect the rate necessary for educational purposes, or whether it is intended that the Council shall issue a precept to the overseers of the poor for the amount of education expenses required for the overseers to levy and collect the education rate and pay it over to the treasurer of the said authority.
    (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) The Council will issue their precept to the overseers of the poor to collect the amount and pay it over to the Council.

    Education Bill—Religious Instruction Alterations in Trust Deeds.
    MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR (): To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, under the Education Bill, the sanction of the Board of Education will be required to alterations in trust deeds which have the effect of modifying the character of the religious instruction to be given in the school. or of giving an appeal to the Bishop or other ecclesiastical authority, where no provision for such an appeal previously existed; if so, from what date the alterations will be subject to confirmation; and, if not, whether he proposes to add any provision of the character suggested.
    (Answered by Mr Balfour.) The Bill gives no power to alter trust deeds except as regards the appointment of managers. Any other alterations of trust deeds must be made under the law as it now exists.

  (2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Cost of Somaliland Operations.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any estimate has been formed of the probable cost in the present financial year of the preparations for the future Somaliland campaign.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey,): As far as can be foreseen, the probable cost in connection with the Somaliland expedition during the present financial year will not exceed £250,000.

    Gunners in the Channel Fleet.
    MR. HARMSWORTH (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that there are in the Channel Fleet but 948 qualified gunners for the 426 guns forming the total armament of the ships of the squadron, he will consider the advisability of increasing the number of qualified gunners in this squadron.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The facts are not correctly stated in the hon. Member's Question, as he leaves out of account nearly 600 men who have passed through the Gunnery School, and are qualified in gunnery. He has also omitted the Royal Marines, by whom, I would remind him, certain guns on board ship are manned. The Admiralty, therefore, are not able to accept the conclusions at which the hon. Member has arrived.

  Venezuela.
  MR. FULLER (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any attempt has been made on the part of His Majesty's Government to refer the questions in dispute between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Venezuela to arbitration; and whether any such offer has been refused by the Government of Venezuela.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CRANBORNE,): The answer to both the honourable Member's Questions is in the negative.

  West African Railways.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY (): I beg to ask the postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Messrs. Shelford and Son, stated in the Colonial Office List to be the Consulting Engineers for Railways employed by the Crown Agents for the Colonies, are also contractors for the construction of West African railways; and will he state what complaints have been received from the Governor of Lagos or other Colonial officials as to the
  1336
  cost and character of the work and supplies required for railway undertakings now in progress in West Africa.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,, for Mr. J. Chamberlain): The West African railways are being constructed departmentally, and not by contract. Messrs. Shelford and Son are the Consulting Engineers, and are not in any sense contractors for the work. No complaints of the kind referred to have been received.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: Are they constructing the line?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know what meaning the hon. Member attaches to the word "constructing."
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: There is a wide difference between the engineer and the person who is constructing the line.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that they are the Consulting Engineers.

  Sultan of Sokoto and the Niger Company
  MR. EMMOTT (): I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if the treaty concluded between the Niger Company and the Sultan of Sokoto specifically stated that the treaty was granted to the Niger Company and to its assigns; and if, in view of the interest taken in the matter by Lancashire and other industrial centres trading with West Africa, he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the treaty, and also the despatches showing the efforts which have been made to induce the Sultan of Sokoto to recognise the Crown as transferees of the treaty and treaty rights, and the efforts to establish friendly relations generally; and whether he will give instructions that friendly assurances shall be at once conveyed to the Sultan of Sokoto and to the otherwise, that the contemplated military preparations and

  1337
  movements of troops are merely of the nature of police protection for the British and French Delimitation Commissioners, and that nothing of a hostile or unfriendly nature to Sokoto or Kano are intended thereby.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEhad on the Paper the following Question: To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies. whether, in the treaties of 1885, 1890, and 1894, between the Emirs of Sokoto and the Niger Company, the Company was recognised as receiving its powers from and as representing the Crown; and if he will explain the circumstances under which it is alleged that Sokoto declined to recognise the transfer of the powers of the Company to the Imperial Government, and will lay upon the Table a copy of any communications which passed at the time the transfer took place, and, whether every endeavour will be made in connection with the Anglo-French boundary delimitation to prevent the suspicion of the Mohammedan Emirs being excited by the composition of the armed escort.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the two questions together. By the treaty of the 25th of June, 1894, the Sultan of Sokoto expressly recognised the Royal Niger Company as receiving its powers from and representing the Queen of Great Britain. Two of the three treaties have been published in Hertslet's "Map of Africa by Treaty." The treaty of 1894 has not been printed there, but is in the same terms mutatis mutandis as the treaty with Gandu of the same year. The word "assigns" is not used in any of the treaties, but the treaty of 1885 was made with the Company "or other with whom they may arrange." Sir F. Lugard's messenger to the Sultan, informing him of the transfer was treated with indignity, and to messages sent subsequently the Sultan has returned a defiant reply. The actual text of the communications which have passed between the High Commissioner and the Sultan is not in the possession of His Majesty's Government, and no Papers on the subject can usefully be laid before the House at present, but Sir F. Lugard's
  1338
  annual Report for the last year, in which his relations with Sokoto and Kano are referred to, will shortly be published. Sir F. Lugard's policy has always been to cultivate friendly relations with the Sultans, if possible, and he has no doubt done all in his power to avert any suspicions which might be excited by the military arrangements necessary for the protection of the Boundary Commissioners.
  MR. EMMOTTM: May I ask whether any new provision have been introduced which would in any way account for the remarkable change that seems to have occurred in the relations between the Emir and the Government?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think not. I had, however, better ask for notice of any additional Questions.

  Flash Point of Petroleum
  MR. TULLY (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that Dr. Dupré, the Home Office chemist, stated in a speech at Sutton that there shall be no legislation raising the flash point of petroleum from 73°Abel close test; whether Dr. Dupré has been called on for any explanation of this speech, and what has been the result.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The speech to which, as I understand, the hon. Member refers, consisted of remarks delivered at least five years ago by Dr. Dupre in the course of discussion at a meeting of the Sutton Scientific and Literary Society. The words in the Question do not accurately represent what was said, as far as can be recollected. Dr. Dupres remarks were known in the Home Office at the time, and I find nothing which I feel called upon to ask him to explain.

  Vaccination.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELL (): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce, in the course of next Session, a measure extending the duration of or

  1339
  rendering permanent the provisions of the Vaccination Act, 1898, which will otherwise expire on the 1st day of January 1904.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): Yes, it will be necessary to deal with this matter next Session.

  English Appointments to Irish Post- masterships.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state on what grounds English officials have been appointed to the recent vacancies for postmasterships in Ireland; why have Irish officers of long service been passed over; and whether he will take steps to secure that promotions to Irish post offices will be made from the ranks of the Irish officials.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Vacancies in postmasterships are habitually advertised in the Post Office Circular and are open to all qualified applicants irrespective of their place of residence at the time. In filling recent vacancies in Ireland I have chosen the senior candidate who appeared to me in all respects qualified. And I am satisfied that this is the only method of selection which is fair to the large staff' employed by the Post Office. Exactly the same rules are followed in filling vacancies in England or Scotland.
  MR. T. M. HEALY (): Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the list of these appointments in the Tory Erening Mail?
  (No answer was returned.)
  MR. TULLY: How is it that the selections for these offices are all Englishmen?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: They are not.

  Blacksod Bay Coastguard
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he was received a complaint than on the 28th ultimo the
  1340
  officer of the Blacksod Bay coastguard station lent the service rifles to a civilian for sporting purposes; that these rifles were fired so as to interfere with the sporting rights of Mr. Thomas Sweeney; and what action has been taken in this matter.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The infringement of Mr. Sweeney's sporting rights consisted in this, that the shot from the service rifle was fired at long range, and before he himself could fire. It was wrong, no doubt, for the officer of the coastguard to use the rifle for sporting purposes. But the temptation was great and the wrong was unintentional, and no further notice of the matter has been taken beyond warning him not to do it again.

  Irish Dispensary Appointments.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if any appointments have yet been made to the vacant dispensary appointments in the counties of Louth, Waterford, and Wexford, for which the branches of the Medical Association have decided that no candidates will apply unless the salaries are fixed at £200 a year: and what steps have the Local Government Board taken in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no vacancy in the County Wexford. In Louth an election to fill the one vacancy in that county is fixed to take place on Tuesday next. In Waterford the question of re-arranging the boundaries of the vacant district is still under the consideration of the Guardians.

  Irish Land Conference
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any expert official from the Land Commission Department will be directed to attend and assist with official statistics the conference between the representatives of landlords and tenants promoted by the committee of landlords presided over by the Earl of Dunraven.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The official statistics issued from time to time by the

  1341
  Land Commission have been published in the form of annual reports and returns, which have been presented to Parliament. The Commissioners, I have no doubt, would be quite willing to supply, on application, copies of such documents to the conference, but beyond this no directions could be given.
  MR. TULLY: As this is going to be the greatest meeting of the century, they ought to have the best expert advice.

  Rathmullan (Donegal) Pier
  MR. O'DOHERTY (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to representations from the inhabitants of Rathmullan, county Donegal, requesting a grant out of the moneys voted by the Marine Works Act for the extension of the existing pier at Rathmullan; and whether, seeing that the proposed extension of the pier has been recommended by the officers of His Majesty's ships anchored off Rathmullan, he will comply with this request.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not yet in a position to make any pronouncement upon the question of the allocation of the moneys provided by this Act.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: When may we expect an announcement?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I shall be going into the matter in Ireland in January.

  Roman Catholic Catechist for the Armagh Union.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Local Government Board (Ireland) wrote to the Armagh Board of Guardians with reference to the appointment of a Roman

  AYES,

  Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balfour, Rt.Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bartley, Geroge C.T.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Bagot,Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Boland, John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwhich)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bond, Edward

  Chamberlain, Rt HnJ. A(Wore.

  Catholic catechist in that union, and requesting the guardians to obtain from the Roman Catholic chaplain a report as to whether the lady appointed was qualified to perform the duties of catechist to the Roman Catholic children in the workhouse, and whether, seeing that the guardians refused to comply with this request, he will state what further action the Local Government Board purpose taking in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are correctly stated. The matter is at present engaging the attention of the Local Government Board.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
  That they have agreed to—
  Militia and Yeomanry Bill; Osborne Estate Bill; Local Government (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill; Mail Ships Bill; Glasgow Corporation (Water and General) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
  London Water Bill, with Amendments.

  LONDON WATER BILL
  Lords Amendments to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 310.

  SITITNGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER)
  (2.25) Motion made, and Question put "That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Education (England and Wales) Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this day, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 182; Noes. 55. (Division List, No. 634)

  Chapman, Edward

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hudson, George Bickerstech

  O'Shanghnessy, P. J.

  Clive, Captain Perey A.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

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

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Colomb, Sir JohnCharlesReady

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Percy, Earl

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Corbett, T.L. (Down, North)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kenyon Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Crean, Eugene

  Knowles, Lees

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lawson, John Grant

  Pryce. Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Delany, Colonel

  Leamy, Edmund

  Purvis, Robert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham

  Rattigen, Sir William Henry

  Digby, John K.D. Wingfield-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

  Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge

  Doogan, P. C.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ritchir, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Doughty, George

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evasham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Doxford,Sir William Theodore

  Lowe, Francis William,

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Duffy, William J.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dyke,Rt.Hon. Sir WilliamHart

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Rutherford, John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lundon, W.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Macartney. Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)

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

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Skewes. Cox, Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacNeill, Johm Gordon Swift

  Smith, H C(North'mb. Tyneside

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Govern. T.

  Smith James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Kean, John

  Spear, John Ward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue Middlemore,

  John Throgmort'n

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Flavin, Michael Joseph Milvain,

  Thomas

  Sullivan, Donal

  Flower, Ernest

  Mooney, John J.

  Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Taylor, Austin(East Toxteth)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Thompson, Dr E.(Monagh'n,N

  Gardner, Ernest

  Murphy, John

  Thompson, Perey M.

  Garfit, William

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Gilhooly, James

  Myers, William Henry

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Gore, Hon. S F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Nannetoi, Joseph P.

  Tully, Jasper

  Hain. Edward Nicholson,

  William Graham Valentia,

  Viscount

  Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F.

  O'Brten, James F. X. (Cork)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

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

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Brien, Patrick(KilKenny)

  Wharton, Rt.Hon. John Lloyd

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

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

  White, Patrick(Meath, North)

  Hatch, Ernest Frderick Geo.

  O'Brien William (Cork)

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Conor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

  Heath,Arthur Howard (Hanley

  O'Doherty, William

  Heaton, John Henniker

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

  Higginhottom, S. W.

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Sir Alexander Acland-,Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  O'Malley, William

  Hope,J. F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  O'Mara, James

  NOES.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland

  Atherley. Jones, L.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Harcourt Rt.Hon. Sir William

  Shipman, Dr. Johnk G.

  Brigg, John

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hope, John Deans(Fife, West)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Bryce, Rt.Hon. James

  Hutton, Alfred E.(Morley)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Acerington

  Toulmin, George

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Levy, Manurice

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Crombie, John William

  Lloyd-George David

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lough, Thomas

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Duncan, J. Hastings Newnes,

  Sir George

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Emmott, Alfred

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Paulton, James Mellor

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Mr. William M'Arthur and Mr. Robert Spencer.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Fowler, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Order read, for consideration of Lords Amendments.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs): I think it would obviously be for the convenience of the House if the Leader would state generally the line which the Government proposes to pursue in regard to those Amendments, which are not more drafting ones but which raise serious points.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carvarvon Boroughs), on a point of order with reference to certain underlined words within brackets and the statement in regard thereto that '' it was proposed that those words should be omitted by the Commons," asked by whose order the words were inserted. He submitted that if it was by order of the House of Lords it was a gross breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. It struck him as a piece of dictation by the House of Lords to the House of Commons. He assumed that the words were not put in by the order of the Speaker, and certainly they could not have been inserted on the order of the Prime Minister.
  MR SPEAKER: I think I can give the hon. Member the information he desires. As he is aware, when the Lords insert an Amendment which contains a blank, it has been the practice to make a motion calling attention to that blank and suggesting that it should be filled in by the House of Commons. What has been done in this case is intended to be analogous to that practice. I rather agree, however, that the phrase quoted by the hon. Member is an unfortunate phrase taken in connection with the present Bill. The words have been inserted without any interference by the Chair or by the Clerk at the Table, but in accordance with a general arrangement made a long time ago between the officers of the House of Lords and the Public Bill Office and frequently acted upon, with a view to conveying to the Commons the nature of the proposal or suggestion. As to whether it is a
  1346
  convenient practice or not, I believe that as a general rule the use of some such notice is convenient, but it occurs to me that, in relation to a highly contentious measure like the Education Bill, the words used ought not to assume beforehand what the action of the House of Commons will be. Whether some other form of words which avoids that suggestion, while at the same time pointing out the nature of the proposal, cannot be devised for use in the future, is a question which deserves to be considered. The Paper in question is printed by order of this House, and not of the House of Lords.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE (): Is not the Prime Minister going to rise?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Of course I will rise, out of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, but I really have very little to say. I have no general statement to make with regard to the Lords Amendments. With two or three exceptions, I believe they are purely drafting Amendments, which neither require, nor indeed call for, discussion, and with regard to Amendments not of that character the only result of a general statement would be that we should have a desultory, imperfect, and fruitless discussion before we carne to the actual debate which is to determine the course we shall pursue. Under these circumstances, I venture respectfully to suggest to the House that probably the most convenient course would be to at once enter on the discussion of the Amendments without any preliminary debate.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that several of the Amendments—probably seven or eight—were highly contentious; and in the case of a Bill so contentious it would have been convenient, as well as in accordance with custom, if the right hon. Gentleman had made general statement, such as they had often listened to, as to the views of the Government. As that statement had not been made, he proposed to move that the Lords Amendments be considered this day three months. That Motion could only

  1347
  be made in the case of a Bill to which those who made it were fiercely hostile, as if carried it meant the rejection of he Bill. Objectionable as the Bill had been before, the seven or eight contentious Amendments inserted by the Lords worsened it from the point of view of the Opposition. In no point had their views been met. He did not propose to discuss them at length, but he would refer to one or two. There was one to which, no doubt, great importance was attached by other hon. Members, but as he did not share their views on it, he would leave them to raise it—he meant the Amendment in regard to the Cowper Temple Clause. Another of these Amendments, to which very little attention had been paid in the other House, included diocesan boards in the bodies to be represented on the education committees. They had had considerable experience of these Boards, and he had called down on himself strong condemnation from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, and the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire, who spoke with great knowledge of Church feeling, because in Committee on the Bill he had associated jobbery with these Boards. He spoke of facts within his own knowledge and affecting his own constituency. These associations of voluntary schools, now for the first time brought in, were bodies which had not dispensed the funds given by Parliament to poor voluntary schools in a way which have them the right to representation on these committees; and, in passing, he might say they were already arranging to secure that representation, for in some districts where the opposition was likely to be most strong. time had been taken by the forelock to such an extraordinary extent that the committee had been virtually appointed under schemes which it was proposed to bring into which hon. Members attached great importance was that which excluded elementary teachers from the committees. That was an Amendment of substance, and one which would have to be fought. Higher teachers were to be entitled to be placed on these committees, and why should such a special stigma be placed on elementary teachers as to say that they
  1348
  were not also fit person to be appointed. The only other Amendments to which he would refer were those which more or less concerned the privileges of the House. those which touched rates and taxes. They divided themselves into two groups, There was the one which had been dealt with under a most unfortunate precedent—objected to at the time by the Irish Members on constitutional grounds—by putting words into the Bill which made nonsense of it, in order to avoid what would otherwise be an interference with the privileges of the House of Commons. With that they would have to deal when this particular Amendment was reached. Then there was the insertion, on two occasions, of the words "or rent." These Amendment were obnoxious, because they were Government Amendments, of the necessity for which the Government thought they ought to put in. His right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen thought there was substance in it, and when the Government Amendment came up it was ruled out of order on the ground that it affected the burdens of the people, and ought to have been the subject of preliminary debate. Yet it had been put in another place and brought down to the House of Commons. It was, he thought, a direct violation of the privileges of the House. If it should be put to them that the right hon. Gentleman the member for South Aberdeen was wrong in his view, and that it was not a matter of substance, but merely a verbal alteration, carrying out the views of the House, what was the position of the Government? It

  1349
  ought to have taken the natural and constitutional course, and have recommitted the Bill in respect of these two Amendments only. It could not have taken much time or involved any lengthened debate, for no constitutional question could have arisen, and there would have been no breach of the privileges of the House. Therefore the Government, even if their contention in no better position, that they should have recommitted the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That the 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he had hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would have risen to make a statement on these Amendments. They were not without a precedent in the matter, and a very recent precedent in the case of the Parish Councils Bill. That Bill was a good deal altered in the House of Lords, and when it came back to the House of Commons, the Prime the moment so important did he deem the matter—the Minister in charge of the Bill, made an elaborate statement as to the course the Government intended to pursue with regard to the Lords' Amendments. Even if there had been no precedent, it was obvious that it would conduce to the proper discussion of these Amendments if the right hon. Gentleman made such a statement. The Amendments came before the House that morning; they had only had an hour or two to look at them: they referred to the pages and lines of a Bill which many of them had not in their hands, and even with it they had to struggle with them as best they might. They knew that some were more important than others, but it would have facilitated business very much if the right lion. Gentleman had taken the business-like and more courteous course he had suggested, and explained to the House shortly what the Government proposed to do. Such a statement need
  1350
  not have given rise to any discursive discussion, but it would have greatly facilitated the progress of business, and have redounded to the advantage of the Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman had made two accusations against him. One was that he was lacking in business capacity, and the other was that he was lacking in courtesy. The first did not move him much. As regarded the second, he was sure the right hon. Baronet, whatever other charges he might have desired to make, did not mean to charge him with discourtesy. He did not think there was really any call for a general reply on the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, word The right hon. Gentleman had quoted a precedent, but he did not know, for he had not had an opportunity to refresh his memory on the point, what were the reasons which induced Mr. Gladstone to make a general statement of policy with regard to the Lords Amendments to the Parish Councils Hill. Upon this occasion there was no need for such a general statement. The great majority of the Amendments were drafting Amendments, and conduced merely to clearness. He hoped that they would be accepted without any lengthy discussion. He could not make out eight Amendments of substance, and he thought the right hon. Baronet, in his enumeration of the questions of substance, had somewhat exaggerated the number. But he must repeat that he had no general statement to make, as their views could only be stated with advantage as the Amendments came up for discussion. He could only repeat the advice he gave a few moments ago, that it would really conduce to the discussion of these Amendments if they brought this general debate to a conclusion, and proceeded at once to the discussion of the Amendments one by one.
  (2.55.)MR. LLOYD-GEORGEdid not think the Prime Minister had facilitated the discussion by declining to give a general indication of his policy. This was an exceptional state of things, and he did not believe the Lords Amendments to a first-class Bill had ever been taken on

  1351
  the very day those Amendments were printed. Such a thing could not be done in the case of a Private Bill. It could not be done by the Rules of the House in the case of a Private Bill. Of course in a case of urgency the House could suspend its Standing Orders, but, then, this was not a case of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman was in a great hurry to give this Bill as a Christmas-box to the clergy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They do not seem very thankful for it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he expected the right hon. Gentleman to say that. If the clergy could not stand by a bargain, it was not to be expected they would be thankful for a gift. Looking at the Amendments as they were presented on the Paper, it was impossible to discover what they meant. It was necessary to go carefully through the Bill in order to fit them in and to consider their bearing on other Clauses. Although some of them knew every line of the Bill by heart—as well as they did their Catechism— it still needed very careful examination to know what the Amendments meant. He candidly confessed that, though he had followed the proceedings from day to day, he had not the remotest notion what many of the Amendments were. It was only on the previous day he asked for a printed copy of the Amendments. The Prime Minister by his reply showed that he knew what was coming. Although it was not until ho learned that the Lords had amended the Bill on the Third Reading that he understood what the right hon. Gentleman mean when he suggested that there were possibilities. The Prime Minister, he supposed, had this in his mind.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Assuming the hon. Member to refer to what took place in the House of Lords yesterday, I can assure him I had not that in my mind.
  MR. LLOYD - GEORGEsaid he accepted the right hon. Gentleman's statement, of course. But the fact remained that thay got a copy of the Amendments only that morning, and
  1352
  had not had time to consider them. They were really entitled to ask for a couple of days for that purpose. He thought that no Leader of the House could refuse so reasonable a request if made by the Opposition. But they were not pressing for that. They asked simply for a general idea as to what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do concerning the contentious Amendments. Fifty or sixty Amendments had been made by the House of Lords. He would, not say they were all contentious, but there were possibilities of contention in them. Surely it would be well for the Government to state their intentions with regard to, at any rate, three or four of those Amendments. First, what was the right of entry into secondary schools? That was an important Amendment. But the one they all had in mind was the "Manchester Amendment," the joint production of the Duke of Norfolk, representing the, Catholic Church, and the Bishop of Manchester, representing the Anglican Church. In the House of Lords the Government resisted that Amendment, and wore defeated. Were they going to accept the humiliating defeat at the hands of the Bishops and the Catholic Church, or were they going to stand up to the clergy? The Amendment, as worded, was pure nonsense; it meant nothing, and was intended to mean nothing. The House of Lords was attempting to dictate to the House of Commons by saying: "We do not intend the Amendment to moan anything; our orders are that, you should omit the last two lines." He understood that these words were really inserted, not by the Lord Chancellor or the Bishops, or the Duke of Norfolk, but by the Clerks. Was the Prime Minister, with the honour of the House of Commons in his custody, going to advise the House to bow to the dictation of the Clerks of the House of Lords? The Government, first of all, declared that this was a bad Amendment, and, through their representative in the House of Lords, said they could not accept it, as it was a departure from the bargain. Was the Prime Minister now going to say they would accept it? He was afraid he was, and that this was the reason of his silences. Anyhow, it was a good lesson for the Prime Minister and for every Statesman in the future not to go buccaneering with a crew of Bishops. The House was entitled to ask what the view of the

  1353
  Government was with regard to this particular loot? Were the Bishops to be allowed to stick to it, or wits the Prime Minister going to keep to the bargain? He was aware that the right hon, Gentleman repudiated the idea of a bargain. Did he mean to say that the leaders of the Church were not cognisant of the terms of the Bill before its introduction in the House of Commons? There was little doubt that they knew what the general outlines of the measure were, and assented to them. According to the Archbishop of Canterbury, it was a bargain, but a hard bargain, and now the Government, having carried out its part of the bargain, and a little more, in the House of Commons, the Bishops said, "As that part of the bargain is perfectly safe, we will try to squeeze a little more." All he could say was that the ideas of commercial honour on the Episcopal Bench were not as high as those of the Stock Exchange. There was not a commercial body in the country, however hard the bargain might be from its point of view, that would dream of attempting such a course.
  Then there was the question of the teachers. When the proposal was made that the local authority should have the right to put elementary teachers on the committee, it was at once assented to by the Prime Minister, and, by unanimous consent, inserted in the Bill. To draw a distinction between elementary and secondary teachers was most invidious, and the only ground on which he could conceive the House of Lords doing it was that they regarded the secondary teachers as a special and privileged class, whom consequently they were bound to protect. He hoped the Prime Minister would face the Bishops, at any rate on that point.
  Another matter on which the right hon. Gentleman should declare his policy was the Amendment of the Schedule. That portion of the measure was passed in the House of Commons without a word of discussion. Any Amendment from the Nonconformist, or popular, point of view was impossible, while the Bishops were sure of their chance in the House of Lords. That chance had been taken, and a serious Amendment effected by which, for fifteen or eighteen months, money with regard to voluntary schools, would be handed over to diocesan associations—for what? To pay liabilities; but the balance, if any, was to be pooled. It
  1354
  might be used for building purposes, so that Parliament would be simply enabling the Church to accumulate a large building fund for the purpose of fighting the provided schools. That was grossly unfair. He hoped the Prime Minister would state generally what he proposed to do with regard to the two or three Amendments he had particularly referred to.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (): I think my hon. friend is entirely justified in his demand that the Government should tell us at once whether they mean to take in the House of Commons the same course with regard to these matters as was taken by their representative in the House of Lords. The statement of the case by the Government in the House of Lords was extremely distinct, especially with reference to the Amendment dealing with the repairs. That statement, as made by the official agent of the Government in charge of the Bill, was:—
  " The general intention of the Bill was that the managers should not only provide the schools, but keep them in suitable condition. In the other place, this view was sustained by a majority far beyond their ordinary Parliamentary majority. Any attempt to meet cases of exceptional hardship would go very far beyond these cases, and would disturb to a serious degree the general arrangement of the Bill. The Government had proposed that the managers should make themselves responsible, not only for structural, but also for the internal repairs of the school—."
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman began by saying he would read from a speech made in the House of Lords. I must remind him that it is not in order to quote from recent debates in that ouse. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to state what he understands to be the views of the Government as expressed in the House of Lords, without quoting the speeches.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am sure you will concede, Sir, that, at all events upon the Lords Amendments, we are entitled to state, in a general way, how those Amendments arose, and what the view of the Government in reference to them was in the House of Lords. What I desire to state is that the Government refused to accept the Amendment, because it was entirely

  1355
  inconsistent with the general arrangement and intention of the Bill. Their view was that these things were part of the arrangement as to the financial relations between the local authority and the managers, and they deprecated as strongly as they could any provision by which that arrangement would be modified in favour of either the one party or the other. We are entitled to ask whether that is to be the view of the Government in the House of Commons? It is perfectly clear that the Amendment carried in the House of Lords is an entire departure from the financial arrangements as made by the House of Commons. I must say that I regard with extreme regret the method which has been adopted occasionally in the past to evade the privileges of this House, and to allow the House of Lords to deal with financial matters which have been disposed of by the House of Commons. It is not as if this was, a financial matter which had accidentally escaped observation, or had passed through in the hurry and scurry in which the financial provisions of the Bill were dealt with during the last days of the discussion in this House. The matter was fully and carefully considered, and it was determined by an overwhelming majority. It is now brought down to us from the House of Lords with this extraordinary paragraph. If this course is to be pursued and extended in matters of such tremendous consequence, the control of the House of Commons over the finances of this country will be practically destroyed. Up to this time the rule has been, with very rare exceptions, that when there has been a breach of privilege it has, been dealt with by Mr. Speaker. If it had come down to the House of Commons without this paragraph in brackets, you, Mr. Speaker, would have declared that it was a breach of privilege of this House, in your official capacity, and you would have done this just as you would have prevented any breach of the Standing Orders of this House. Wherever Mr. Speaker has announced to the House that he regards an Amendment as a breach of the privilege of this House, that Amendment has been so regarded. It was so in the case of the Education Bill of 1891,
  1356
  when your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Peel, upon the appeal of my right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton, declared that a very indirect Amendment was a breach of the privileges of this House. Thereupon, Mr. Goschen, who was then in charge of the House, consented to the rejection of that Amendment as such.
  And now, Sir, what is the position we are placed in by this Amendment? It is a nonsensical Amendment. Is the educational legislation of this country to be based upon nonsensical Amendments of this kind sent down from the. House of Lords in a most unconstitutional form as regards the control of the finances of this country? We know perfectly well if a nonsensical Amendment is proposed in this House, you, Mr. Speaker, would refuse to allow it to be put; but to send down a nonsensical Amendment from the House of Lords for the purpose of carrying through a collusive arrangement with the Government, and to say that the House of Commons shall carry out the directions of the House of Lords, is a most dangerous precedent to establish, and ought not to be encouraged. What was the position? Are the Government, or are they not, going to take up this nonsensical Amendment from the House of Lords and deal with it as a method of superseding the proceedings of the House of Commons? I venture to say, and I believe I am right, that if this Amendment had been made in the House of Commons, it could only have been made in Committee of this House, and that would have been a necessary condition. What takes place? You get rid of the security of finance by a Committee of this House, and you substitute for that Committee this nonsensical Amendment of the House of Lords. That is the protection given to the finance of this country under the reactionary policy to which we are beginning, I am afraid, to be too much attached.
  Therefore, I think we are entitled, before we go into these considerations, to hear from the Government what is their contention with regard to these matters. This is admitted to be a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. This proposal has been declared in the House of Lords to be a breach of the intentions of the Government under this Bill, and it is a breach of the whole

  1357
  financial arrangements made in this measure, which will have the effect of throwing upon the public authority charges which were always intended to be borne by the private subscribers. I desire to know whether these subscribers are to be called upon to fulfil that obligation, or whether the Government are going to depart from the whole of their declarations in this House upon this question? Having been defeated upon this question in the House of Lords, the Government are going to call upon the House Commons to reverse the decision arrived at by a great majority. Are the Government going to encourage such proceedings as those contemplated in this Amendment to defeat the control of the finances of this country by the House of Commons?
  MR. ALFRED MUTTON ()said the Lords Amendments were either of first-class and real importance, or else they were merely of a drafting character. The latter did not affect the Hill much, but the former were concessions on the part of the Government to the demands of the Bishops, and in regard to those Amendments the only dignified reply was to say that this House declined to consider them altogether. Just complaints had

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dyke, Rt.Hon. Sir WilliamHar

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chamberlain, RtHn. J.A. (Wore.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chapman, Edward

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Claney, John Joseph

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Clive, Captain Perey A. Fellowes,

  Hon. Aliwyn Edward

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Fergussion, Rt.Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon.

  John Cogan, Denis J.

  French, Peter

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Coheb, Benjamin Louis

  Ffrench, Peter

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Fison, Frederick William

  Balfour, Rt.Hon. A. J. (Mornsey)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Balfour, Rt.Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Fletcher, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cullinan, J.

  Flower, Ernest

  Bathurst,Hon. Allen Benjamine

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Bignold, Arthur

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Forster, Henry William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Delany, William

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Boland, John

  Denny, Colonel

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bond, Edward

  Dickson, CharlesScott

  Garfit, William

  Boscawen, Arhtur Griffith-

  Digby, John K.D. Wingfield-

  Gilholy, James

  Bousfield William Robert

  Disraeli, coningsby Ralph

  Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Line

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dixon

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bowles,T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Doogan, P. C.

  Gretton, John

  Bull, Willaim James

  Dorington, Rt.Hon. SirJohn E.

  Hain, Edward

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Doughty, George

  Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

  Hammond, John

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Harrington, Timothy

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Duffy, William J.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  been made that the interests of many classes had been seriously injured by the proposals of this Bill. The fact that these Amendments were all concessions to the demands of the Bishops, and in favour of a privileged Church, was a sufficient condemnation of the House of Lords as a practical legislative power in regard to the Parliamentary proceedings of this country. It could not be forgotten how extremely hurried had been the proceedings in the Mouse of Lords. For the first time in recent history the House of Lords had sat during the past week every day in the week for six consecutive days, and even on the Third Reading they proceeded to put further Amendments in the Bill. He did not think it was reasonable that the Government should ask the House at such short notice to consider Amendments of such first-class importance as those which the House of Lords had inserted. He shoidd support the Amendment of his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean.
  (3.23.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 85. (Division List No. 635.)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Royals, Clement Molyneux

  1360

  Hay, Hon. Clande George

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Runtherford, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, Arhtur H. Aylmer

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Mount, William Arhtur

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Murnaghan, George

  Seely,Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Murphy, John

  Sharpe, Willaim Edward Albert

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield,Brightside

  Murray, RtHn. A. Graham(Bute

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Howard. J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Myers, Willaim Henry

  Smith, AbelH. (Hertfort,East)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Nannentti, Joseph P.

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Smith,JamesParker(Lenarks.)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Nolan, Col. John p. (Galway, N.

  Spear, John Ward

  Johnstone, Heywood

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Joyee, Michael

  O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Kemp, George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Kennawy, Rt.Hon. SirJohn H.

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

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  O'Coonor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Knowles, Less

  O'Doherty, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

  Tnompson,DrEc(Monagh'nN.

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  O'Dowd, John

  Thornton, Perey M.

  Lewrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  O'Malley, Willaim

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lawson, john Grant

  O'Mara, James

  Tonlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Shanghnessy, P. J.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lecky, Rt.Hn. William Edw. H.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tully, Jasper

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  Valentia, Viscount

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Pemberton John S. G.

  Walker, Col. Willaim Hall

  Loder. Gerald Walter Erskine

  Pilkington, Lieut. Col. Richard

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Welby, SirCharles G. E. (Notts.)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wharton, Rt.Hon. John Lloyd

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward

  Whitemore, Charles Algernon

  Lundon, W.

  Purvis, Robert

  Willonghby de Eresby, Lord

  Macartney, Rt.Hn. W.G. Ellison

  Rateliff, R. F.

  Wodehousr, Rt.Hn. E.R. (Bath

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Wolf, Gustav Wilhelm

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge

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

  MacVeagh. Jeremiah

  Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen

  Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

  M'Govern, T.

  Ritchie, Rt.Hon.Chas.

  Thomson

  M'Kean, John

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  M'Killop, James(Strlingshire)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Robertson, Brooke

  Milvain, Thomas

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Mooney, John J.

  Rothsehild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  NOES.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fowler, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

  Morgan,J. Lloyd(Carmarthen

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Morley, Rt.Hon. John (Montrose

  Bayley, thomas (Derbyshire)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Newnes, Sir George

  Brigg, John

  Grey, Rt.Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

  Norton, Capt. Cecil Willaim

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Harcourt, Rt.Hon. SirWillaim

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Bryee, Rt.Hon. James

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale

  Philipps, John Whnford

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Rea, Russell

  Caldwell, James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rigg, Richard

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Schwann, Charless E.

  Crombie, John William

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarhten)

  Langley, Batty

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sonames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Levy, Manrice

  Spencer, RtHn C.R. (Norhtants

  Edwards, Frank

  Lloyd-George, David

  Stevenson, Fancis S.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lough, Thomas

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Mellor, Rt.Hon. John William

  Thomas Davit Alfred (Merthyr

  1361

  Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower

  Walson, Engene(Clackmannan)

  Wilson, Jphn (Durham, Mid.)

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

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Tonlmin, George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whiteley. George (York, W.R)

  Wallace, Robert

  Whitley, J.H. (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk,Mid

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered.
  "In pagre 1, lines 21 and 22, leave out 'ineluding the training of teachers,' the first Amendment, read a second time.
  THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (SIR WILLIAM ANSON,)moved that this Amendment be accepted. The training of teachers was in the definition Clause as part of the duties of the education anthority.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Auson.)
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he quite agreed that the definition Clause explained what might be done under the term "secondary education." At the same time, after two days debate, the House of Commons thought it desirable that these words should be inserted off the face of the Bill in order that this matter, which was considered of firstclass importance, should not escape the attention of any Town Council, or County Council. There was no reason for the Government assention to the leaving out of the words. He did not think there was any matter of more importance, in regard to the educational needs of the country, than increased facilties for the training of teachers.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEhoped the Government would disagree with this Amendment. In substance there was not much in it either one way or the other. While it was true that this was in the definition Clause, the feeling, when Clause 2 was debated was that by puttiong these words on the face of the Bill, local authorities would see that this was one of the things they had to consider. Up to the present the local authourities had made no provision at all for the training
  1362
  of teachers, and if they found these words there they would be stimulated to make provision, though they might not otherwise do so. The words if retained could not possibly do any harm, and they might do some good.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought it was a matter worth consideration whether these specific words should be omitted. This was a matter of great importance House of Lords attached so much importance to voluntary associations that they did not consider they were covered by the words "other bodies," and they insisted upon specific reference being made to voluntary associations. But they did not care to specify the training of teachers. The House of Commons might be excused if they attached more importance to the training of teachers than to voluntary associations. He believed that County Councils would not be disposed of themselves to go to any great expense under Part II, of the disposition would be to koop down the pates. Therefore it was most important that the House should emphasise that matter and keep these words in.
  SIR WILLAM HART DYKE ()hoped the House would proceed to the more important matter awaiting discussion. This matter was covered by the definition Clause, and the words in Clause 2 were weakening words as they stood. It was part and parcel of the duties of the local authority to provide for the training of teachers.
  MR. T. M. HEALY ()said they weere told a minute or two ago that there were eight Amendments of importance to the Opposition. The Government were invited to state their views on those Amendments, but the House had not been told what they were. The hon. Member for the Morley Division said that all the rest were drafting Amendments, and that it did not matter whether they were inserted or reiected.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (): I congratulate the hon. And learned Member for North Louth on his alliance with the Government.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Catholics are not ashamed of that, anyhow.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am sure the Government are. This is not a Clause for the training of Irish Members, but for the training of teachers. The

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Dixon-Hartlan,Sir Fred Dixon

  Kennaway, Rt.Hon. Sir John H.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Doogan, P.C.

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dorington, Rt.Hon. Sir John E.

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Doughty, George

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

  Kimber, Henry

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Doxford,Sir William Theodore

  Knowles, Lees

  Arrol, Sir William

  Duffy, William J.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

  Dyke, Rt.Hon. Sir WilliamHart

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawrence, Wm. F.(Liverpool)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Elliot, Hon. A Ralph Douglas

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Leamy, Edmund

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lecky, RtHon. William Edw. H.

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants,Fareham

  Balfour,Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Balfour, RtHon Gerald W.(Leeds

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Bartley, Sir George C. T,

  Ffrench. Peter

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Field, William

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Bignold, Arthur

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lowe, Francis William

  Boland, John

  Fison Frederick William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bond, Edward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Fletcher, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

  Lundon, W.

  Brassey, Albert

  Flower, Ernest

  Macartney, RtHn W.G. Ellison

  Bull, William James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Madona, John Cumming

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Forster, Henry William

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Galloway, William Johnson

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Butcher, John George

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Carew, James Laurence

  Garfit, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Kean, John

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Line.)

  M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gretton, John

  Maxwell, RtHn Sir H.E.(Wigt'n)

  Chamberlain, RtHn J.A.(Wore.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Milvain, Thomas

  Chapman, Edward

  Hain, Edward

  Mooney, John J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F.

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Clive Captain Percy A.

  HamiltonRtHnLordG,(Midd'x

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Hammond, John

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Haslet, Sir James Horner

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Murnaghan, George

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hay, Hon. Claude Geroge

  Murphy, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murray, Rt.Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Myers, William Henry

  Crean, Eugene

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

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

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Howard, J.(Midd.,Tottenham)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Cullinan, J.

  Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil

  O'Brien, James F.X. (Cork)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Devenport, William Bromley-

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Delany, William

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Johnstone, Heywood

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor,James(Wicklow,W.)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kemp, George

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  point we take is that these words in the Clause can do no harm, and they may do some good. Then, why in the world should they not be inserted to call attention at the very start of the Bill to one of the most important duties of the edcuation authority?
  (3.48) Question put.
  The House divided:— Ayes, 235; Noes, 88. (Division List, No. 636.)

  O'Doherty, William

  Ritchie, Rt.Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Thompson, Dr. E.C.(Monagh'n,N.

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  O'Dowd, John

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  O'Malley, William

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Tully, Jasper

  O'Mara, James

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Valentia, Viscount

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Rutherford, John

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Welby, SirCharles G.E.(Notts.)

  Percy, Earl

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wharton, Rt Hon. John Lloyd

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Platt-Haggins, Frederick

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  whiteley, H(Ashton-und-Lyne

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Smith,Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Smith, HC(North'mb, Tyneside

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Smith,JamesParker(Lanarks.)

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

  Pretyman. Ernest George

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset

  Worsley-Taylor,Henry Wilson

  Purvis. Robert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Ratcliff. R. F.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Sullivan, Donal

  Redmond,John E.(Waterford)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge

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

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

  NOES.

  Allen,CharlesP.(Gloue,Stroud

  Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hope,John Deans (Fife, West)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Brigg, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Soares, Enrnest J.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea

  Spencer, RtHn. C.R.(Northants

  Bryce, Rt.Hon. James

  Langley, Batty

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Layland Barratt, Francis

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Caldwell, James

  Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas,SirA.(Glamorgan,E.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas,JA(Glamorgan,Gower

  Cremer, William Randal

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Crombie, John William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wallace, Robert

  Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  Mellor, Rt.Hon. John William

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Edwards, Frank

  Morley, Rt.Hn. John(Montrose

  Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wason,JohnCathcart(Orkney)

  Evans,SirFrancisH(Maidstone

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitley, J.H. (Halifax)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk,Mid.

  Gladstone, RtHn. HerbertJohn

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wilson, John(Durham, Mid.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rea, Russell

  Yoxall, James Henry

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

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Haldane, Rt.Hon. Richard B.

  Rigg, Richard

  Harcourt,Rt.Hon, Sir William

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Alfred Hutton and Mr. Ellis Griffith.

  Hardle, J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. CharlesSeale-

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Lords Amendments, as far as the Amendment in Page 2, line 26, agreed to.
  Lords Amendment:—
  "In page 2, line 26, after 'provided,' insert 'except in cases where the Council, at the request of parents of scholars, or on other grounds, allow any religious instruction to be given in the school, college, or hostel otherwise than at the cost of the Council.'"
  The next Amendment read a second time.
  MR. BRYCE ()said although he objected to the Amendment as a whole, and hoped the House would disagree with it, he would, before discussing the Amendment itself, move and Amendment to it, which was to leave out the words "on other grounds." This Amendment had a very curious history. An Amendment was introduced, in conformity with what was shewn to be the general feeling of the

  1367
  House, by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Education before he became a Member of the Government last July. Now, in the other House—at the instance of the other House—this provision had been inserted, and it seriously impaired the value of the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Education and accepted by the House in July. There were many objections to this Amendment altogether. In the first place, it introduced what had been objected to by this House—namely, the right to allow the different denominations to come into the schools and disturb the instruction given in them, and complicate their arrangements by each giving his own religious teaching. The complication of such an arrangement had been so conclusively shown that, when this Amendment was sought to be introduced, this House had rejected it by a large majority. But a very much stronger objection was that the Amendment in its present form suggested to the local authority the policy of creating distinct sectarian secondary schools, instead of suggesting to them that the proper policy for them to pursue was to create schools equally available for all members of the community, which would represent the general desire of the community to have religious instruction given to their children in common. The meaning of this Amendment was that they should create and endow, establish and maintain, separate schools, in which distinct denominational teaching could be given. That would be the natural result of it. And that was especially the case if these words, "on other grounds," were left in. If it had been suggested that there was a case for allowing distinctive religious instruction to be given at the, request of the parents, that was one thing, and it might well be that such a case could be made out. But these words carried the Amendment a great deal further. "On other grounds" might mean one of two things. They might mean the offer of a sum of money from a particular denomination towards the cost of building a school on the understanding that the local authority would allow them to use that school for sectarian instruction, or
  1368
  it might mean that in the view of the local authority itself it was better to set up separate schools for the children of each denomination than to create one school for all denominations. This Amendment seemed to him to be a direct appeal to the local authorities to do the former. Nothing could be more unfortunate than that the local authorities should be persuaded into a policy of creating sectarian schools, and be encouraged to abolish the Cowper-Temple Clause. Nothing could be imagined better calculated to throw the apple of discord into our schools. We should soon see the growth, of sectarian parties in our Councils, whose whole aim would be to set up sectarian rather than un-sectarian schools. Whether or not the House accepted the Amendment as a whole, he submitted that these words ought to be left out. and that this power should only be granted alter a desire for it had been expressed by the parents.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
  "To leave out the words 'or on other grounds.'"—(Mr. Bryce.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that as the right hon. Gentleman had intimated that he was going to oppose the Clause in its entirety later, he would confine himself to the particular Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced to the Lords Amendment. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the local authorities could not establish sectarian schools, and it was not proposed by this Clause that they should, and, if it were, words already accepted by the House had put it out of their power to do so. All that was proposed in this Amendment was that where the local authority were informed, either by the request of the parents or scholars, or from their knowledge of the requirements of the neighbourhood, that special religious teaching was wanted in the case of certain scholars, then, not at the expense of the ratepayers, but of those who' required the teaching, such teaching

  1369
  might be given. Of course, the needs of the parents seemed to cover most of the occasions out of which the necessity of special religious teaching might arise; but there might be cases where there was a disinclination on the part of parents to express their wants, or, from the fact that the pupils in these secondary schools would be drawn from a wide area, the parents might not be present in collective form to make their application to the local authority, but the local authority might become aware of the need from communications addressed to them. On those grounds, believing that the words "on other grounds" would somewhat improve the Clause, and feeling sure that the local authority was excluded from the power of establishing sectarian schools, he hoped the House would not accept the Amendment.
  MR. TREVELYAN ()said he did not think the speech of the hon. Gentleman had elucidated very greatly what the words "on other grounds" meant. The hon. Gentleman had said that these words allowed persons of all denominations to come in and give sectarian teaching in the secondary schools, and it might be a reasonable thing to permit them to come in where there was a real and genuine desire that they should be admitted. The only other reason given by the hon. Gentleman was that there might be a disinclination on the part of the parents to state their desire. That was the argument of the Church. The Church knew what the parents wanted, "because there were so many Church people in the district." But there was really no way of ascertaining the wishes of the parents except by a statement by the parents themselves of their wishes. He would appeal to those hon. Members opposite who had said they were in favour of the parents having a word upon this matter, but who had opposed every concrete case put by the Opposition in which they said the parents were the people who ought really to decide as to what religion their children should be brought up in—he would appeal to them on this occasion, which was the last chance they would have of voting on this question, to vote infavour of the parents. That was all
  1370
  this Amendment asked, because what was likely to occur under this Amendment if it was passed as it stood? There had been an Amendment inserted by this House giving the Voluntary School Associations representation on the education committees, and naturally those representatives would attend solely to the interests of their own particular faith. There would be every possible argument that these schools should have a Church of England tinge, and if they wanted to avoid any quarrels with regard to this matter, other denominations would have to have an equal opportunity.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought there was much force in the objections to the Amendment to the Amendment which had been urged by his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education. But he was not sure it was not prolonging discussion in the House to retain the words proposed to be left out. He had been impressed by the argument that possibly if the words were retained they would give excuses to the education committees, and perhaps to the education authorities themselves, to indulge in these ecclesiastical controversies of which the House and heard so much during the past eight months. He had done his best so to frame the Bill as to save the local authorities from having to deal with these most difficult and invidious questions; and it was possible that if the words were left in they would give excuses for the raising at meetings of the local authorities of the very kind of discussions which it was most desirable should be avoided. On the other hand, under the alteration proposed in the Amendment, the County Council could only act upon the application of parents, which, as it would be a definite request for a definite thing, could hardly lead to any religious differences; and the Clause in that form would, he hoped, work quite smoothly. Under the circumstances, after having consulted with his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education, he was ready to accept, on behalf of the Government, the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  LORD HUGH CECIL ()regretted that his right hon. Friend should

  1371
  have accepted the Amendment. It was inconsistent with his right hon. Friend's attitude of approval towards the Scottish system. All the arguments to which his right hon. Friend had assented in reference to this Amendment could be urged against any system which allowed a popularly-elected body to control religious education. Hon. Members opposite had declared from time to time that, if popular control were once adopted, they would have no objection to a denominational system. What was proposed in the Lords Amendment was a controlled denominational system. Each body would be left to judge for itself. The only conceivable ground upon which it could be opposed was that denominational religious instruction was a sort of vice which could hardly be repressed by law, but of which everyone should be heartily ashamed, and to which the State could give no countenance whatever. He was surprised that the Opposition had not moved, and that the Government had not assented to, an Amendment declaring that contracts for the giving of denominational religious instruction should be treated as contracts for the committal of vice. He and his friends were unable to accept the Amendment because it was against the fundamental principles of their views of denominational instruction, and they must therefore divide the House.
  Question put, and negatived.
  4.25.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to move after the word "schools" to insert, "at such time and under such conditions as the Council deem desirable." It is not clear at present whether the local authority have that power.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no objection to those words.
  Amendment made to the Lords Amendment—
  "By inserting, after the last Amendment, the words 'at such times and under such conditions as the Council think desirable.'"— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had another Amendment to propose, at the end to insert ''provided that no Council shall afford facilities to one denomination
  1372
  which it is not proposed to extend equally to any other denomination, when so desired by parents of scholars." What he desired to provide against was that one favoured denomination should have facilities extended to it which would be denied to other denominations. If this experiment was to be made in this matter, it should, he thought, be an experiment on fair and equal conditions. He was sure the Government would admit that this was a fair Amendment. It was not a proposal to allow a school to be converted into a sectarian school; it simply gave to those parents who desired it the opportunity of securing for their children the religious instruction that they preferred. The matter was so obvious that he would not elaborate it.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
  "At the end, to add the words 'provided that no Council shall afford facilities to one denomination which it is not prepared to extend to any other denomination, when so desired by parents, of scholars.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be added to the Lords Amendment."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness, Burghs)thought the words, as moved, would tend unduly to prevent an authority making use of the power intended to be conferred upon them by the Amendment. By providing that no authority should exercise this power in favour of one denomination, unless it was prepared to exercise it in favour of any other denomination in respect of which there was a demand, the House would leave out of sight the fact that the circumstances might be extremely different. There might be a very large number of children in the case of one denomination, while there were only a very small number belonging to a variety of other sects, and the Council might not think it desirable to exercise its power in regard to the latter. What the hon. Member really intended was that the Council should not in exercising this power show any unfair discrimination as between different denominations. That was not the way in which the words of the proposal would work, as they might exclude the consideration of all the circum-

  1373
  stances. As to putting in words to the effect that no unfair discrimination should be made, he thought that such words were unnecessary. It would be the duty of even local education authority to deal fairly by all religious denominations. He therefore submitted, not only that the words of the Amendment were undesirable in form, but that they would, if inserted, cast a slur on the authorities.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought the remarks of the Attorney General constituted a strong argument in favour of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member had said that it might discourage a local authority from exercising this power in favour of any one particular denomination. In many counties it would be easy to extend this power to the Protestant denominations, but very difficult to do so in the case of Roman Catholics. One of the few merits of the Bill as it left the. House of Commons was that it kept Part II. out of the religious difficulty: it laid down the same rules as applied to elementary schools—viz., the undenominational principle of the Cowper-Temple Clause, and that clearly prevented the introduction of sectarian controversies into higher education. The proposal of the House of Lords entirely destroyed that, and made sectarian disputes pan and parcel of higher education under Part II. It was clear that the various denominations might demand the benefit of this Clause in order to introduce their denominational controversies into the sphere of higher education, one of the first consequences of which would he to indispose County Councils to have anything to do with the Bill, because it would involve them in determining as between conflicting sects. Various sects would seek by this Clause to have their denominational teaching in the higher schools from which hit herto it had been excluded, and, according to the reply of the Attorney General, the most numerous sect would get the power while the less numerous would not, which, being interpreted, meant of course that the Anglicans would get the benefit of the Clause, and that the smaller sects, whether Protestant Nonconformists or Roman Catholics, would be excluded from it. That was the doctrine of the
  1374
  Attorney General, Fancy putting on the County Councils, whom they desired to undertake this work of higher education, the duty of determining which of the sects should be permitted to teach in the schools! The most extraordinary thing about the matter was that the Clause was originally introduced by the Secretary to the Hoard of Education, its whole object being to put these schools on the same fooling as the provided schools for elementary education. As amended, an entirely different principle was being laid down. Why should there be one rule with reference to denominational teaching in respect to elementary education and another in respect to higher education? The introduction of sectarian controversies would be extremely injurious to the system of higher education, and he should certainly vote for the Amendment of his hon. friend.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the objection taken by the Attorney General to the proposal of the hon. Member was a sound one. What was desired was to avoid unfair discrimination or preference as between one sect and another. On that, the whole House were agreed. As to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought, if he might say so, that a great deal of it was relevant to the Amendment as a whole rather than to the particular-proposal of the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Poroughs. The House ought not to accept the proposal, because it was open to precisely the objection urged by the hon. and learned Member. The local authority would take this as a Parliamentary direction that, however many or few the childien might be, or whatever the circumstances of the schools might be, they were to act in precisely the same way—not with equal fairness, but in precisely the same way. He thought the view of the hon. Gentleman and of the whole House would be met by a proviso to the following effect—
  "Provided that in the exercise of this power no unfair preference should be shown to tiny religious denomination."
  LORD HUGH CECILsuggested that "unfair discrimination" was better than ''unfair preference." A relieious denomination could be treated

  1375
  unfairly in two ways—by preference, or by the opposite of preference. A strong Nonconformist body might make a discrimination as against the Church of England. That would be giving an unfair preference, not to a particular demination, but to all denominations except one.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)suggested that, as this was the principle of the most-favoured-nation Clause, the words of the most-favourd -nation might possibly sovlethe difficulty.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEexpressed his willingness to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the words suggested by the Prime Minister.
  Proposed Amendment to Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made to the Lords Amendment—
  "By adding at the end thereof the words, 'Provided that in the exercise of this power no unfair preference shall be shown to any religions denomination.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfone.)
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment as amended."—(Sir William Anson.)
  (4.50) MR. EMMOTT ()thought the Government were making a mistake in agreeing to the Lords Amendment. He wished hon. Members to remember what had been their experience in regard to the Welsh Intermediate Education Act. Hon. Members from Wales had again and again told them that one of the great secrets of the success of that Act was because the schools had been placed under the Cowper-Temple Clause, and they had never had to discuss the religions difficulty. The Charity Commissioners had also had to deal with a simmar matter. In their endowed schemes, except where it was specifically denominational and wherever it was possible, they practically introduced the Comper Temple Clause. That Clause had worked very satisfactorily, and it was a great pity that the local education authorities should be invited to do something different. He should like to ask the government who wanted this altera-
  1376
  tion. Where was the genuine demand of the parents for this alteration? He could understand the members of the Roman Catholic Church wanting something different, because they required a Roman Catholic atmosphere, and they could not have that in any school provided by the local authority under this Act. Therefore they could not meet their case. The noble Lord said that some hon. Members appeared to treat denominational education as something to be shunned and avoided. To most of them it appeared perfectly possible to arrange an undenominational religious curriculum which would be satisfactory to the groat majority of parents. He thought a system of that sort would work far better than that the local authorities should from time to time be invited to have thin apple of discord introduced into their discussions. As he thought it would not tend to the better working of the Bill, he hoped the House would not accept this Amendment of the Lords.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR ()said lie thought it did not take the House of Commons Aery long to arrive at the conclusion that it was not a desirable thing to introduce into our system of secondary education, and almost, without any discussion, this Clause, but it had been so altered as to make the Cowper-Temple Clause applicable to secondary as well as to elementary education. Before the Bill went to another place it was in this respect of a symmetrical character. A great many references had been made to the Scotch and other systems which gave a right of entry to the ministers of various denominations, but he took it that the main principles of this Bill were clear as originally introduced, that, at any rate as regarded elementary schools provided by the local authority, they would be, free from any denominational teaching and subject only to the where it was specifically denominational Cowper-Temple Clause; and that for those who desired and legitimately desired a denominational atmosphere, they were to rely upon the non-provided schools which the various denominations had themselves erected. He could not see why, in another place, that principle which, after all, was one of main principles of this B.1I, should have been

  1377
  departed from not in regard to elementary education, where he admitted the demand was possible, and might be extremely urgent, but, in secondary education, where, as far as he understood the situation, there was very little or no demand upon the question at all. He was quite sure that if this demand were, submitted to the local authorities throughout the country, and it they were asked whether they wanted to have the option of giving these religious facilities to the ministers of various denominations they would give, if not a unanimous, at any rate nearly a unanimous response to the effect that as far as they were concerned they desired to be relieved entirely from the odious task of deciding to what particular denomination they were to show, or not to show, preference. As regarded this right of entry, upon which so much stress had been laid, and possibly rightly laid, by those who desired to see fair play to the parents of all denominations, surely it would he better for this House and for Parliament, both in elementary and secondary education, to insist that all schools provided by the local authorities shall be absolutely tree from any responsibility between one denomination and another, and that, pending some more complete settlement of their national system of education, the responsibility for providing the atmosphere for the teaching of religions education whichthe various denominations desired, should be left to the denominations themselves. He felt strongly on this point. He regretted that in another place the Government should have departed from what he thought sound principle, and a principle which would have been welcomed by the local authorities throughout the country. Speaking as a member of the technical instruction committee in Liverpool, he thought there was no desire upon the part of those who administered elementary or secondary education to have more to decide in matters of religious difference than they had now. They desired to avoid as far as possible increasing the extremely complex burdens which would be laid on them under the Bill.
  Dr. Macnamara ()said that, from the point of view of the secondary teacher, he could foresee that this would be very impracticable indeed.
  1378
  Looking atthio from the practical point of view, he believed that if this stood in the Bill it would prove absolutely abortive. He did not think they could get the parents of pupils in secondary schools to respond to the appeals for denominational teaching. He did not believe this would have any effect whatever except that it would be a useful experiment to show how far this demand was genuine. It was only the thin edge of the wedge. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwhich failed to get it into the elementary school system in this House, but the friends of denominational teachning has been successful in getting it into the secondary school system in another place. He believed that the parents were satistied with what went on now. Professsional and secondary school people were not going to respond to the sort of arguments which poorer perople responded to when the appeal was made to them. He was prepared to see this stand in the Bill, and he believed that experience would furnish an admirable reply which would conforund the noble Lord. It would be seen that the professional and educated classes haaving had this oppor tunity had not availed themselves of it.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid it might be a valuable experiment, but it might also be a dangerous precedent for the future. The Amendment was a very one-sided proposal. It only affected the right of entry to the provided schools and made no balancing proposal in regard to the non-provided schools. He thought it should have affected the right of entry to all classes of schools. His point was that they were interfering with the Cowper-Temple Clause as with regard to the provided schools and doing nothing as to the non-provided schools. Justice was to be done as to one set of people while maintaining the injustice as to another set of people. By the Bill as it stood the local authority would have the right, where colleges were provided, to establish denominational hostels. Having given them that right it was too much to break down the Cowper-Temple Clause and enable teachers to to inside the colleges and give denonminational instruction to their particular students. The noble lord suggested that what was here propossed was somewhat similar to the Scotch system. He denied that this was in agreement with the

  1379
  Scotch system. The Scotch system included all schools, but this Clause neluded, only the provided schools. It seemed to him dangerous to infringe the Cowper-Temple Clause on one side without seeking to do justice on the other side.
  MR. NUSSEY ()said the only alternative to having no religious instruction at all in the schools was to allow all sects, of whatever creed, to teach their particular form of religion if there was a demand for the instruction. His hon. friend objected to the Amendment because it would only affect one portion of the schoo's. He quite agreed that would be the case, and hel shoud have liked to seethe Amendment carried further. They all knew that the Cowper-Temple Clause did not satisfy everybody. It did not satisfy the Roman Catholics or the Church of England, and he doubted whether it satisfied the Nonconformists. He thought it would be far better to allow any religious instruction to be given which the parents desired if they were willing to pay for it.

  AYES.

  Abraham,William(Cork, N.E.)

  Cecil,Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Faber, Edmund B.(Hants.,W.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Faber, George Denison(York)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chamberlain, RtHn J.A. (Wore.

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Chaplin, Rt, Hon, Henry

  Ffreneh,Peter

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chapman, Edward

  Field, William

  Arkwright,John Stanhope

  Clancy,John Joseph

  Finch, Rt.Hon. George H.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Clive, Captain Perey A.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Bailey, James(Walworth)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Colomb,SirJohnCharles Ready

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colston Chas. Edw. H. Atnole

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Compton. Lord Alwyne

  Fletchar, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

  Balfour,Capt. C. B.(Hornsey)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Flower, Ernest

  Balfour,Rt HnGernaldW.(Leeds

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Banbury,Sir Frederick George

  Cox,Irwn Edward Bainbridge

  Forster, Henry William

  Bartley, Sir George C.T.

  Crean, Eugene

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gardner, Ernest

  Beekett, Ernest William

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Garfit, William

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cullinan, J.

  Gilhooly, James

  Bigwood, James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Gordson,MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets

  Boland,John

  Delany, William

  Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Dickson, Charles Soctt

  Goschen, Hon. George

  JoachimBousfield, William Robert

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Brassey,Albert

  Doogan, P.C.

  Hain, Edward

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Dorington, Rt.Hon. Sir John E.

  Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Doughty, George

  Hammond, John

  Butcher, John George

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. Sir John E.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Camphell, John (Armagh,S.)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Carew,James Laurence

  Duffy,William J.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Carson. Rt.Hon. Sir Edw.H.

  Egerton, Hon. A.de Tatton

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Canvendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  On the whole he preferred the Lords Amendment with the modification, which he hoped the Government would be able to accept
  MR. BRYCEsaid he objected to the whole Amendment, because he thought that the less the secondary schools had to do with questions of sectarian education the better. Although the difficulties in the secondary schools were not quite the same as those which arose in elementary schools, still any arrangements for bringing in teachers of denominational doctrines from outside would interfere with the proper position of the ordinary teachers in the schools, The teacher was the proper person to give religious instruction; and to introduce another was very much to be deprecated, because it would lead to inefficiency and be a cause of complaint to the local education authority and the managers.
  (5.13.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 2.31; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 637.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Hobhouse, RtHn H. (Somerset. E

  Milvain, Thomas

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Hope, J.F (Sheffield. Brightside

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Round, Rt.Hon. James

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Mooney, John J.

  Royds, Cletment Molynenx

  Hndson, George Bickersteth

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Rutherford, John

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Jameson, Major J. Enstace

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Samuel, Harry s. (Limehouse)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Murnaghan, George

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Murphy, John

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Joyce, Michael

  Murray, RtHn. A. Graham(Bute

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Kemp, George

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Kennaway, Rt.Hon. Sir John H.

  Myers, Willian Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Herford, East)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Nannetti, Joesph P.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

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

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

  Kenyon-Slaney,Col. W.(Salop.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Kimber, Henry

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Knowles, Lees

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lawson, John Grant

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Talbot,Rt Hn. J.G. (Oxfd Univ.

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

  Thompson, Dr EC(Monagh'n,N

  Lecky, Rt.Hn. William Edw.H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  O'Doherty, William

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Tully, Jasper

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  O'Dowd, John

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  O'Shanghnessy, P. J.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

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

  Percy, Earl

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wharton, Rt.Hon. John Lloyd

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Plummer, Walter R.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Lucas Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und Lyne

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lundon, w.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W.G. Ellison

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

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

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Ridley, Hon. M W.(Stalybridge

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

  M'Govern, T.

  Ridley,S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  M'Kean, John

  Ritchie,Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  NOES.

  Allen, CharlesP.(Gloue.,Stroud

  Fowler, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Asher, Alexander

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mellor, Rt.Hon. John William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Goddard. Daniel Ford

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerberHenry

  Grant, Corrie

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Atherley., Jones, L.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Grey, Rt.Hon. Sir E.(Berwick

  Newnes, Sir George

  Brigg, John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Harcourt,Rt.Hon. Sir William

  Partington, Oswald

  Bryce, Rt.Hon. James

  Hardie,J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Caldwell, James

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Cawley, Frederick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pilkington, Lient.-Col. Richard

  Cremer, William Randal

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Crombie, John William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rea, Russell

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Howard,J.(Midd.,Tottenham)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rigg, Richard

  Denny, Colonel

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Langley, Batty

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Dyke,Rt.Hon. Sir William Hart

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Edwards, Frank

  Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Levy, Maurice

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Evans, Sir FrancisH(Maidstone

  Louth, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  1382

  1383

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Whitlety, J. H. (Halifax

  Spear, John Ward

  Toulmin, George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants

  Trevelyan,Charles Philips

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk. Mid.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wallace, Robert

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Weir, James Galloway

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  White, George (Nurfolk)

  Lords Amendments—
  "In page 3, line 14, aftger 'them' insert 'a body of managers consisting of.'"
  "In page 3, line, leave out 'representing local authorities.'"
  "In page 3, line 21, leave out 'also as provided in this Act,' and insert."
  Agreed to.
  Lords Amendment—
  "In page 4, line 4, after 'managers,' insert 'but no directions given undre this provision shall be such as to interfere with reasonable facilities for religious instruction during school hours.'"
  The next Amendement, read a second time.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."
  Proposed Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Loreds Amendment—
  "In page 4, line 20, after 'authority,' insert 'provided that all damage due to fair wear and tear in the use of any room in the school-house for the prupose of a public elementary school shall be made good by the local education authority [but this obligation of the local education authority shall throw no additional charge on any public funds].'"
  The next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he proposed to move the omission of the word "ail" in order to insert "such." but before he did so he desiered to ask Mr.
  1384
  Speaker's ruling as to whether this Amendment was not a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. He knew that in order to avoid that decision the Lords had inserted the last two lines of the Amendment; but even with those words he suggested that a burden might be thrown on the endowment and the fees, with the indirect result that less money would be derived for other purposes than fees and endowments, and that so, indirectly, a burden would be thrown on the public funds. He submitted that, as a matter or privilege, the Amendment was out of order.
  *MR. Speaker: I do not think the Amendment is out of order. No doubt it would at the end, but I think those words prevent there being any breach of privilege.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that, that being Mr. Speaker's ruling, he would move as an Amendment the omission of the word "all" in order to insert "such," his intention being afterwards to move a further Amendement, so as to provide that the damage in the use of the school rooms for elementary school purposes to be made good by the local authority should be "such" "as the loval authority consider to be" due to fair wear and tear. As the Lords Amendment stood at the present moment the local authority was to bear the whole expense of wear and tear, although the school rooms were only in their hands for a third, or at most a half, of the time. During the evenings, with the possible exception of three, the school would be in the hands of the managers, and also on Saturday, during holiday time, and on Sundays, during holiday time, and on Sundays. Was it just to say that the wear and tear attributable to concerts, balls, entertainments, and Sunday schools, exclusively in the interest of the management and the denomination, should be borne by the local authority and the ratepayers? Did the Bishops

  1385
  want them to keep up a kind of a concerthall and ball-room in each parish for the use of their denomination? If there was any wear and tear which they considered was due to the use of the school as a school, that might be paid for, but it should be confined to that. Then, who was to judge how much of the wear and tear was attributable to Sunday school or penny-reading uses, and how much today school use? At present no one was appointed to assess the damage, neither the Board of Education, the local authority, nor the managers. Were the managers going to send in the bill to the local authority? He contended that it was a matter for the local authority to decide, but at any rate someone ought to decide it. He submitted that the House was entitled to hear what the Government interpretation of the Clause was.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
  "To leave out the word 'all,' and insert the word 'such.' "—(Mr. Lloyd George.)
  Question proposed, ''That the word 'all' stand part of the Lords Amendment."
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (): Would the hon. Gentleman say what he proposes should come afterwards, because this is rather important.
  MR. LLOYID-GEORGEsaid he intended to move afterwards to insert the words "such damage as the local authority consider to lie due to fair wear and tear of the school."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he had been asked how the Amendment would read in connection with the rest of the Clause. The effect of the Amendment, as he took it, was this. As between the managers and the local education authority it would throw upon that authority the responsibility for some portion of the repairs. The general obligation to keep the school-house in repair was thrown upon the managers, and the Amendment of the Lords threw upon the local education authority the liability to make good to the managers such portion of the repairs as were caused by wear aiul tear from the use of the
  1386
  building as a public elementary school. How was the amount to be determined? If the two parties did not agree, obviously the question must be decided by some one. [An HON. MEMBER: The Bishop; and laughter.] The hon. Member proposed that it should be decided by one party to the controversy.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Who would order the repairs in the first instance?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that' that was not the question they were now dealing with. The hon. Gentleman suggested this question should be decided by one party to the controversy—the local education authority. The Clause, however, provided further on that any question arising under this section between the local education authority and the managers, should be decided by the Board of Education. It would fall on them to decide any such question.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON SIR JAMES FERGUSSON, who waa very indistinctly heard in the Press Gallery, was understood to say that he held that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs would not be unsatisfactory. It conceded, to a great extent, the principle for which the supporters of voluntary schools were contending. The practical application of it would be greatly to relieve the managers from the burdens which they laboured under. It had been his good fortune to have a very large acquaintance with the voluntary schools of this country, and he knew the position of the managers. He desired the House to understand how vital it was to the schools that the man gers should be relieved of even a portion of this expense. There were many cases where the expense of repairs exceeded the amount of the subscriptions, and knowing, as he did, most touching instances of the efforts made to keep schools going—Roman Catholic schools, Church of England schools, as well as schools of other religious bodies—he pressed on the House the duty of relieving them of some of these expenses.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that what was proposed here was that it was to be the managers who were to spend the money, and the local authority was t

  1387
  find it. This could not be right, for the managers were not representative of the general body of ratepayers in any sense of the word. The local authority were not on the spot, and the question of wear and tear could only be known to the managers. He thought the House wished to know what were the views of hon. Gentlemen who represented County Councils and were advocates of the interests of the ratepayers of this change in the Bill, which threw on the ratepayers the obligation which it was the intention of the Government should be borne by the voluntary subscribers. He desired to know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite who were going directly to vote in favour of casting this obligation on the ratepayers, and make the masters of the expenditure, not the local authority, but the managers, had anything to urge in its favour. This was a very serious matter for the country districts. The man who lived in a £5 cottage would find his rates raised as it was, but the Government were going to make the local authorities find the money and not allow them to spend it. The conclusion that these people would draw was that they were going to pay an education rate they had never paid before, and were going to be allowed no voice in the spending of it. The persons finding the money ought to have control over the expenditure.
  SIR JOHN DORRINGTON ()quite agreed that the local authorities ought to have the control of this expenditure, and that was exactly what the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carnarvon effected. He had taken some interest in this question, and in Committee had moved a similar Amendment, because he thought the same principle as applied to landlord and tenant ought to apply here. For that reason he was very glad his hon. friend had moved this Amendment. He was quite aware that this change must throw an additional charge on the country, but he thought it was an equitable charge, and that it would not be a very large one, and he hoped the Amendment would be carried.
  (6.0.) MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE ()stated, as showing the opinion of the County Councils
  1388
  on the matter, that at the last meeting of the County Councils Association, a resolution was passed to the effect that in the opinion of the Councils no further charges should be thrown on the rates by this Bill. The great danger to the administration of the Bill in country districts would arise from the weight of the rate rather than from any other cause. He hardly agreed with his right hon. friend that the addition would be very slight. He conceived that the amount of additional burden thrown on the local authority would have some correspondence to the amount of relief afforded to the managers, and if it amounted to anything like 2s. a scholar, as was suggested in the House of Lords, it would mean an extra 1/2d. rate in the countv he represented. He should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member tor Carnarvon Boroughs, not only because of the danger involved in the additional rate, but also because of the endless field of dispute that would be opened up by the proposal in the Bill between the local authority and the managers. He could conceive of no more fertile source of dispute than the question of whether certain damage arose from fair wear and tear or from some other cause such as defective construction or unfair use. It was a most extraordinary thing that the local authority should have to pay for the fair wear and tear, and not for unfair damage done to a school. It was said that in case of dispute these matters would be referred to the Board of Education. He desired to relieve the Board of Education from any further burdens in this respect, and he was quite certain that that department did not wish its inspectors to have to decide between local authorities and managers as to whether certain damage was due to fair wear and tear or not.
  MR. BRYCEhoped the Government would accept the Amendment, as they would thereby remove a source of much trouble and friction. The fairest way would be to leave the local education authority to determine the matter; they were sure to deal with the question in a fair and liberal mariner. The feeling of the local authorities was the first thing to be considered, and when the House had their deliberate resolution ex-

  1389
  pressing their unwillingness that any further charge should be thrown on the rates, they might conclude, a fortiori, that they were exceedingly unwilling to have any further humiliation inflictede upon them by being subjected in the matter to the Board of Euducation. The Board of Education would be at a distance; the local education authority would be at a distance; but the managers, being on the spot, under the vague terms of the Clause, would be able to put almost anything they liked under the head of wear and tear. The whole weight of argument was in favour of treating the local authority with proper respect, and leaving this matter to their determination.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY ()supported the proposed Amendment. From his experience in the Education Department, he thought it would be unnecessarily burdening that Board to throw upon it the work of deciding how much whitewash and paint was required in each of 12,000 schools. Complete justice would be done by leaving the matter to the determination of the local authority.
  MR. JAMES HOPE ()pointed out that the difficulty referred to be previous speakers already existed in the Bill. Under sub-Section (2) of Clause 7, questions in dispute had to go to the Board of Education, and if some questions, why not all?
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Amendment would make a considerable change in the Bill from the Catholic point of view. No doubt as between the different Protestant denominations the County Council or local authority would give absolutely fair play but if those belonging to the unpopular religion—which, of course, the Catholic religion was in England had to appeal to the local authority, this Amendment would make an enormous difference. It was said there would be an appeal to the Board of Education on all these matters. Whether that was so or not in this particular case he was not certain, but ven if it were, the same difficulty could then be thrown on the Board of Education, because they would have to decide as to every pot of whitewash or
  1390
  paint that was used on the school. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boaroughs had suggested that the difficulty was insurmountable, whereas, as had been pointed out, the very same difficulty existed later on in the Clause. He could understand that many hon. Members were anxious that the matter should be dealt with in the nature of a compromise. He, however, had carefully watched the course of the debate, and had noticed that the Opposition, instead of being satisfied when Amendments were made, like the horse-leech simply asked for "more;" they divided against the Amendments as amended, and the Government, instead of gaining anything from yielding to the Opposition, simply involved themselves in further entanglements. If the Government were afraid of the constituencies, as had been alleged, they might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. The Chief Secretary at Dover recently advised the House of Commons to "go blind" on this matter. They certainly had not been going blind that evening, as a considerable amount of light had been thrown by the tactics of which the hon. Member for Carnarvon was such a master. If Amendments such as these were to be accepted, what return were the supporters of the Bill to get. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, but was not the House of Commons a sort of legislative Stock Exchange, where Members got one thing in return for giving up another? That, at any rate, was how Irishmen generally got anything. For himself, therefore, while appreciating the anxiety shown by the county authorities with regard to the rate, he respectfully hoped the Government would not yield in this matter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. and learned Member had suggested that although various Amendments had been accepted, the House were no nearer the conclusion of their labours. He would not argue that question, but he could assure the hon. and learned. Member that he had not recommended to the House the adoption of a single Amendment for any reason except that it was either absolutely innocuous or that it was an improvement to the Bill. No man accustomed to Parliamentary life

  1391
  would deny that there were cases in which Amendments of another character might be worth acceptance by the Government as part of a great compromise. But no such transaction had been suggested by the other side, and nothing of the kind had been adopted by the Government, so that the hon. Member for North Louth might make himself easy on that point. As to the actual Amendment before the House, there appeared to be on the Minsterial side a considerable body of opinion in favour of it. It was a matter that would have to be decided by the House for itself, but he confessed to a feeling of surprise that it should be thought a convenient thing to make the local authority the judge in its own cause, to decide on the precise amount which it was to contribute towards the carrying out of the legal obligation which would be thrown upon it if the main Amendment were accepted. Of course, if in practice the Board of Education were to have sent up to it for decision, week after week, quarrels between the education authority and the managers as to the exact quantity of paint or whitewash that was to be paid for, the burden would be intolerable. The education authority and the managers would, no doubt, come to a working arrangement as to the amount of damage done according to the share in the buildings which each party respectively enjoyed. There might be difficulties at first, but it would all work out right in the end. He must again remind the House that in the Bill as it was sent up to the House of Lords a precisely analogous question was left to be decided by the education authority. In sub-Section 2, of Clause 7, hon. Gentlemen would find provision made in regard to damage caused to furniture or to the room other than damage arising from fair wear and tear, and all disputes arising under Section 7 were to be determined by the Board of Education. Therefore, they had really already decided that the Education Department could deal with these questions. In the circumstances, subject to anything that might fall from other Gentlemen in the course of the argument, he would be disposed to say that, while the practical difficulties
  1392
  of the Amendment were not of such acharacter as to make it unworkable, it was really rather a serious thing, if the Amendment was to be taken at all, to turn the education authority into judges of their own financial liabilities.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE ()said he should certainly vote against the hon. Member for carnarvon's Amendment. The First Lord of the Treasury had clearly pointed out what were the facts of the case. In the event of a dispute as to what was fair wear and tear, the Amendment would not allow an appeal, but as the managers had a right of appeal to the Board of Education. He hoped the House would agree to continue that appeal and allow it to remain in the Bill. It was all very well to say that the Education Department could not attend to matters of this kind, but what was the use of a Department for Education if it could not settle such disputes. If this Amendment were accepted as it now stood, very few cases would come before the Education Department. He spoke on behalf of the Catholic schools of this country, and he hoped the House would refuse to make the local education authority the judge of tis own case, but allow in cases of dispute an appeal to the Board of Education. The local education authority was represented on the board of managers of the school, and that ought to be sufficient to prevent those disputes. It was not possible, on the hon. Member for Carnarvon's Amendment, to discuss the whole policy of the Lords Amendments. but this Amendment appeared to be the thin end of the wedge, and inasmuch as this question was one of vital improtance to Catholic schools, he should vote against the Amendment.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER ()said he wished to enter a protest against the assumptions of the hon. Member for North Louth, in reference to the attitude of County and Borough Councils in England towards Roman Catholics in dealing with this matter. His hon. friend the Member for North Louth seemed to entertain the opinion that in Great Britain there was that strong line of administrative difference

  1393
  butween the Roman Catholic faith and the Protestant faith, which perhaps unfortunately existed to an extent in Ireland to which he himself was not competent to form an opinion upon. He was entirely opposed to the netion which the hon. Member appeared to entertain that the County Councils and the Borough Councils of England would allow their religious opinion to interfere with their administrative actions in regard to this Bill. He conceived it to be utterly impossible in the most PLrotestant county in England that any injustice would be done by English public men to any great community like the community of the roman Catholic faith, and no class of men would be more indignant at treating the Roman Catholics unfairly than those public men in the counties and boroughs of England. Therefore, he thought the Roman Catholic Members of this House might dismiss from their minds the idea that they would be subjected to any disability or disadvantage in the administration of this Act on account of their faith. The Prime Minister had assumed that there was going to be a conflict of authority upon points upon which he thought no conflict would ever arise. The hon. Baronet the Member for Gloncestershire had put the case quite fairly. He believed that the County and Borough Councils would regard this as a purely administrative matter, and they would do what was right between the conflicting parties. If they were to have an appeal to the Board of Education. which would mean the sending down of an inspector to inquire upon the spot in order to decide the damage done to a carpet, or a desk, or perhaps the carving of some boy's name on the furniture of the school, he thought they were using a very large hammer to crack a nut. He believed that the County and Borough Councils were quite capable of doing what was fair between man and man, and he should support the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon as an administrative improvement.
  MR. CRIPPS ()said he quite agreed with everything that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He was one of those who voted against putting struc-
  1394
  tural repairs on the local authority, and he should certainly have to vote against the Lords Amendment as it stood. If the Education Board was brought in upon this question the only result would be that it would throw a large amount of expense of expense upon the localities concerned. He welcomed the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Carnarvon. and he was most anxious that it should be carried.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was surprised that the Government had was surprised that the Government had not jumped at this Amendment. What was the position which the Government took at the outset? It was that the managers out of funds provided by them should keep the school in good repair. The Secretary to the Board of Education stated that this was fair and reasonable, and the hon. Member for Stretford expressed the sincere hope that denominationalists would not try to minimise the obligation laid upon them. He thought it was a little hard that the Government had been driven by such hard taskmasters. The principle now laid down was that the local authority should should make themselves responsible for the rapairs. The Lords Amendment provided for a part of the repairs falling on the local authority, a principle which those on his side had resisted all along. He strongly recommended hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with their adversaries while they were in the way with them.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS ()said he had heard the speeches of the hon. Member for Carnarvon. and the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tewkesbury Division, and he did not think that before in the whole of the discussions upon this Bill. they had found those two hon. Members in agreement, for they were the leaders of two entirely different schools of thought. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Carnarvon took radical views, while the right hon. Baronet took ultra Tory views, and consequently he had to ask himself what was the meaning of all this? He thought if meant that those who could not vote for the Amendment of the Lords, which was entirely against the bargain

  1395
  made in this House, were going to vote for the Amendment of his hon. It was perfectly true that if the Lords Amendment was going to be carried, the Amendment on it of his hon. friend was rather an improvement, because if minimised to some extent the amount of the repairs, and gave the local authority the opportunity of deciding the matter themselves. It was abundantly clear now, from the speech of the hon. Member opposite, that the Amendment was adopted on the other side—not by the Gvoernment—in order that hon. Members might have a bridge, and that they might be able to tell their constituents, whom they feared, that they could not vote for the Amendment of the Lords in its entirety. [Cries of "No."] Well they would see. They wished to be able to tell their constituents that they voted for the excellent Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. a strong opponent of the Bill. He entirely objected to this state of flux on the Amendment now before the House unless they had it on all the Amendments. On the Amendments which had come down from another place they ought to have the views of the Government definitely stated. It was not fair of the Government to say on the most improtant Amendment which had come down "We will give you an open hand." He gathered that the Prime Minister's private view was rather against this Amendment. His hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon had asked him, sotto roce, "Why was it accepted?" He thought he had pointed out most clearly that it would be accepted by the other side, because it made it easy for them to vote for the Lords Amendment. Under those circumstances, he would be compelled to vote against it.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS ()said the Board of Education had been able for thirty years to assist the vountary schools in the matter of repairs, and he saw no reason why they should not continue to give that assistance.
  *MR. DUKE ()thought the Amendment should be accepted in the interests of peace and of education. He could not imagine anything more disastrous to the public life of the country
  1396
  than that there should be a period of strife extending over years between the managers of the non-provided schools and the local authority as to whether certain matters of repair, of white washing and painting, for instance, were to be paid for by one or the other, with an appeal to the Board of Education, not where the necessity of the case required it, but where there was friction between the two authorities. He did not know why the hon. Member for Carnarvon should have proposed this Amendment, but all he could say was there were excellent reasons why Members on that side of the House should support it. It might be that the hon. Gentleman proposed it with a view to the peace of those who were to administer education. He was confident it cust have the result of excluding from the area of friction between the managers of the non-provided schools and the local authority large and constantly recurring questions. The amount of repairs for which each was to be answerable was in itself a small matter, and if there were any independent tribunal to refer it to in the district, it would be quite an easy matter to settle. The Lords Amendment, however, might set up a source of irritation and friction between the managers and the local authority, and he should hail with satisfaction a proposal leaving it to the sense of fairness, if not generosity, of the local bodies and managers to decide.
  SIR H CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth said that this is a small matter, or used some expression of that kind. I cannot get it out of my mind that the Bishop of Manchester—
  *MR. DUKEsaid that what he stated was that the Amendment dealt with small matters, but that it might lead to a great deal of friction.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: it dealt with small matter! But I say that we must remember that the Bishop of Manchester estimated the grant to the vountary schools by his Amendment at no less than £350,000 a year. That is his estimate, but I do not endorse it. I think it is a considerably exaggerated estimate, but never mind. That is the estimate he put upon it, and

  1397
  he, being the author of the Amendment, ought to be an authority on the subject. I quite appreciate the liberal diversity of opinion on the question of tactics that has arisen between my hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon and my hon. friend the Member for MidGlamorgan. The whole situation we are in with regard to this Amendment from the Lords is grotesque in the last degree. We are discussing an Amendment which in itself is ridiculous. I had almost said it was the greatest imposture that could be perpetrated on the House of Commons. It is not the less of an imposture that it is perpetrated, as it were, with a wink and an intimation that we must not be alarmed because it is an imposture. When any Amendmentd is moved, I confess I bear in mind what will be the ultimate result after all the negotiations and manoeuvres with regard to this Clause are finished. How is it likely that this Amendment of the Lords will be met? when an Amendment like the one before us is moved, which will have the effect of mitigating and modifying the ultimate consequences of the Lords Amendment, then we come to the difficulty exemplified by the speeches of my hon. friends. On the one hand they, desire to make the ultimate evil as small as possible; on the other hand, if you make it as small as possible you, in a tactical sense, weaken your position for the purpose of the next debate and the division which is to come. I confess that I range myself with those who look to the ultimate result rather than the tactical consequence in this House. I have derived a good deal of amusement from the speeches made by some of my hon. friends opposite whom I could point to, and which disclose the true purpose of the action they are going to take. But let us bear in mind that this is an Amendment from the point of view of those who dislike the whole thing, who are opposed to the Bishop of Manchester's Amendment, and who think it is a

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

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

  Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John

  Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Agg-Gardner. James Tynte

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Allen, CharlesP. (Glouc., Stroud

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Compbell, John (Armagh,S.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Carew, James Laurence

  Anstruther. H. T.

  Boland, John

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Atherley James, L.

  Bond, Edward

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Baldwin, Alfied

  Brigg, John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  breach of the bargain that was made. [Cries of "No!"] and who think that it is something in addition to the price that was to be paid.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (): It is no price.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has it not any pecuniary effect?
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON: I say no bargain has ever been made.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I will give the hon. Baronet the benefit of the word bargain; but I will still say that the Bishop of Manchester's Amendment is an addition to the price that was settled in this House and with which we were led to understand the friends of the voluntary schools were satisfied. It is on that ground that we object to it. It is because we think the arrangement was too beneficial to them before. Now we have an Amendment put forward with the view not only of putting the administration of the matter on a more reasonable and possible footing, but of mitigating the effect of what is proposed. While my eyes are perfectly open to the effect of the tactical results that will arise, I think the ultimate effect is of much more importance, and therefore I will vote with my hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon.
  MR. BOUSFIELD ()said the two halves of the right hon. Gentleman's speech were opposed to one another. It was quite clear that if this Amendment was carried the probability was that the Amendment from the Lords would be carried too. He hoped hon. Members would pause before they voted against the present Amendment.
  (6.43.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 165; Noes, 194. (Division List No. 638.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Keswick, William

  Partington, Oswald

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Kimber, Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Percy, Earl

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

  Knowles, Less

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Langley, Batty

  Pummer, Walter R.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lawson, John Grant

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leamy, Edmund

  Purvis, Robert

  Crean, Engene

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rea, Russell

  Cullinan, J.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Delany, William

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Doogan, P. C.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rutherford, John

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Duffy, William J.

  Lundon, W.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Egerton, Hon. A. De Tatton

  Mac Donnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sheehan, Dasniel Daniel

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  MacNeill. John Gordon Swift

  Smith, HC (Northumb. Tyneside

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

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  French, Peter

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Sullivan, Donal

  Field, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Kean, John

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n,N

  Fletcher, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

  Mooney, John J.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Gilhooly, James

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Murnaghan, George

  Tully, Jasper

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Murphy, John

  Valentia, Viscount

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Murray. Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hammond, John

  Myers, William Henry

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Harrington, Timothy

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Patrick (Meath. North)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hope, J. F.(Shettield, Brightside

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Willoughvby de Eresby, Lord

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Brien, Patriek (kilkenny)

  Willox, Sir JohnArchibald

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Brien, Wiliam (Cork)

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

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  O'Connor, James (Wieklow, W.

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

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  O'Dpherty, William

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Jordon, Jeremiah

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

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  TELERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. Galloway.

  Kemp, George

  O'Kelly James (Roseommon, N.

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Malley, William

  Kenyon, Hon.Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  O'Shaughuessy, P. J.

  Kenjon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bryce, Rt.Hon. James

  Dighy, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Buteher, John Geroge

  Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  Arnold Forester, Hugh O.

  Caldwell, James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Asher, Alexander

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Doughty, George

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Asquith, Rt.Hn. Hcrbert Henry

  Cawley, Frederick

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

  Dyke, Rt.Hon. Sir William Hart

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Chaplin, Rt.Hon. Henry

  Edwards, Frank

  Balearres, Lord

  Chapman, Edward

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Doughlas

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Colomb, SirJohn Charles Ready

  Emmott, Alfred

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Colston Chas Edw. H. Athole

  Evans, Sir FrancisH.(Maidstone

  Bathurst, Hon. Alten Benjamin

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Finch, Frederick William

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cremer, William Randal

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Fitmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Crombie, John William

  Bowles. T. Gibson (King'sLynn

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Flower, Ernest

  Brassey, Albert

  Davies, Alfred, (Carmarthen)

  Forster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Fowler, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

  1400

  1401

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  M' Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Garfit, William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sinclair, John (Foriarshire)

  Goddard, Danicel Ford

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Smith, Abel H. (Hert ford. East

  Godson, Sir Augustns Frederiek

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarls

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Orunsby-(Line.)

  Milvain, Thomasd

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Grant, Corrie

  Moon, Fdward Robert Paey

  Spear, John Ward

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morganal. Lloyd (Carmarthem)

  Spencer, Rt.Hn C.R.(Northants

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

  Morley Charles (Brecon-hire)

  Speneer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Hain, Edward

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose

  Soevenson, Franeis S.

  Haldane, Rt.Hon. Richard B.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aymer

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomes F.

  Murray, Charles. I. (Coventry)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Harcourt, Rt.Hon. Sir William

  Newnes,Sir George

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hardie,J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

  Norton. Capt. Ceeil William

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Harmsworth, R. Leieester

  Pease Herbert Pike(Derlington

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radelitte

  Hateh, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Pemberton, John S.G.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E,

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

  Philipps. John Wynford

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir ArthurD.

  Piikington, Lient. Col. Richard

  Thomas, David Altred Merthyr

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Powell, Sir Franeis Sharp

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Hohhouse, Rt. HnH(somerset,E

  Pryee Jones, Lt,-Edward

  Themas. J. A.(Glamorgan. Gower

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Quilrer, Sir Cuthbert

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ratehff, R. F.

  Thornton, Perey M.

  Howard. J.(Midd.,Tottenham)

  Rattigan. Sir William Henry

  Tonlmin, George

  Hudson, George Bicker-teth

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dmmfries

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Jacoby, James Altred

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wallace, Robert

  Johns-tone, Heywood

  Ridley, Hon. M. W(Stalybridge

  Wallon, Joseph (Barusley)

  Jone-David Brynmor (Swansea

  Rigg Hichard

  Warner, Thoma-Courtenay T.

  Kearley, hndson E.

  Ritehie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thomson

  Weir, James Gailoway

  Kennaway. Rt. Hoa. SirJohnll.

  Roberts. John Bryn (Eition)

  Welby. L.t.-Col.A.CE(Taunton

  Lawrenee, Sir huseph (Monmth

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Welby. Sir Charles G. E.(Notte.

  Layland-Barralt, Frameos

  Roberts, Samel (Shellield)

  Whurton, Rt.Hon. John Lloyd

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

  Robertson. Edmund (Dundec)

  Whiteley. George (York, W. R.

  Lees. Sir Elltott (Birkenhead)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Leese, SirJosephF.(Aeerington)

  Rollit. Sir Albert Kaye

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Nofrolk Mid.

  Levy, Manrice

  Round, Rt.Hon. James

  Wilson, Henry J. York. W. R.

  Lough, Thomas

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Lowe, Franeis William

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lueas, Col. Franeis (Lowestoit

  Saudys. Lieut. - COl. Thos. Myles

  Yexall, James Henry

  Lvttelton, Hoa. Alfred

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Maeartney, RtHn. W.G. Ellison

  Sehwann, Charles E.

  TELERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Lloyd-George and Sir John Brunner.

  Maelona, John Cumming

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sharpe, William Ealward T.

  Proposed words inserted in the Lords Amendment.
  Amendment made to the Lords Amendment
  "By inserting, after the word 'damage,'the words 'as local authority consider to be.'" (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was going to move to insert after "schoolhouse" the words "as an," so as to make it clear that the wear and tear was due only in respect of the use of the schoolhouse as an elementary school.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the hon. Gengleman thought was the weakness of the words actually in the Lords Amendment from his point of view.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would not persevere with this Amendment to the Amendment.
  MR. SOARES ()moved to strike out the words in line 3 of the Lords Amendment, "for the purpose of a public elementary school." in order to insert "for educational purposes."
  MR. JAMES HOPErose to a point of order, and
  MR. SPEAKERheld the Amendment to be out of order.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONrose to move the omission of the words "but this obligation of the local education authority shall throw no additional burden on any puublic funds."
  MR. TREVELYANrose on a point of order. These words, he said, had been in confessedly to cover the question of privilege, and were net

  1403
  meant to stand. He therefore asked Mr. Speaker whether it was competent to move an Amendment, the only result of which would be to re convert the Lords Amendment into a proposal which would be contrary to one of the most cherished privileges of the House of Commons.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether it was not in the recollection of Mr. Speaker that, on the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, 1898, he took this point in exactly similar circumstances, and was ruled against by the Chair.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I remember the hon. and learned Member did take a point of order on that occasion, but I forget whether it was exactly the same one. On that occasion the words inserted were struck out by order of this House, and the Lords Amendment, without those words, was left in the Bill. There can be no question of a breach of privilege arising out of something which we do in this House. The question is whether there is a breach of privilege by the House of Lords. If the Lords send down a Bill to a Committee which contains no breach of privilege, and we do something to it to put it into a different condition, that cannot be a breach of the privileges of this House.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEdesired to raise another point of order. Assuming that these words were omitted, a burden would be imposed upon the ratepayers. Mr. Speaker had ruled on Report that no burden could be imposed on the ratepayers except in Committee of the House. He submitted it was not competent, therefore, to impose a burden on the ratepayers by a vote of this House without a recommittal of the Bill in respect of the particular matter to be considered. He ventured to submit that, if the House of Commons could not do this on its own initiative, the mere fact that the House of Lords had committed a breach of privilege did not confer jurisdiction on the House of Commons to do a thing which it could not do of itself, and that there must be a recommittal of the Bill before they could consider this Amendment.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not so The rule is by the hon. Gentleman corectly stated as to the Report stage in this House. But, as regards the Lords Amendments, it is different. If the result of an Amendment in this House of a Lords Amendment is to create a charge which was not in the Bill when it went up to the Lords, that is perfectly legitimate, It has been done over and overagain.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
  "To leave out the words 'but this obligation of the local education authority shall throw no additional charge on any public funds.' "—(Sir James Fergusson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords' Amendment."
  MR. TREVELYANhoped that, if this Amendment were in order, the House would not adopt it, but would pass the proposal as it came down from the Peers, in its naked and original absurdity. As the Clause stood it meant nothing. It meant that an obligation was placed on the local education authority, and that the local education authority was told that it was not to have funds out of which to discharge that obligation. If they struck out these words they practically submitted themselves to be the victims of the farce that had been played upon them by the Bishops, and he thought it was better, as a protest in favour of their privileges, to keep this Clause whole, impossible and nonsensical. If they tamely submitted another place to insert Amendments of this kind they reduced their privileges in the matter of money questions to a nullity. If such a thing were allowed now, it would form a precedent upon which the other House could do anything. Suppose the House of Peers were to propose to reduce the income tax by a penny in the £. What was there to prevent their saying, "Provided the revenue be not thereby diminished?" What was there to prevent their doubling the Corn Tax, and saying it should throw no greater burden on the tax-payers? This had been done upon the instruction of the Bishops. They had used their ungracious opportunity in the other House, where there was no representation of any other religious section interested in the Bill, to take all they could get; but in this instance they had

  1405
  found, in obtaining something for the Church. they had committed a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons, and when they found their doubtful power slippling away, they had induced the temporal powers to insert the two lines now proposed to be left out, in order to gain their ends. He hoped the House would resist the Amendment.
  *MR. WANKLYN ()said he had only one objection to the Amendment, which was that it was a Bishops' Amendment. He had de monstrated on the Third Reading that this was not a Bishops' Bill, but a Bill based on the Memorandum of Mr. Foster, of 1869. In Bradford they had long since been educated to understand that every school which complies with the requirements of the Education Department, and has a Conscience Clause, is entitled to full aid from either the rates or the taxes, or from both.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he thought he might be allowed to bring the House back to the question before it, which did not require to be discussed at much further length. He had already described what the whole Amendment seemed to him to be—an absurdity. It asked the House to agree to a farce. There was a precedent to which his hon. and learned friend the Member for North Louth had referred, that of 1898, but the difference between that precedent and the present case and it appeared to him to be an essential difference—was that in 1898 words were put in which took away the sting of a breach of privilege from a proposal which people concerned in the Bill desired to see carried into effect, the proposal of a desirable thing. It became apparent in the other House, however, that after all it was out of order, because it involved a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons, and this ingenious method was adopted to circumvent that difficulty. But that was a very different matter from the present proposal, which was known to be highly controversial, and which by this manocuvre had been brought into the House of Commons when otherwise there would have been no opportunity and no place to discuss it. What were they to do when these underlined words were brought before
  1406
  them? He thought the course for those who held his views to take was to leave the words in, to leave them, as his hon. friend had said, in their naked deformity, and in their original absurdity.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman give such advice to the House, because he had told them that these words were absurd and a farce, and yet recommended their retention. Without going to the other extreme, and adopting the modest phrase of his right hon. friend, who said that to cut out the words would perhaps improve the Amendment, he did not think the House, whatever they thought of the substantial Amendment, ought to embody in the Bill deliberately what they regarded as an absurdity or a farce. The Amendment was not the Government's; every one knew that the Government were beaten in the other House. While hon. Members might disagree altogether with the proposal made by the Bishop of Manchester, he did not think it was consistent with proper procedure that they should deliberately embody in a statute that which they declared publicly that they regarded as an absurdity and a farce.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid either the House did or did not cherish its rights and privileges, and thesubstance of this matter was that the Amendment before the House, as adopted by the House of Lords, was substantially a breach of the privileges of this House. He thought they were entitled to something more than the dialectical answer vouchasafed by the First Lord of the Treasury. It behoved them to be careful lest while indulging in this play of putting in words in the other House and deleting them in this House one of the mose cherished principles of this House were lost. He regretted that the Prime Minister, who was also the Leader of this House, and ought, therefore, to be the chief protector of its privileges, should make himself a partys to the farce they were now going through, and was assisting the other House to destroy the peivileges of this House.
  COLONEL PLEKINGTON ()said that, as a member of the House of Commons, he felt, as soon as he saw it on the Paper, that this was one of the most improper Amendments that had ever been put into a Bill. It ought either to be rejected as it stood or passed as it stood. If the latter course were adopted it would be an Amendment sent down from the Peers, and no reflection could be cast upon this House of Commons. That an English House of Peers should send down an Amendment, which, if passed, would be an absolute absurdity, was a course unworthy of any Chamber. As Englishmen they expected to see both private and public business done straightforwardly, and, although he had been a loyal supporter of the Government, he should certainly vote against the proposal, which he felt was practically an insult to the House of Commons. If they allowed the original Amendment to be passed by the means suggested, probably the House of Lords would act in this the Government should have departed from the Bill as it left the Commons, and he was surprised that no other protest had been raised. Had he not raised a protest he felt that he should have been disgraced as a Member of Parliament.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that, as in the minute that remained to the House before it susperded, he would point out exactly what took place in 1898. So far from that being a minor matter, as the Leader of the Opposition had suggested, there was a very strong direction to the House of Commons by the House of Lords. First of all there was the direction "that the words underlined were proposed to be omitted by the Commons." Those were the same words as the Amendment before the House, and then came the direction "that these words in italics were to be inserted by the Commons."The proposal was to transfer from the Grand Jury in Ireland the power to give compensation for malicious injuries in a certain very limited class of cases to the Judge, and the House of Lords extended that jurisdiction to every form of malicious injury, involving, so far as the Irish
  1408
  Members were concerned, a most monstrous and objectionable proposition. And yet that was carried without a word of objection from the whole Liberal Party. It was then pointed out that the practice adopted by the Lords had been adopted again and again.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESjoined in the protest of the hon. Member of the Newton Division at the insult the House had received. The House should remember that in the ordinary course a Clause of this kind could not be inserted at any stage of the Bill without stopping the Bill and setting up a Committee of the whole House to consider the question. That was the proper, and, as he read the Standing Order, the only possible method. The House of Lords had carried an Amendment which was found to be a breach of the privileges of this House; they then put a false nose on it and sent it down; and they were now told that if they took off the false nose the breach of privilege was no longer there.
  It being half-past Seven of the Clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded to interrupt the Business.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker with held his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  The Debate stood adjourned until the Evening Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL
  Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment [this day] to Lords, Amendment, in page 4, line 20, after "authority," insert "provided that all damage due to fair wear and tear in the use of any room in the school house for the purpose of a public elementary school shall be made good by the local education authority [but this obligation of the local education authority shall throw no additional charge on any public funds]."
  Which Amendment was—
  "To leave out the words 'but this obligation of the local education authority shall throw no additional charge on any public funds.' "—(Sir James Fergusson).
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords, Amendment."
  (9.0) MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid that since half-past seven he had had an opportunity of looking at the steps taken in the other place in order to introduce this Amendment, and he thought they had a right to complain of the manner in which it had been done. He found that the Duke of Norfolk stated that the Amendment was purely formal—
  *MR. SPEAKER*MR. SPEAKER—Order, order! The hon. Member is referring to the debates in the other House. It is not in order thus to carry on the debate in this House.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid he thought he was entitled to refer to the way in which those words had been placed upon the Paper, and to point out that, though they were treated as formal, they were actually introduced in order to put the Lords Amendment in order, and to escape the accusation of committing a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. He believed the Lord Chancellor once said that the function of the House of Lords was to prevent the country being tricked, and, personally, he thought the function of the House of Commons was to prevent itself being tricked by the House of Lords. There could be no doubt that the words were introduced by a trick ordodge; that they were, in fact, a fraud upon the House of Commons, and that they were put in because without them it would be impossible to introduce a certain Amendment at that stage. The hon. Member for North Louth—speaking for himself, of course, for he was the only person in the Irish Party he was entitled to speak for—had referred to the precedent of 1898. But the hon. Member on that occasion said he did not attach much importance to his Amendment—which complained of an invasion of the rights of the House of Commons—except on principle. Now the present Amendment from the Lords consisted of two parts. Both of them,
  1410
  taken separately, made good sense, but, taken together, they made nonsense. The First Lord of the Treasury had himself referred to them as nonsense, but probably the nonsense which came from the House of Lords was very different from the ordinary kind of nonsense. He did not think they could accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Manchester. If the House of Lords chose to send them a nonsensical Amendment, all the worse for it. Their protest on that side of the House was against any alteration of the Bill. It must be perfectly clear to hon. Members on all sides that the Lords Amendment with the words deleted would consititute a serious charge on the rates, and, on that ground, he should vote against it.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN ()said he thought the attitude taken up by hon. Members opposite in regard to the Amendment was most unreasonable. They had before them a question of great importance, which had been introduced in another place. It referred to a matter already discussed in that House, to one on which there was a serious difference of opinion, and which he thought they were all anxious to have discussed and decided in a practical spirit at the present stage; yet the Opposition, knowing that there was this important subject to be debated, had begun by asking that certain words should be retained which they admitted had nothing whatever to do with the main question they had to discuss. They evidently wished to retain those words in order to cast a stigma on another place. Surely that was not approaching the question in a practical spirit. There was a most important question as to what repairs were to be paid for by the local authority, and what were to be imposed on the managers. That was a definite issue, and they could not possibly arrive at any sort of reasonable discussion on the question until the words between brackets and underlined had been removed. Hon. Members opposite, however, chose to wasts the time of the House—[Criesof "Oh, oh!"]—Well, it was his opinion that they were wasting the time of the House—in a preliminary discussion upon an Amendment which they admitted was nonsense

  1411
  and meant nothing. But he would like to point out to the hon. Member who had just spoken that, in his humble opinion, the words as they stood meant something, and that by retaining them they were doing that which he was sure was very far from the intention of the Opposition. They would impose a very serious obligation on the private resources of members of the local authority, for while they declared that damage due to fair wear and tear should be paid for by the local authority they also provided that no additional charge should fall, inconsequence, on public funds, and, therefore if the local authority were to make good those damages without throwing any burden on the public funds they would have to do it out of their private pockets. The result would be to impose upon members of the local authority a large personal obligation which he felt sure it was very far from the desire or intention of hon. Members to impose. He appealed to the House not to delay the discussion on really substantial points in order that they might, by a sort of back door arrangement, inflict a stigma upon the other House. Let them give adequate and proper discussion to the really important point which arose upon this Amendment from the Lords. In order that they might do that the first necessary step was to leave out the words which, if they were not nonsense, bore a meaning which it was far from the intention of hon. Members opposite to import into the Bill.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (), on a point of order, submitted that if the hon. Member who had just spoken had given a correct reading of the effect of the words—if it were right that their retention would throw an obligation on the private resources of members of the education authority, then it involved a form of taxation upon those particular individuals, and not consitute a breach of the privileges of the House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I have already decided that this Amendment does not raise a question of privilege.
  Lord EDMUND FITZMAURICE ()said the hon. Member for North Louth had alluded to what had happened in the year 1898 in regard to the Irish Local Government Bill. Now, he took some part in the discussions on that Bill, and he spoke ib several occasions on points which were afterwards debated in another place. He could not altogether agree with the whole statement of the hon. Member as to what actually occurred in regard to the Amendments sent down from the Lords. No doubt the hon. Member had stated quite correctly that he himself raised the very point which they were now discussing as to what was done in another place although the view he then took was adverse to the one he was now supporting. The hon. Member used exactly the same arguments on that occasion as had been raised on the present debate, but he had not said anything to show that he was right in declaring the conduct of the Government unjustifiable in 1898, and in now championing exactly similar conduct on the part of the present Government. If the hon. Member thought that the conduct of the Government, when there was no really substantial dispute between both sides of the House and both Houses, was wrong. were they not far more justified in holding it to be wrong when there was a really substantial difference of opinion between the two Houses? The hon. Member had also said not a w single Liberal in 1898 uttered a word of protest, but that they allowed the matter to pass sub silentio. Now, in that he was inaccurate. If the hon. Member had turned over the page of Hansard from which he quoted he would have found a speech by himself—
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I remind the noble Lord that the question had already been decided when he spoke. My point of order had already been ruled against me before the noble Lord spoke.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: Both speeches were in the same debate. They are only separated by two columns.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No doubt they were in the same debate, but they were on entirely different questions.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: I beg the hon. Member's pardon, they were both on the same point. The hon Member spoke first and I spoke last. It was the same debate, and on that point I challenge contradiction. Continuing, the noble Lord said he would like to ask the House to remember what happened on that occasion. No doubt the precedent, technically speaking, was on all fours up to a certain point. But Mr. Gladstone, who had used this form of procedure himself, said on that occasion that it was a procedure which ought only to be used with the most extreme care and caution, because it contained in itself a possibility of great abuse. Could anyone doubt what Mr. Gladstone was then thinking of was that a procedure which might be perfectly harmless in a case where ther was substantial agreement, might, if it were not carefully watched, be used for other purposes which in 1898 were not present to the mind of the House. That was exactly what was occurring on the present occasion. They were having this machinery used in order to overcome a technical difficulty, but it was being used in reference to a subject which had excited a great amount of feeling, he was almost going to say ill-feeling in the country, and upon which there was a marked difference of opinion between the two sides of the House and the two Houses. He could not help thinking that in this case there had been a most unfortunate use of the precedent. There had been an abuse, too, of the privileges of that House, and by the course they were taking they were seriously endangering the liberties of the House.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR ()said the question of repairs was very small in comparison with the questions of the credit of the House and its power over the public purse which were involved in the Amendment, and there was no question which was more supreme in the history of the English Constitution than that, nor was there one which ought to be more
  1414
  jealously guarded. It was, in fact, a constitutional question. The question of repairs did not raise a vital principle; it was not a matter on which the future legislation of this country had to depend; it could easily be dealt with in a oneclause Bill before the Education Bill came into operation. But if the Lords Amendment were accepted the result would be that a charge would be levied on the people which would not have been levied if the Bill had remained in the form in which it left the House of Commons. It was said that the Amendment was only a technical means of getting over the difficulty. Was the power of the House over the purse a technicality? They ought to be jealous of the power of the House, and he appealed even to those in favour of the principle of the Amendment not to give the House of Lords the power of initiating taxation. Nothing could so discredit a grave and serious assembly as making its procedure farcical on a very important constitutional point.
  *MR. SOARESsaid he had hoped that every Member of the House would have appreciated the importance of the constitutional principle involved in this question. Primrose Leaguers, who posed as the peculiar guardians of constitutional liberty, ought to oppose the Amendment that had come from another place, but to Liberals the act of the Upper House appealed with especial force because it cut directly at the privilege which enabled a Liberal Government to get through important measures of domestic reform, like the budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, without interference from the other House. It would be admitted that there were not many Liberal bishopsin the other House. There was only one, though he was a real good one. It seemed to him that those Bishops must have thought that in carrying this Amendment they were killing two birds with one stone. They thought they would be altering the constitution to the detriment of the Liberal Party. and also getting considerable pickings for themselves. The whole question was amply and thoroughly discussed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, which raised the point of

  1415
  structural repairs, and was defeated by a very considerable majority. The Bill had been an unconstitutional Bill from the very beginning. I involved taxation without representation, and it could not he denied for a moment that if this Amendment was accepted, an unconstitutional act would have been committed which would be bad for the State, bad for the Liberal Party, and bad for the Democracy which were interested in the fate of the Liberal Party. He hoped the Amendment would be defeated.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he wished to enter his protest against the method in which this question had been introduced. The House of Commons had deliberately refused to throw the burden of wear and tear upon the Councils. The friends of the voluntary schools had carried this Amendment against the Government in the House of Lords, and then, discovering that it was a breach of privilege, had descended to what he could not help describing as an unworthy trick. They introduced words which they knew to be foolish and nugatory, and an insult to the intelligence of both Houses. There was a touch of Jesuitism about the whole proceeding, and he

  AYES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc.,Stroud

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fowler, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Rea, Russell

  Barran. Rowland Hirst

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rigg, Richard

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Grant, Corrie

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brigg, John

  Harcourt, Rt.Hon. Sir William

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel walter

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bryce, Rt.Hon. James

  Heime, Norval Watson

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Burns, John

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somerset, E

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cald well, James

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cremer, John William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Crombie, John William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Acerington

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Denny, Colonel

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Thomas,F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Edwards, Frank

  Newnes, Sir George

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Norman, Henry

  Toulmin, George

  Emmott, Alfred

  Norton, Capt, Cecil William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wallace, Robert

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Partington, Oswald

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Walton, Joesph (Barnsley)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  was not surprised when he recollected the quarter from which it emanated. He did not think it was fair that the House of Commons should be asked to become accomplices in a trick of this character.
  MR. PAULTON ()said the First Lord had asked the House to assent to the deletion of these words in order that they should not pass a nonsensical Amendment. He thought he could suggest a better method of dealing with the matter. The House should allow these words to stand, and then vote unanimously against the nonsensical Amendment sent down by the House of Lords. If the House of Commons did not make a protest against what he believed to be an outrage on Parliamentary procedure, it would reflect little credit on the majority of that House for zeal for Parliamentary privileges and the business like and decent conduct of their proceedings.
  (9.38.) Queation put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 104; Noes, 200. (Division list No. 639.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Whittakr, Thomas Palmer

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Wm. M'Arthur.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  White George (Norfolk)

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

  Whiteley,George(York, W.R.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  W'hitley', J. H. (Halifax)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  NOES

  Abraham,William(Cork, N. E.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Murnaghan, George

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murphy, John

  Ambrose, Rubert

  Fison, Frederick William

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Myers, William Henry

  Arnold-Korster, Hugh ().

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fletcher, Rt Hon. Sir Henry

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

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

  Fower, Ernest

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, James, F. X. (Cork)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Forster, Hegry William

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Balcarres. Lord

  Galloway, William Johnson

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Baldwin. Alfred

  Garfit, William

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

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

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Balfour, RtHn. Gerald W(Leeds

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  O'Doherty, William

  Bartley, Sir George ('. T.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS. Edm'nds

  O'Dowd, John

  Bignold, Arthur

  Grenfell, William Henry

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Bigwood, James

  Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F.

  O'Malley, William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hammond, John

  O'Mara, James

  Boltnd, John

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bond, Edward

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  O'Shee, James John

  Boscawen, Arthur Grittith

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bouslield, William Robert

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Percy, Earl

  Brodrick, lit. Hon. St. John

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Campbell, John (Armagh. S.)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Power, Patrick, Joseph

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw.H.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pretvman, Ernest George

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Joyce, Michael

  Purvis, Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Chapman, Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Ridley, Hon M. W. (Hackney)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  keswick, William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kimber, Henry

  Rutherford, John

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  'Cogan, Denis J.

  Knowles, Lees

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Langley, Batty

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. A thole

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lawson, John Grant

  Smith, HC (North mb. Tyneside

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Leamy, Edmund

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Crean, Eugene

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cullinan. J.

  Lockie, John

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

  Delany, William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n, N

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dimsdale, Rt.Hon. Sir. Joseph C.

  Long, Rt.Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tully, Jasper

  Doogan. P. C.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dorington, Rt.Hon. Sir John E.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Doughty, George

  Lundon, W.

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

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Wharton, Rt.Hon. John Lloyd

  Duffy. William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Govern, T.

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

  Dyke, Rt.Hon. Sir William Hart

  M'Kean, John

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Egerton. Hon. A.de Tatton

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Wilson A Stanley (York E. R.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

  Ffrench,Peter

  Mooney, John J.

  Field, William

  More Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Finch, Rt.Hon. Gleorge H.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  MR. ERNEST GRAY ()said he wished to move an addition to the Amendment before the House, in order to provide that when the cost of maintaining the school was transferred to the new authorities, the schools should first be placed by the managers in a sound, healthy, sanitary condition. The Amendment left the matter very much in doubt as to which body would have to put the schools into a good condition. He, therefore, wished to add—
  "Provided also that the managers shall place the school-house in such state of good repair as may be satisfactory to the local authority, before any payment in respect to repairs is made by the authority."
  *MR. SPEAKER: In order to make that relevant to this particular Amendment it must not relate to repairs generally.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he was not wedded to his form of words, and he would move the Amendment in the form suggested by Mr. Speaker.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords Admendment:—
  "After the last Amendment, to insert the words 'and provided also that the managers shall place the said school house in such state of good repair as may be satisfactory to the local edution authority before any liability in respect of such damage is incurred by such authority.' "
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment."
  SIR ROBERTFINLAYsaid the Amendment moved illustrated how very large a question was raised by these Amendments in respect to what was a very small matter. The whole proposal of the Lords Amendment was that there should be an allowance made in respect to any damage due to fair wear and tear by the use of the building as a public elementary school, and the fair wear and tear by the Amendment accepted by this House was to be assessed by the authority. The discussion that had arisen was out of all proportion to the question with which they were dealing. If the Lords proposal had been that the local authority should assume the liability of the managers with regard to all repairs of the premises, he could understand it, but under the circumstances he submitted that the Amendment showed a lack of all pro-
  1420
  portion, and therefore it should not be accepted by the House.
  MR. BRYCEexpressed great surprise that the hon. Gentleman should have stated that this was a small matter, seeing that it involved a difference of £350,000 a year to the ratepayers. Under those circumstances the Attorney General could not say that this raised a small question, for it was one of the largest questions which the House had had to deal with. As questions might arise as to how much wear and tear in the buildings was due to something which had taken place before the schools were taken over, it was quite right that provision should be made that they should be taken over in good condition. He rather expected, when the Attorney General rose, that he was going to accept this Amendment, because if they wanted to prevent these troublesome questions from arising, and if they were desirous of starting the local authority and the managers upon good relations they should put the local authority in possession of those buildings in a thorough state of repair, and calculate the damage by the wear and tear from the buildings over. He thought this Amendment deserved the support of the House.
  MR BOUSFIELDthought it was not necessary to provide against the state of things which the hon. Member opposite had in his mind, because all those who had had to do with agreements involving questions of wear and tear knew that these questions had to be determined with reference to the wear and tear of the buildings from the start. In the case of a dwelling it always meant the state of repair when the house was taken over. They never could be liable for these repairs, because they had only got to do with deterioration and damage caused by wear and tear in regard to the state of things when the schools were taken over. He agreed that the buildings should be put in the best possible state of repair, but the liability of the local authority to put them in a proper state of repair in the first instance did not necessarily arise now,
  (9.58.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 112; Noes, 233. (Division List, No. 640.)

  AYES

  Allen, Charles P., Gloue, (Stroud

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Brigg, John

  Langley, Batty

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Spear, John Ward

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Lecky, Rt Hn. William Edw. H.

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Bryce, Rt.Hon. James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Burns, John

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Corbett, T, L, (Down, North)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Crombie, John William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

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

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thoulmin, George

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Middlemore John Throgmort'n

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wallace, Robert

  Davies, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Newnes, Sir George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Edwards, Frank

  Norman, Henry

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Weir, James Galloway

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Partington, Oswald

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fowler, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

  Perks, Robert Willam

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rea, Russell

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

  Grant, Corrie

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

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

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Rigg, Richard

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Harcourt, Rt.Hon. Sir William

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Mr. Ernest Gray and Mr. Fuller.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Dorington, Rt.Hon. Sir John E.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Doughty, George

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Green wich)

  Duffy, William J.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Wore.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Chapman, Edward

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Arrol, Sir William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Eaber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

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

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Ffrench, Peter

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Colston, Chas, Edw. H. Athole

  Field, William

  Banbury, Sir George C. T.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Fison, Frederick William

  Bigwood, James

  Crean, Eugene

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Boland, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Bond, Edward

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Fletcher, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

  Boseawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Delany, William

  Flower, Ernest

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Denny, Colonel

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Forster, Henry William

  Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dimsdale, Rt.Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Garfit, William

  Butcher, John George

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Gilhooly, James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  1422

  1423

  NOTE.

  Gordon,MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets)

  Macartney, RtHn. W. G. Ellison

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Ridley, Hon M. W.(Stalybridge)

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Round, Rt.Hon. James

  Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F.

  M' Fadden, Edward

  Rutherford, John

  Hammond, John

  M' Govern, T.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Harrington, Timothy

  M' Kean, John

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  M' Killop,James(Stirlingshire)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  M' Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Milvain, Thomas

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Mooney, John J.

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tvneside)

  Hobhouse, RtHn H(Somers't, E.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Hope,J. F.(Sheffield,Brightside)

  Mureaghan, George

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Murphy, John

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Howard,J.(Midd.,Tottenham)

  Murray,Rt. HnAGraham(Bute)

  Stanley Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hutton, Johh (Yorks, N. R.)

  Myers, Will am H nry

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Johnstone, Heywood

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Jordon, Jeremiah

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Talbot, RtHon J.G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O' Beien, J mes F. X. (Cork)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Kemp, George

  O'Brien, Kendal(T'pp'rary, Mid)

  Thompson,Dr EC (Monagh'n, N)

  Kennaway,Rt, Hon. Sir John H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Kennedy, Patrick James

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

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Kenyon,Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Kenyon-Staney,Col. W.(Salop.)

  O'Connor,James (W cklow,W.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Keswick, William

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Tully, Jasper

  Kimber, Henry

  O'Dohe ty, William

  Valentia, Viscount

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Knowles, Lecs

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  O'Ke ly,James (Rosecommon,N)

  Welby,Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)

  Lawrence,SirJoesph(Monm'th)

  O Malley. William

  Wharton, Rt.Hon. John Lloyd

  Lawson, John Grant

  O'Maca, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Sir ugh essy, P. J.

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne)

  Lee, ArthurH(Hants.,Fareham)

  O'Shee, James John

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Palmer, Walter(Salisbury)

  Willox,Sir John Archibald

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pease HerbertPike(Darlingt'n)

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

  Lockie, John

  Percy, Earl

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

  Lock wood, Lt. Col. A. R.

  Pilkmgton,Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Worsley-Taylor. Henry Wilson

  Loder Gerald Walter Erskine

  Plart- Higgins, Frederick

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

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Long, RtHn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wyndham, Rt, Hon. George

  Lowe, Francis William

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstong

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pretymen, Ernest George

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONmoved that this House do agree with the Lords Amendment as amended. He was interrupted in his remarks some hours ago by an hon. Member who had an Amendment to move in the early part of the debate. As he had had several opportunities of speaking on this subject in the course of the Committee Stage of this Bill, he should be very sorry at this hour of the night to trouble the House at any length, but the matter was of such importance that he thought it was incumbent upon him to make out a case to show why the House should be asked to agree with the Lords Amendment. Since this matter had been discussed in parliament, a great deal of new light had been thrown upon
  1424
  it Few of them were aware when the Bill was introduced how greatly the position of the voluntary schools would be damaged by the restrictions and burdens thrown upon them by this Bill. The Bishop of Manchester was reported to have moved the Amendment which was now before them, and he was sure that if the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division had known the right rev. Prelate as he was privileged to do, he would have ackonwledged him to be one of the most liberal and broad-minded men, who was devoted earnestly to his duty, and who had at heart the preservation of the schools. He had no doubt that the Bishop of Manchester placed his case before the other House in terms which

  1425
  deeply impressed the minds of the Peers, and induced a considerable majority of them to vote against the Government. It was quite true that voluntary schools were doing their share in advancing the education of this country, and they were not, as some Members opposite appeared to think, of an inferior character, but many of them were of a very efficient kind. In Manchester the amount per head earned by the children in examination was actually greater in voluntary schools than in board schools. It showed that the managers of those schools had worked them up to a high state of efficiency. Hitherto thoseschools had been provided for by the managers out of the funds placed at their disposal, and they had been kept up not withstanding the competition of the board schools. Those School had been kept up at a great sacrifice. [An HON. MEMBER: Speak up!] He was not going to trouble the House with figures and quotations, but there were many cases where the voluntary subscriptions were not equal to the annual cost of repairs. No doubt in the future the repairs fo these schools would be more than they had been in the past. Taking an average of the cost of repairs per child in many large towns such as Birmingham, Hull, Bradford, Liverpool, and other places, the cost per child would not about 2s. 6d. for repairs, whilst the voluntary subscriptions would not amount to so much. In that case the result would be that many of those schools would have to be given up. Of course he knew that many hon. Members opposite maintained that the schools attached to religious denominations and giving definite religious education should be discontinued. But that was not the scheme of the Bill of 1870, and it was not the scheme of the present Bill. on the contrary, the country had given proofs of its attachment to the voluntary system, because after all these years the fact remained that a majority of the children were educated in them. It was too late to go back upon that, and it was not worthy of the opponents of the voluntary system that they should wish to ensure the more repid extension of one system at the expense of another. He could not see the justice of so handicapping these schools that they would be starved out of existence or be kept up
  1426
  in a struggling manner. He could not see that because religious instruction was given in them they should be placed in an inferior position to schools where the religion was colourless or of a general character. He did not care what trouble or odium he incurred, even if for a moment he was unfaithful to his Party if it was necessary in the discharge of what he believed to be his duty. He did not believe this House would stand on its privileges in such a matter as this. He made an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister, who, he was sure, wished to do what was right. He believed this Amendment brought home to the right hon. Gentleman in a manner which had not before been done how grievous would be the effect of the Bill as it formerly stood with respect to the prospects of voluntary schools in populous and poor places. It was not a question of the country districts where there might be a wealthy squire, and where it would be easy to keep up the local school. For the sake of the poor people in populous places who desired that their children should receive this kind of education he asked the House to accept the Amendment. He moved that this House do agree with the Lords Amendment.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment as a mended."—(Sir James Fergusson.)
  SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I have great hopes that the House will disagree with the Lords Amendment as amended. I hung back a little in the expectation and the hope that the Leader of the House might have at once risen to say what course the Government intend to take in this matter. For reasons, however, which I shall by and by state I do not see how they can take any but one course in regard to this Amendment consistently with what has happened in the past. There are two separte reasons why, in my opinion, the House should reject this Amendment— two separate reasons based on two separate orders of things. There is first of all the constitutional point affecting the dignity and rights of this House, and there are the questions which arise on the merits of the subject matter of the Amendment. We have

  1427
  heard a great deal to-night about this extraordinary proceeding to which the House of Commons has been subjected on this occasion, but something more, surely, must be said about it. I have already spoken of it as having been farcical and absurd and grotesque. But this is something more than that. It has a grotesque exterior appearance, but in its heart, au fond, it is a heavy blow dealt at the rights of this House, which are, after all, nothing more nor less than the rights of the general community of the taxpayers of this country. The reason we stand up for the rights of the House of Commons is not because of our pride in the body with which we ourselves are connected. It is not from any feeling of vanity or self-satisfaction that we may entertain as members of this House; it is because our privileges represent the privileges of the people of this country, and what we have seen on this occasion—I suppose the story must be recited again, although it is not a creditable one—is that an Amendment was introduced in the House of Lords and opposed by the Government of the day, and that it was carried against all the efforts of the Government of theday— an Amendment imposing a charge upon public funds. There is no question that the action of the Lords was an infringement of the privileges of this House. There is no one on either side of the House who will say that it was not an infringement of the privileges of the House. I can conceive it possible—in fact there have been many cases of it—that when this House was informed that a certain Amendment proposed in another place was an infringement of its privileges the House in its wisdom might waive its privileges and consider the Amendment. I do not sav that might not be done in this case. That was a course which could have been pursued. It is a straightforward course, perfectly intelligible, and in accordance with precedent. Instead of that it has been thought right to smuggle this into the House and to induce the House by its own action to remove the absurd words which had been added to the Clause, and thus, by its own action, not only to make this House responsible for what has been done in another place, but to take away from the Amendment its character of a
  1428
  breach of privilege. That is the course which the right hon. Gentleman recommends the House to take now, Surely, on the ground alone of the way the, House has been dealt with in this matter, I think it is only due to its dignity and to the maintenance of its rights that the House should decline to pass the Amendment, even if it were as good as in its nature it is bad. I will say no more on that question, for no multiplication of words will make the case any stronger.
  Now I come to the merits of the Amendment itself. The right hon. Gentleman has gone over the whole story. He has discerned in the people of this country a desire for voluntary schools. We have nothing to do with that just now. We do not require to open the whole question on this occasion. What we have to do with is what has happened with regard to this particular Amendment. This particular proposal is that the public should undertake the cost of the wear and tear and the repair of these schools. There is no question about it. When the Bill was introduced we were told what was the foundation of the arrangement between the friends of the voluntary schools and the friends of what I would say are the democratic schools—the undenominational schools if you like to call them so. I speak especially of the Church of England schools, which have been maintained with great difficulty by friends who subscribed to support them, and who found that it was no longer possible to bear the burden put upon them. They agreed that the country should have the use of the schools, in which they claim some sort of property, on condition that the maintenance of the schools was to be put upon the public rates. On the ground of that arrangement they were to have a preponderating proportion of authority on the managing body that was established. In July last the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tewkesbury Division moved an Amendment substantially to the same effect as this—namely, that it should be the structural repairs only for which the managers were to be responsible. That was opposed by the Government. The Attorney General said that good repair included all the repairs necessary

  1429
  to adapt the buildings for the purposes for which they were required, and that the Government would adhere to the words of the Bill, throwing the responsibility on the managers to do all that was necessary to keep the buildings in a suitable condition. He stated that you could not dissect the repairs and separate one kind of repair from another. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Stretford Division supported the Attorney General in this matter. When the House went to a division, only thirty-five Members suppoted the Amendment, while three hundred and thirty-seven, or nearly ten to one, voted against it. Have the church and the Church schools become poorer since that time? Has it been discovered that there is some dreadful escape from which their money runs away and which requires to be filled up? Not at all. Since then they have received, in their share fees, in endowments, and in rents of school houses, large subsidies, the exact value of which it is very difficult to calculate, but which I have been told by experts may be put down at the moderate figure of at least£150,000 a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is more."] It may be more, but I put it at a low figure. I have taken some trouble to find out, and I believe that no expert puts it at less than that. I take the lowest. The Church therefore is so much the richer, and what would the Church gain if this Amendment were to become law? The right hon. Gentleman deprecated anything being said which would be derogatory to the character or disposition in this matter of the Bishop of Manchester. No one, I am sure, would wish to say a single word of disrespect of a man who is so universally regarded both by Members of his own communion and of others; but he is the author of this Amendment, and he has himself estimated the gain at£350,000 a year. Add to that amount£150,000, and you get£500,000 a year which is given to the Church schools in relief of the obligation they were taking on their own part when this Bill was introduced. I have been at some trouble to look up what has been paid on account of these schools, and I find from the report of the National Society of 1901 that the expenditure on voluntary school buildings since 1811 amounted to £14,500,000. But the capitalised value at
  1430
  3 per cent, of £500,000 a year would come to £16,500,000. I think that is enough to show the absolute unfairness of those interested in theAmendment.
  Now I come to the attitude of His Majesty's Government. As I said when I began, I expected the right hon. Gentleman to state what the view of the Government, but I have not much doubt as to what their course should be, because not only did they, through the Attorney General oppose an Amendment to this same effect when it was originally proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tewkesbury Division, but in the House of Lords the Duke of Devonshire took the same course with regard to this Amendment. He deprecated it, and he enumerated all those subsidies which had been given. He said that they must not disturb the balance further, and that it would never do to entertain such a proposal. Accordingly the Government Whips in the other place were put on, but although it was a Gobernment division they contrived to get themselves beaten.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: How contrived?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not mean when I say "contrived" to suggest any sinister plan. I mean that the Government so managed, or perhaps I should say mismanaged, their affairs that they were beaten. These are the circumstances in which we are now invited, not withstanding the curious manner in which the matter is brought before us and the way in which our rights and privileges have been dealt with, to make this great concession which we refused before at a time when the concessions relating to fees and endowments had not been given. I do not see how the Government can do anything in consistency with their previous declarations except to oppose the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. All the arguments he used today were used on that occasion and were rejected by the House. There might be occasions when the House would go back on a previous decision. If the situation had been altered as against the Church schools that might have been done, but everything that has happened since then

  1431
  has been an alteration in favour of the Church schools. It is in these circumstances that we are asked to reverse the decision of July last. I think these are arguments enough to justify us by a large majority expressing our disagreement with this Amendment.
  (10.43.) MR. A. J. BALFOUE: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to pass some criticism, I will not say blame, upon me for not rising immediately to indicate the line the Government propose to take upon this Amendment. If I had thought the House required information on that point I should have risen to give it, but I have, in the clearest way and on more than one occasion during the debates we have had in the earlier stages of this Amendment, indicated to the House that so far as the Government are concerned we propose to leave this an open question. There have certainly been a great many statements made by the right hon. Gentleman from which I profoundly dissent. I dissent from his theory of privilege. He did not dwell upon it at great length, but he spoke with great emphasis, and almost indicated to this House that we were doing a great injury to ourselves by permitting ourselves to discuss perfectly, freely, and unhampered by any exterior influence, a question which we are greatly interested in. To say that we are bound in our own interest not to do what some Members of the House very much want to do, is, I think, a preposterous and untenable theory. With regard to the question as to the method that has been pursued. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that all that has been done is in accordance with precedent, and perfectly constitutional. I have looked into this matter, and I find, no doubt, that there have been cases in which the House has dealt with far stronger cases of interference with the privileges we have got. They have been dealt with by a deliberate waiver of our privileges. My own delief is that it is not in the interest of this House to make it quite impossible for us to reconsider any question, whatever large lines of policy it may touch, whatever the interest it may affect, because the imposition of a rate or a tax is involved. To make it impossible for the House of Lords to
  1432
  make any alteration in a measure of this kind, and to preclude the House of Commons by that fact from ever dealing, with the question again, is, in my opinion, not in the interest of the legislature as a whole, and certainly not in the interest of the House of Commons. I am quite satisfied that the course taken is not inconsistent with the practice which this House has followed. We had. a discussion this afternoon, which I will, not repeat, as to the precedent of 1898. That precedent was perfectly clear; that precedent points back to preceding precedents, and I do not see how you could have a clearer parallel to the course that is now being adopted than, the precedent of 1898. It is perfectly true, and it appears to have offended some hon. Gentlemen very much, that there is in this, as in all these other cases, something in the nature of a method in getting round the strict privileges of the House of Commons. Of course, that is not denied. The right hon. Gentleman talked of it as a trick. There is no trick inthe matter. It is a perfectly plain and open method, often followed in the past, by which the House is enabled to reconsider questions if it desires, to do so. We are not compelled in any way to adopt the Amendment; we may kick the whole thing out with contempt; but this is a method by which the House regains a certain measure of liberty in regard to matters in which it is greatly interested; and I cannot understand, how anyone acquainted with constitutional development and procedure can seriously object to the course we have adopted.
  I pass from that to the concrete merits of the proposal. I do not think I will be asked to say much on these, but this much I must say. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, talked as if there had been a bond, a bargain, a financial arrangement, if; not put down in black and white, at all events, made in most specific terms, between those who framed the Bill and the ecclesiastical authorities to whom the Bill applies. That is not the fact. After all, nobody can speak with more authority than can and I say deliberately that the whole thing is a dream, a, delusion, and is all based on imagination.

  1433
  The Government brought forward the Bill in a certain shape. In a general way it was accepted and approved of by large sections of the community, including the managers of the voluntary schools; but that did not preclude Amendments being made in this or in the other House if these Amendments were in order. There was no contract; no kind of arrangement made with the ecclesiastical authorities. That is my first observation upon the Amendment. My second observation is this. For my own part, I did not realise in every respect the financial aspects of this Bill. I did not appreciate how much of the charge which the Bill would throw on the managers of the voluntary schools was at the present moment borne out of the public funds. It was an error, which at one time, I admit, I shared more or less, to suppose that this Bill relieves burdens which now exist in the case of managers of voluntary schools and imposes none. It does remove many obligations, but it certainly imposes some which do not exist at present, and the burdens it imposes are precisely in respect of repairs and minor improvements. I had occasion recently to look into these figures, and I believe a very large sum has been paid for these very purposes out of the public funds. Of course I do not deny for one moment that the balance of advantages, even if the Bill is not amended as the House of Lords proposed, is greatly in favour of the voluntary schools, as a whole. It is greatly in their favour: but it is not greatly in favour of a great many voluntary schools. There are, on the contrary, a not inconsiderable number of voluntary schools, and these schools are situated in the poorest parts of our large towns—some belonging to the English Communion, some of them to the Wesleyan Church, and a large number belonging to the Roman Catholic Church, who will not have their position improved by this Bill, if this Amendment by the Lords is not adopted. The House should face these facts before it comes to any final decision on this point.
  There is one other observation I should like to make on this Amendment, and it is this, that whatever may be thought of the effect of this Amendment on voluntary schools— whether it be thought it gives them unfairly favour-
  1434
  able terms or not, I have no doubt that it is an Amendment which, in part will be in favour of education. I do not often have the advantage of agreement with the hon. Member for North Camberwell, but that hon. Gentleman will not dissent when I lay down that proposition. One of the things most required is an improvement in the structural condition of a large number of schools, especially in the towns; and I have not the least doubt that if this Amendment is passed, and if the education authorities are charged their share of current expenses and fair wear and tear, they will be emboldened to require the managers to make greater sacrifices than they otherwise would for these structural improvements which, let the House take my word for it, imposed great sacrifices on those interested in voluntary schools. After all, the question which the House has got to determine is not, in my judgment, how much ought the education authority to contribute to voluntary schools, but the converse question— what amount of sacrifice ought to be required from the voluntary schools, in order to justify their continued existence. Of course, the whole system is illogical and arbitrary. I have not often the pleasure of agreeing on these subjects with my noble friend below the Gangway, but I agree with him in this—that it is perfectly ludicrous and absurd to put a stigma on denominational education as such; but so long as our educational system is the mixed thing it is, so long as we are going to have the rate-provided school on the one hand, without denominational education, and to fill up the gap on the other hand, as we must fill it up, with denominational teaching, then I do not see how we are going to avoid some kind of money test, how we can avoid imposing some kind of monetary sacrifice on those who desire the advantages of a voluntary and denominational school system. The question is what should be the magnitude of that burden? I think, though it is very hard to say exactly, that this burden will become quite sufficient even if this Ammendment is passed. It is extremely diffienlt to get any figures on the point. I have been hampered all through the long debates on this Bill by the impossibility of getting to the bottom of the financial situation; but I am perfectly covinced that with the burden left on the managers for the ordinary current expenses of their schools, to which

  1435
  has to be added the burden of bringing these schools up to the educational level with which the Educational Department will be satisfied, there will be a monetary test placed on those who desire denominational teaching which nobody would describe as inadequate. If that is so, it appears to me that, on the whole, the main objection to this Amendment falls to the ground. I entirely agree with those critics of the Bill and the present Amendmend, that, if you give extravagantly good terms to the denominational managers, and ask of them nothing in return for all which this Bill gives them, you do them a very ill service. You would deliberately pass a measure which was destined to be transitory; and probably it would be in the highest degree inexpedient in the interests of denominational education itself that terms of that kind should be given. I do not think that this Bill will do that. I believe that the more the financial position is studied, the more it will be seen that there is an adequate sacrifice imposed upon the managers of the voluntary schools, a sacrifice sufficient to prevent the whole system from degenerating, and to prevent that curious compromise under which we, in England, live, as between the undenominational part of our primary school system and the denominational part, from becoming an absurdity and a farce. That being so, I think the House would be well advised not to dissent from the other House in the course they have adopted. I have attempted with all the impartiality in my power to place the issue before the House. I do not believe the general line of argument which I have adopted can be disputed as to the facts, and I can only leave it to the House to decide whether, under these circumstances, they can controvert the decision arrived at by the other House, or whether, on the other hand, they will agree with what I admit will confer another considerable benefit to the denominational schools of the country.
  (11.3.) MR. T. P. O'CONNOR ()said the House would perfectly understand that they on that side of the House should not be called upon to decide between the two right hon. Gentlemen, although on the purely constitutional aspect of the question he himself would probably find himself
  1436
  more in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition than with the Leader of the House. But everybody knew that the position of the Irish party in the House was somewhat peculiar. They stood in aconstant and perpetual minority, protesting against their inclusion in the House at all, and therefore in a question between the two Chambers they were in a state of mutual hostility. He might say in passing that whenever an act of oppression to any minority in this House was contemplated or was justified, it was to the Irish minority—from the days when the action of the Irish Party was held to justify the revolutionary change of the Rules of the Closure, till the last few days—it was always with the Irish Party that the abuse began. That led him to this observation; that he believed that this House would some day come to the same conclusion as the Irish Party had done, that in the effort to deprive Ireland of her own liberties, this House was depriving itself of its own liberties. He earnestly pleaded with the House to grant him some indulgence while he put the case, which was not the case of either of the English Parties in the House—the case of a permanent minority in this House—the case of the Irish Catholics, for with all due respect to the English Catholics in the House, the Catholic question was mainly that of the Irish Catholics. This might be illustrated by what took place in the constituency he had the honour to represent. In that constituency there were nine Catholic Schools. The population was, he should think, the poorest in any part of the country, consisting maiidy of "dockers," who were not only insufficiently paid, but whose employment was precarious. And yet there they had this extraordinary state of things, that in the poorest part of the country, the school tax was highest and pressed most heavily on the poorest of the poor. The right hon. Gentleman had made a confession which was honourable in its candidness, but not to his mastery of his own Bill; he acknowledged that he did not quite realise the amount which the public authorities already gave to the assistance of the voluntary schools. That was a cardinal fact in this whole question. Take the Catholic schools in the Scotland Division of Liverpool. The arrangement at present wag that the rent of these

  1437
  was paid out of an Imperial grant, but that would disappear under this Bill. He understood that some hon. Members thought it an abuse to pay the rent of Wesleyan and Catholic Schools, but the fact remained that it had been done. What was the case with the Anglican schools? In large numbers of these schools the repairs which the managers provided amounted to more than the voluntary subscriptions. That might be perfectly true in regard to certain of the poor districts, but the right hon. Gentleman had frankly stated that in these poor districts there was a large Irish population, and a large number of Irish Catholic schools; and the constituencies which had poor Anglican schools had, therefore, poor Catholic schools as well. But, while in the Anglican Church there were some poor districts, it represented, as a whole, the wealth of the country. And yet it was granted enormous concessions in regard to a share of the fees, a share of the endowments, and the rent of the teachers' houses. But every Member on that side of the House knew that not one of these concessions touched the Irish Catholic case. The Irish Catholics had practically no fees, no endowments, or teachers' houses for which they could claim rent. Therefore they had received no conessions under this Bill. On the contrary, much had been taken from them and little had been given.
  MR. TULLY: Because there were no Irish Members here.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he would now go into the question of repairs. The figures were sometimes hard to get at, because, like most statistics used in political warfare, they were of a somewhat evanescent and changing character. At times they were put high and at other times low. In the London School Board district the repairs represented 5s. 8d. per child; in other districts he had seen it put down at 3s. and in others at 2s. But whether 5s. 8d., 3s. or 2s., it still formed a very appreciable addition to the burthen placed upon the Irish Catholics. If it was put at an average of 4s. it would be a burthen of £52,000. Even at the lowest figure suggested, it would mean a burthen of £26,000 per annum on the Catholic community. He appealed to
  1438
  hon. Gentlemen opposite, many of whom had Catholic schools in their constituencies, if they thought that it was acting in a generous or even a just spirit, to put this additional burthen on the poor Catholic population in Great Britain. In his own constituency, he was told that it would make the strain of supporting the Catholic schools more intolerable even than it was at present. Figures which had been given to him showed that the cost of repairs was a very appreciable amount of the total expenditure; and if these figures were correct, a sum of something like £15,000 a year would be added to the burthens of the Catholic schools in the single Catholic diocese of Liverpool, unless the Amendment were accepted. He thought the First Lord of the Treasury did not overstate the case when he said that it was more than doubtful whether, on the whole, Catholic schools in some parts of England would benefit or lose by the Bill unless this Amendment were accepted. He thought that, on the whole, without the Amendment, the loss would be greater than the gain. What would be the position of the Catholic schools under the Bill? In a large number of cases they would have to be changed if not revolutionised in their structure. What was the case now? Anyone who visited a Catholic school and a School Board school would be painfully and lamentably struck by the difference between one and the other. The School Board school was airy, had the latest hygienic appliances, the latest kind of school furniture, and the best class of study halls. That was the School Board school, which had the rates of the entire community to fall back upon. The Catholic school, on Che other hand, was often very squalid and always unequal to the strain upon it. He felt that poor as that school was, the contrast of its poverty with the wealth and splendour of the School Board school was a high testimony to the people who preferred a school of their own creed to a better school which was not of their creed. Hon. Gentlemen maintained that the School Board school was open to Catholics as well as to Protestants, and that, in their interpretation, it was not a sectarian school. But the position

  1439
  of Catholics was that even if religious education were excluded from a school altogether, or if it were reduced to a minimum by reading the Bible without comment, it still remained, from the Catholic point of view, a Protestant school as distinguished from a Catholic school. Therefore, the position of Irish Catholics in Liverpool and other cities in this country was that they had to pay a double school rate, the rate for the School Board Protestant school and the rate for the Catholic school. Was it not a monstrous injustice that the poorest part of the population should have to pay that double tax? The Catholic schools were necessarily very poor, often ill-constructed, and always inadequate. At present they were only allowed to remain in such a condition because they had their freedom, and because, to all intents and purposes, they were purely voluntary schools. What would happen under the? Why, the public authority would be compelled, whether they liked it or not, to demand great changes in these schools. Suppose the public health officer in Liverpool informed the City Council that St. Joseph's Catholic school, in the Scotland Division, was unhealthy, that the health of the children was endangered through bad drainage, insufficient ventilation, low ceilings, and other structural defects. In that case, the City Council would have no option but to compel changes in the school to make it healthier. It was very different at present. When Mr. Acland was Vice President of the Council he himself was constantly going to him with complaints from Catholic priests in his constituency, who were alarmed at the changes he was asking them to make in the schools. Of course, political or personal remonstrances might have an effect now; but the moment the Bill passed into law, the local authority in Liverpool, Manchester, and other great cities would be compelled to impose on the Catholic community vast and, in some cases, revolutionary changes in the structure of their schools. Take the question of study halls alone. In many Catholic schools now the children were taught in one large room. According to the latest educational methods, that room would have to be divided up
  1440
  into several small halls, which would make a considerable demand on the resources of the school. What had happened in London alone? He was informed by Father Brown, who was a member of the London School Board, that no less than 232 schools under the Board had had their drains torn up within the last few years, and that, at the present moment, the drains of forty-three schools were being reorganised. That was happening in regard to schools which were only thirty years old, which were built in this enormously rich city, and which had behind them the rates of all sections of the public. If that werethe case in regard to modern schools in this wealthy city, he asked the House to picture what would be the case of the schools built by the pence of the Catholic poor in the poorest quarters. He spoke of the question as affecting the poorest of the poor; and he wished to refer, in passing, to the unhappy social conditions of his own country, which had driven the Irish people into the slums of the great cities of England. That was a point which was always present to his mind; it must always be present to the mind of any Irishman dealing with the question; and, he thought, it should also be present to the mind of the Legislature. Hon. Gentlemen opposite differed from him as to the political remedies that were necessary for the relief of the impoverishment of the Irish people and the Irish race; but none of them would deny that it was a tragic chapter in the history of the Irish race that two millions of that race should have been driven to the worst and lowest forms of labour in the most unhealthy quarters of the cities of this country by the condition of their own country.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now straying into questions which are not before the House.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that his hon. friend the Member for the City of Cork had defined his digression as dealing with the wear and tear of the population of sIreland. Perhaps that was really as momentous and as vital a question as the wear and tear of the voluntary schools. An appeal had been made on several occasions, during the debates on the Bill, to the Irish Members to consider the

  1441
  amount of sympathy and support given to certain political principles by the party of which his hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon Borourghs was such a distinguished member. But he put it to his hon. friend that these appeals were irrelevant and even irrational, and that they showed an entire misconception of Irish character, Irish tradition, and Irish history. When, in the history of the Irish people, had they ever considered their material prosperity when their religious convictions were supposed to be involved. The race which allowed its whole land to be confiscated rather than give up its religious principles, was not going to give them up now for political considerations. On all these grounds, he strongly appealed to the House not to impose this additional burden on the poorest of the poor, but to display toleration and fair play towards their religious convictions and their religious schools.
  (11.25.) MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid this was a question in which the ratepayer should be considered. He was not going to use the word "bargain,'' but what was created by the Bill was an arrangement between the managers and ratepayers. Under that arrangement the ratepayers were asked to provide funds and to give up a majority on the managing body of the schools in return for a certain valuable consideration. They had been led to describe this consideration as providing the school buildings free of charge. His first objection to the Amendment was that it modified, and to a great extent destroyed, the principle of that arrangement. At first it imposed an undefined liability on the load authority; it had now been converted into what he might call a fixed charge of substantial amount. It would be regarded as something equivalent to a rent paid for the school buildings. Was it desirable or fair still further to increase tho burdens of the ratepayers without giving them any equivalent? It was also most unwise still further to narrow the basis on which the denominational system of schools was to rest in future. It might be, as the First Lord of the Treasury said, that the Amendment might be, to the advantage of education. Certainly, to his mind, it would not be to the advantage or to the permanency of denominational teaching. If hard-
  1442
  ships were connected with any particular school, they ought to be left to diocesan funds rather than be thrown still further on the resources of the ratepayers. He ventured to urge on the House that the acceptance of the Amendment would not tend to make the denominational system more popular or more stable.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid it was refreshing to have the right hon. Gentleman the member for East Somerset on the other side protesting against this new imposition on the local ratepayers, especially in country districts. The agricultural districts were, at the present moment, very heavily burdened. The Prime Minister said that the Amendment would not impose a new burden, that it existed at present, but not on the ratepayer. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the repairs and other school expenses, estimated by the Bishop of Manchester at £300,000 at present, would not really represent the total charge. They were all aware that when the public authority took over buildings and executed repairs, the expenses always increased in a most alarming manner. That would be what would happen if the Amendment were carried. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Sleaford Division, expressed himself in The Times newspaper as being quite satisfied with the amount of the extra grant, though it did not go as far as his Amendment, limiting the rate to one fourth of the total cost of education, which the Government promised towards the relief of the local rates; but the effect of this burden, put upon them by the House of Lords, would be to take away the whole of the extra grant; although it was not very valuable, as it laid down the principle that the local rates should never get off with less than 3d. in the £ If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division was satisfied that that was proper treatment, he himself was not satisfied; and he was glad that the Central Chamber of Agriculture, which he represented in this House, as its chairman, was also not satisfied with the grant, but much preferred the limitation of one fourth from the local rates. The Central Chamber desired to have it laid down that, in no case should the local rates

  1443
  ever have to bear more than a quarter of the total charge for education, both secondary and primary. Again, the County Councils' Association had unanimously declared that it was wrong and unfair that any further charge should be put upon the local rates. The education authority had the occupancy of the school buildings for about five hours a day for five days a week, so that practically for one day's occupancy they had to pay the entire cost of keeping the buildings in repair for the remaining six days a week. That was a very unfair bargain, and he hoped that many of the supporters of the Government, who were so fond of posing as the friends of the farmers, and who, at election times, claimed to be the party to keep down the rates, would on this occasion justify their claims by voting against this proposal.
  MR. CHAPLIN (), said he had two reasons for opposing the Amendment. According to the Leader of the Opposition, the Bishop of Manchester had stated that the effect of this Amendment would relieve the supporters of voluntary schools to the extent of £350,000.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONpointed out that what the Bishop said was that the present charge in respect of repairs amounted to that sum.
  MR. CHAPLINunderstood that to that extent the Bishop expressed the opinion that they were to be relieved of that charge. What did that mean? Two or three weeks ago the Leader of the House expressed the hope that he would be able to grant further relief to the agricultural districts, and within forty-eight hours the right hon. Gentleman made a concession which, in his view, was a liberal fulfilment of that conditional hope. But by the acceptance of this Amendment, the whole of that concession would be swept away, and if it was to form a precedent for the future, there was not a single decision of the House of Commons with regard to financial concerns that might not be overhauled by the House of Lords, and re-opened. In his judgment, the Amendment was technically a flagrant evasion
  1444
  of the privileges of the House of Commons, and he earnestly hoped the House would show by a large majority that it would have nothing whatever to do with it.
  SIR GEORGE NEWNES ()said he would not refer to the de-defence of the Amendment made by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, as the Bill was introduced for the benefit, not of Roman Catholics, but of the Church of England, who had made a bargain in respect of the matter. ["No."] The bargain was that the Church, as the possessor of the largest number of denominational schools, should receive, not the monetary value of those schools, but the control of the religious education of the children therein. Surely, such a bargain had never before been made in bricks and mortar, nor had such property ever before been made to yield such exorbitant interest. But by this Amendment the Church sought to be allowed to run away from her part of the bargain. The Nonconformists, who numbered more than half the population of the country—["No"]—had been ignored; they had to keep to their part of the bargain, and, as a Nonconformist, he protested against the Church being permitted to run away from hers. This proposal would set up a rancour and bitterness, and create a sense of injustice, which would last as long as the Bill remained an Act of Parliament, and there would arise a state of religious strife and unrest which were not in the interests of the State or of education, and which would not be conducive to the welfare of the Church which had caused it.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE ()thought the Amendment a deplorable one. There had been a clear understanding as to this repairing Clause. The words were very simple, and capable of only one construction. Some of the main elements of the understanding were that the Church should maintain the school fabric, that the State should give the school teaching and that the Church should have the majority of the managers. The supporters of the voluntary schools were willing to accept

  1445
  the Bill on these conditions, and were naturally glad to do so, as it would save the school from extermination under the "intolerable strain." The obligation to maintain the fabric had been not so repudiated as dodged. The Church was to maintain the outside of the fabric, but money was to be provided for her to do so. There had never been a more Machiavellian arrangement.
  MR. TALBOT (): What does the hon. Member mean by money being provided?
  MR. M1DDLEMOREsaid he meant the endowments, certain rents, and, finally, having only half the necessary work to do. The Clause would more properly read—
  "The managers of a school should out of funds provided, not by them, but for them, keep, not the school buildings, but, the outside of the school buildings, in good repair, and do as they like with any surplus funds they may have."
  He frankly declared that this was a tortuous proceeding, and was paltering with the country in a double sense. He did not suggest that this evasion of the understanding was really premeditated. Unforeseen circumstances had doubtless put these emoluments in the way of the Church, but from his heart he wished the Church had refused them. By doing so it would have made for itself a great spiritual position in the country, but it had preferred the cash in hand to the spiritual position, and he believed that in making that choice, the Church had made a disastrous mistake. He had hoped that the Bishops, as the guardians of the loftiest interests of the Church, would have expurgated the Bill of these unworthy provisions; instead of doing so they had added a blot, not only to the Bill, but to their own cause. Not a single part of the understanding which existed on the Second Reading of the Bill remained. Money was provided, and only half the repairs were required. There was bound to be great agitation. The Dissenters would be a thoroughly contemptible set if there were, no agitation, and it were shown that all their denunciations had been so much froth, and in his view, one of the most potent elements in that, agitation would be the Clause now under discussion.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the original scheme was that repairs should be met by the managers out of funds provided by them, and that remained the scheme until the 2nd of October. It dawned, however, upon the members of the Church, that this would impose a very onerous burden on them. For his own part, he thought the burden ought to be onerous, when one compared the benefits derived by the Church on the one hand and the community on the other from this Bill. How did the matter stand? In 12,000 out of 20,000 elementary schools the Church of England was to have its specific denominational teaching provided entirely at the cost of rates and taxes; it was to be able to insist on the head, masters in those schools being members, of the Established Church, and four-sixths of the managers of those schools were to he trustee managers and members of the Church. It also got the free use of the buildings and the furniture on Saturday and Sunday, and on four nights in the week for denominational purposes. These were considerable items, altogether apart from the spiritual aspect of the case, to put on one side of the balance-sheet. On the other side the public were to have a general control over the secular instruction through the medium of the Education Committee, and the right to veto the appointment or dismissal of teachers in respect of secular education. They were also to have two managers out of six, and the free use of the buildings for six or seven hours a day on five days a week and on three nights a week. Originally the managers were to keep up the fabric out of funds provided by them, but that obligation was afterwards whittled down by their having half the fees, half the endowments, and all the rent of the teachers' houses to meet that charge. Under this Amendment the remaining half of the fees and endowments and any additional rate assistance that might be required would also go to the upkeep of the fabric. Then there was the case of the Catholic schools. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool had talked about the schools being starved. That was a matter of the past; there was no question of their being starved in the future, as voluntary subscriptions would disappear for purposes of maintenance. The question was this

  1447
  Was it worth while to the Roman Catholic Church to find the £26,000, the estimated cost of repairs, to have the right to appoint the headmaster and they thousands of other teachers in its 1000 schools, and to give specific Catholic teaching entirely out of public funds to the 250,000 children in those schools? Surely, from the point of view of the Catholic faith, it was worth while so to do. Those who desired to preserve denominational teaching would do well to leave a small margin for their own obligations, in order that there might be some financial justification for the continuance of the denominational system. This Amendment was carried in the other House by the speech of the Bishop of Manchester, and he wished to say in the most deliberate way that Dr. Moorhouse was singularly ill-informed in the statements he made, for they were ludicrously beside the mark. Dr. Moorhouse said that the average cost of repairs in the board schools was 2s. 10d. a child, which was correct; but he said also that, applying that estimate to the Church of England schools, the sum would come out at £700,000 a year. But the number of children in average attendance in the Church schools was£1,885,802, and the total sum came out, therefore, only at £267,155 5s. 8d. He hoped Dr. Moorhouse's theology was better than his simple multiplication. But he contended that the sum would not amount to more than 2s. per child. In a letter in The Times, Dr. Waller had shown that in the Wesleyan Schools, which were not less well equipped than other denominational schools, the cost of repairs worked out at 1s. 3d. per scholar. He had always taken the generous estimate of 2s. per scholar. That would work out in the case of the Church of England schools to £200,000. To meet that there were half the fees, amounting to £60,000, half the endowments, amounting to another £60,000 and rent amounting to £40,000, or £160,000 in all, leaving a balance of £40,000 to be provided by the Church. Was it worth £40,000 to retain the right to give denominational teaching in 12,000 out of 60,000 schools at the cost of public funds, to maintain theological tests for 12,000 head teachers, and to have four-sixths of the managers? So far from the State having driven a hard bargain with the Church, the Church had driven a hard
  1448
  bargain with the public, and a bargain from which she would in the future regret having departed. The Church had driven a hard bargain, which it would live to regret. He agreed with the Duke of Devonshire that this little contribution was the Church's one claim to the continuation of all its privileges which it now secured under this Bill, and it was in the interest of the perpetuation of denominational religious teaching that the Church should be prepared to make it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESagreed with the Prime Minister that this proposal should be debated on its merits, but he did not in the least agree that, in order that that should be done, it was necessary for it to be presented in its present form. The House of Lords constantly made Amendments affecting financial provisions of measures sent from the House of Commons. It was true that they sometimes adopted the uncandid, inconvenient, and improper course followed in the present instance, but as a general rule they had not done so. Usually they adopted an Amendment, and the House of Commons, having recognised in that Amendment an evasion of their privileges, agreed, if the circumstances warranted, to waive their privileges. That was the proper method to adopt. If the present practice was to be followed, a similar policy might be adopted in regard to a Money Bill. There was no reason why the House of Lords shoul not put a penny on the income-tax, and then add a paragraph saying it was not to involve any public charge. He was with the Government on the present occasion, but as they were originally, not as they now were. The Prime Minister seemed to expect his majority to turn, turn, and turn again. He however, could not change so frequently. Whether it was because he associated less with colleagues from Birmingham he did not know, but having started in one direction it took him longer to turn right about face. The right hon. Gentleman had said he would leave the House to express its unbiassed opinion in regard to this matter. But though he was not going to put on the Government Whips, he at once stated that he thought the House ought to accept the Amendment. What

  1449
  was the use of leaving off the Government Whips against an opinion like that? It used to be said that Napoleon was worth 20,000 men to any army he joined. How many votes was the First Lord of the Treasury worth? Certainly a great many. If the right hon. Gentleman intended to leave the House to express its unbiased opinion, he ought not to have exercised his great eloquence and fascination of manner in support of one particular side. Neutrality consisted in helping neither side, not in helping both sides, and still less in helping

  AYES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Acland-Hood,Capt,Sir Alex F.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Crean, Eugene

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cullinan, J.

  Hamilton, RtHn LordG(Midd'x)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Hammond, John

  Harrington, Timothy

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Delany, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dimsdale, Rt.Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Balcarres, Lord

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Balfour, Rt.Hn. A.J.(Manch'r.)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds)

  Doughty, George

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers.

  Howard,John(Kent,Faversh'm)

  Barhurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bigwood, James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Boland, John

  Bond, Edward

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Brassey, Albert

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Joyee, Michael

  Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Burke E. Haviland

  Ffrech, Peter

  Butcher, John George

  Field, William

  Kemp, George

  Finch, Rt.Hon. George H.

  Kennaway, Rt Hon. Sir John H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  kennedy, Patrick James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Kenyon, Hon.Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Keswick, William

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fletcher, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

  Kimber, Henry

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Flower, Ernest

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Forster, Henry William

  Knowles, Lees

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Chapman, Edward

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lawson, John Grant

  Clive, Capt. Percy A.

  Garfit, William

  Leamy, Edmund

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

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Gilhooly, James

  Lockie, John

  Colomb,SirJohn CharlesReady

  Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  one side. Under the circumstances, he had no possible doubt as to the course he should take. He should vote against the Amendment, not only because it would put a considerable extra charge on the ratepayers and the public revenues, but also because he agreed with the earlier and better mind of the Government.
  (12.8) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 197; Noes, 159. (Division List No. 641.)

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Smith, H.C (North'mb. Tyneside)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  O'Doherty, William

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

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

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Lundon, W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N)

  O'Malley, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  O'Mara, James

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

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Shaughnessy. P.J.

  Thompson, Dr E.C.(Monagh'n, N.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  O'Shee, James John

  Tollemache, Henry James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tully, Jasper

  M'Govern, T.

  Percy, Earl

  M'Kean, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Valentia, Viscount

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Mooney, John J.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wharton. Rt.Hon. John Lloyd

  Murnaghan, George

  Purvis, Robert

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Murphy, John

  Ratclitf, R. F.

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und-Lyne)

  Murray. RtHn A. Graham(Bute)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Myers, William Henry

  Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Staly bridge

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen)

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

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

  Round, Rt.Hon. James

  Wortley, Rt.Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Rutherford, John

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  O' Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)

  Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  sir James Fergusson Sir John Dorington.

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  O'Connor,James(Wicklow,W.)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cremer, William Randal

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Allen, CharlesP.(Glouc.,Stroud)

  Crombie, John William

  Grant, Corrie

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Guest. Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Denny, Colonel

  Haldane, Rt.Hon. Richard B.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Dickson. Charles Scott

  Harcourt, Rt.Hon. Sir Wm.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale

  Bignold. Arthur

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Bowles,T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Brigg, John

  Edwards, Frank

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hoult, Joseph

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Evans,SirFrancisH. (Maidstone)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Bryce, Rt.Hon. James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Burns, John

  Jones,DavidBrynmor(Swansea)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Caldwell, James

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Chamberlain, RtHn J. A. (Wore.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Chaplin, Rt.Hon. Henry

  Foster. Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Langley, Batty

  Cohen. Benjamin Louis

  Fowler, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. W illiam Edw. H.

  Cox. lrwin Edward Bainbridge

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn. HerbertJohn

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Faroham)

  1452

  1453

  Leese,SirJoseph F.(Accrington)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Levy, Maurice

  Rea, Russell

  Thomas,J A(Glamorgan,Gower)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Reckitt, Harold James

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

  Lough,Thomas

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thornton, Perey M.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rigg, Richard

  Toulmin, George

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eition)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Macartney, Rt.Hn. W.G. Ellison

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rothschild,Hon. Lionel Walter

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Walton John Lawson(Leeds,S.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sandys,Lient.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Middlemore,John Throgmorton

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)

  Morgan,J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Morely, Charles (Brecoushire)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Whitley, J.H. (Halifax)

  Smith,Abel H. (Herford,East)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Norman, Henry

  Smith,JamesParker(Lanarks.)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Norton,Captain Cecil William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Soear, John Ward

  Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm

  Spencer, RtHn. C.R.(Nerthants)

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd)

  Partingtron, Oswald

  Stevenson. Francis S.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n)

  Strutt,Hon. Charles Hedley

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Perks, Robert William

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Mr. Henry Hobhouse and Sir Edward Strachey.

  Pilkington, Lient.-Col. Richard

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what he proposes to do with regard to the further course of the Bill. I do not ask this in consequence of the division which has just taken place, but in consequence of the late hour and of the stage at which we have arrived. We are now approaching the Amendment proposed in the celebrated Kenyon-Slaney Clause, and I think there is a general feeling that that is a question of such general importance to the public that it ought not to be discussed here at the small hours of the morning. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh ! "] I ask hon. Members opposite not to be too premature. On the other hand,
  1454
  there is no desire whatever to prolong unduly the discussion on that or any other Clause, and therefore I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to suspend further proceedings on this Bill now, or at any rate, before we touch the Kenyon-Slaney Clause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There was a hope entertained in some quarter, I think in many quarters, that we might dispose of the Lords Amendments in one night, but I admit that that hope has now become faint. In the general scheme of the session we had in view, and had always contemplated, the possibility, that the Lords Amendments

  1455
  would go over to part of the second night. If it will meet the general view of the House, I would suggest that we should finish drafting the Amendments down to the Kenyon-Slaney Clause, and leave the Kenyon-Slaney Clause over to Wednesday. I hope, however, that the Hose will consent to take tonight the final stage of the Uganda Railway Bill. The Kenyon-Slaney Clause and the other Amendments might, I think, be disposed of before the dinner hour. It might expedite business if I mention that it is my intention to advise the House to retain the Lords' Amendment in reference to teachers on education committees, and I propose to ask the House to disagree with that part. I do not believe there ought to be any difficulty in finishing our business before dinner tomorrow, but I must ask the House, in addition, to take the Lords Amendments to the Water Bill. If it had not been that certain hon. Members interested in the London Water Bill have left the House, I should have asked the House to take that measure tonight.
  That is the whole scheme of business before the prolongation that I need ask the House to undertake, and if we can agree that that business shall be carried out, I am quite willing to take the course which has been suggested.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know that it would be discreet on my part to come to any positive agreement that the consideration of the Lords Amendments on this Bill should be finished by half-past seven tomorrow, but I may say that it is my full expectation that they can be finished by that time. If the right hon. Gentleman will
  1456
  be content with the pious wish instead of a positive agreement, I am quite agreeable to the course suggested. I gather from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that the London Water Bill Amendments are not very serious. That being so, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept what I call a pious wish or expectation in lieu of a positive agreement.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not ask for an absolute pledge.
  MR. T.P. O'CONNORasked if the First Lord of the Treasury would state what view the Government took of the Lord Amendment in regard to the Associations of Voluntary Schools.
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: I do not include that in the list of those Amendments with which we propose to disagree. I do not think I ought to give a pledge in regard to that question.
  Lords Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 5, line 7, agreed to.
  Further consideration of Lords Amendments adjourned till Tomorrow.

  UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  Mr. SPEAKER,in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES
  No. 2922. Portugal (Province of St Thome and Principe). Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SEAMEN'S SAVINGS BANKS, MONEY ORDERS, AND TRANSMISSION OK WAGES
  Account of all deposits received and repaid by the Board of Trade, under the authority of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, during the year ended 20th November 1901, and of the interest thereon. Statement showing the number and amount of seamen's money orders issued and paid, at ports in the United Kingdom and at ports abroad, from 1855 to 31st March 1902. Also, statement showing the receipts and payments in connection with the transmission of seamen's wages, home and foreign, from 1878 to 31st March, 1902.
  GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE FUND
  An account of the General Lighthouse Fund, showing the income and expenditure for the year ended 31st March 1902. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  VENEZUELA—ANGLO-GERMAN NAVAL ACTION
  EARL SPENCER: I rise to ask the, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs: whether, in the event of the seizure of Venezuelan gunboats failing to produce the desired effect, His Majesty's Government propose to take further measures for the purpose of coercing the Venezuelan Government; and, if so, whether he is able to state what the nature of those measures will be.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (the MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE): In the event which the noble Lord supposes, further measures of coercion will, no doubt, be inevitable. The question has been considered by His Majesty's Government, in consultation with the German Government; and it has been decided, as I think will be
  1290
  evident from the general tenor of the Blue-book, to resort to a blockade of the Venezuelan ports, some of which will be blockaded by British and some by German ships of war. It is not, however, intended to land a British force, and still less to occupy Venezuelan territory.

  LONDON WATER BILL
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH)said there were a number of Amendments on the Paper in his name, but with only two exceptions they dealt purely with points of drafting. When they came to those two Amendments he would make a short statement explaining them.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  LORD, BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved to leave out the latter part of sub-Section 6 of Clause 9 (which deals with the transfer of the undertaking of the New River Company to the Water Board), in order to insert a new sub-Section. He said that the New River Company was different from all other companies in that the property was vested in the owners of the Adventurers' and King's shares, and that the Company only administered the property for the owners. The transfer of the undertaking would convert property which was now realty into personalty, and that change would work hardship in certain possible cases. The Clause as originally introduced proposed that the shares and water stock issued should be treated as land; but it had been objected that that form of Clause would impress the character of real property on the stock for all time. The object of the Amendment was to limit the time during which the stock should hold that character, and the limit proposed was the appointed day, and such time afterwards as elapsed before the property passed naturally into the hands of someone who was entitled to dispose of it. There could be no doubt as to the franchise question being covered by the Clause
  Amendment moved,—
  "In Clause 9, page 7, line 32, to leave out from 'section' to the end of the sub-Section, and to insert as a new sub-Section: (7.) Every Adventurers' share and every King's.
  share, and every part of an Adventurers' or King's share, and any water stock issuable or issued in respect of any such share or part of a share, and the right to receive any such water stock shall—(i) until the appointed day; and (ii) after the appointed day, but thereafter only unless or until—(a) some person who is suijuris is absolutely entitled beneficially in possession to or has a general power to dispose of such share or part of a share, or such water stock; or (b) such share or part of a share, or such water stock or the right to receive such water stock, is transferred on a sale to a purchaser for all purposes of disposition, transmission, and devolution, be considered as land, and (so far as regards such water stock or right to receive water stock) be held for and go to the same persons in the same manner and for and on the same estates, interests, and trusts as the Adventurers' or King's share, or the part of an Adventurers' or King's share, in respect of which the water stock is issuable or issued, would have been held and have gone under any will, settlement, or other instrument affecting that share or part of a share, or otherwise, if this Act had not been passed. For the purposes of this provision the expression 'general power' includes every power or authority enabling the donee or other holder thereof to appoint or dispose of the fee simple or absolute interest of or in property in possession as he thinks fit, but exclusively of any power exercisable in a fiduciary capacity or exercisable as tenant for life under the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, or as mortgagee.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid that the new Clause entirely met all objections, and, while saving existing rights, prevented the infinite multiplication of this franchise in future.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved to insert a new sub-Section in Clause 43 (payment of dividends till discharge of compensation). He said that the object of the Amendment was to meet the case of the Kent Company, the proprietors of which had the right, if the maximum dividend was not paid in any year, to have the arrears made up in subsequent years. The Amendment provided that the proprietors should not receive more than ten per cent, on the capital between the appointed day and the date of satisfaction. That period of time would, he hoped, be a short one, but it had been suggested, to remove all possibility of dispute, that this proviso should be inserted, and he believed it was a matter of agreement.
  Amendment moved.
  "In Clause 43, page 28, line 30, after 'that' to insert, '(a) if the amount payable in any year under this section to any company exceeds the amount which, by reason of any limitation on the dividend of that company, would have been distributable as dividend if this Act had not been passed, the excess shall not be paid to the company; and (b),"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments to Clauses 45 and 47 agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment to Second Schedule agreed to.
  On Schedule 3 (constitution and proceedings of Water Board:—
  LORD COLERIDGEproposed to amend Section 3 in order to provide that a director of a me ropolitan water company or a shareholder being himself beneficially interested in the share or shares standing in his name shall, until the compensation payable to the company is determined, be disqualified from being appointed or being a member of the Water Board. He said it seemed to him that the persons who were to enter into this contract should be without beneficial interest in it on one side or the other. This principle was carried through all their legislation. For instance, a licensing justice who might hold only one share in a brewery company at the other side of England was disqualified from acting as a licensing justice. Surely, it was only right, therefore, that no member of the Water Board should be a shareholder in any one of the companies which were to be purchased. They might be honest persons enough, but they could not be held to bo indifferent to the interests of the Water Companies of which they were shareholders. By only disqualifying a director, the Clause held out an encouragement to large shareholders to come forward for election on the Board. The Amendment would not affect trustees, and he hoped the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would accept it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the Third Schedule, page 35, line 24, after 'director' to insert 'or shareholder.'" —(Lord Coleridge.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he agreed generally that it was not right that people on public boards should deal with matters in which they had a private interest. The Section disqualified a director, and the noble Lord sought to disqualify the shareholders also. That Amendment was unnecessary, because sub-Section (c) of Section 2 provided that a shareholder in any company should not vote at any meeting of the Board on any question in which such company was interested. He could not think it was necessary, in the case of a shareholder who might hold only a single share, to disqualify him from a seat on the Board. That would be carrying a sound principle much too far. The provision in the Bill went as far as was reasonable in the matter.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  EARL CARRINGTONcalled attention to the fact that there was no provision in the Bill for the retirement of a Joint Committee, and moved that the election of the members of Joint Committees be triennial. Unless some Amendment of this kind were inserted, the members would, he imagined, be elected for life.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the Joint Committee would only have the one function of electing a member to the Water Board. After it had done that, there would be no object in keeping the Joint Committee alive.
  EARL CARRINGTONsubmitted that as the Schedule at present stood the Joint Committee, when once elected, remained in office. No provision whatever was made for retirement.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid it was intended to deal with this matter by regulation prepared by the Local Government Board. It was distinctly intended that the Joint Committees should have a terminable period of existence. He would not pledge himself that it would be three years—it might be convenient that they should be elected for three and a half or four years—but their tenure of office would be for a limited period.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he gladly accepted the noble Lord's assurance that power was taken by the Local Government Board to regulate this matter. But would the noble Lord insert the words "and term of office" after the word "constitution" in the Section which provided that the Local Government Board might make regulations as to the constitution of the Water Board? That would make the matter perfectly clear.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he was anxious to meet the noble Lord as far as possible, and, although he was doubtful as to the necessity of the suggested Amendment, he would accept it on condition that the noble Lord would not think the Amendment was not adhered to by the Government in another place.
  Amendment [of Lord Carrington's] agreed to.
  Standing order No. XXXIX. suspended.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD WELBYinquired what the effect would be of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord on Report inserting, in Clause 9, page 7, line 8, after ''agreement.' the words "made in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of this Act."
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that Clause 9 provided that the compensation to the New River Company for the transfer of their undertaking should be discharged wholly in water stock, and should, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration. Section 2 directed that any agreement for the transfer of the undertaking of the Company should require confirmation by the Court of Arbitration. The object of the Amendment was to make it clear that this would apply to an agreement under the firstnamed Section, so that there would be no dispute as to the necessity for confirmation.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 3 with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons; and to be printed as amended (No. 204.)

  MILITIA AND YEOMANRY BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.

  Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. suspended.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (the EARL of HARDWICKE: In asking your Lordships to allow this Bill to be read a third time, I desire to answer a question that was put to me last night by Lord Hertford, and to which the noble Lord attached great importance. The question was whether the duration of the Yeomanry training was to be seventeen or fourteen days. The new regulations provide that the regimental training will take place between 21st May and 30th September during sixteen consecutive days, exclusive of day of arrival and dismissal, but there is a Regulation which provides that commanding officers may grant leave to officers and yeomen during the regimental training for a period not exceeding two days. Therefore the difficulty which the noble Lord referred to of men being required to serve into the third week does not arise, as the commanding officer in such a case can grant them the two days leave necessary to bring their term of training into two weeks.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

  TRAINING OF CADET CORPS AND BATTALIONS
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to a speech delivered at Pietermaritzberg, in Natal, on the 4th December 1900, in which Field Marshal Earl
  Roberts said—
  "It gave him great pleasure to learn that everybody in the Colony was compelled, at one time or another, to join the corps and learn the principle of discipline and how to shoot, should, unhappily, the occasion ever arise for them to do so. This was an excellent idea. and he would like to see the example followed throughout Great Britain and Greater Britain.
  1296
  And whether Lord Roberts added—
  "I hope the Old Country will follow the example of one of her children, and insist upoe all boys joining cadet corps. I understann some of you have already been drafted intd volunteer corps which have been engaged io the war. I can tell you that these corps have rendered magnificent service." Also to the evidence given by Lieut.-General Sir Ian Hamilton before a Royal Commission at Edinburgh, on the 19th September 1902.
  "That if our boys were taught to handle arms, use the bayonet, march, skirmish, shoot, etc., they would be a great addition to our military strength. Young Boers between the ages of twelve and fifteen were little vipers, and had sent many a good man to his long account.]n their native land boys of fifteen would make excellent soldiers. After fourteen years, he would approve of a cadet corps being attached to every school."
  Also to the following General Order issued by General Lord Dundonald— who had special opportunities for studying the cadet system in Natal—on being placed in command of the Defence Forces in Canada:—
  "The General Officer Commanding desires to impress upon all officers commanding districts and regiments the desirability of encouraging in every way the formation of cadet companies or battalions throughout these districts."
  And whether, in view of the above strong expressions of expert opinion as to the importance to the country of encouraging cadet corps and battalions, they will be prepared to consent to the following proposals, or to any of them, and, if so, to which, made to the Secretary of State for War on the 25th November 1902, by the Lads Drill Association, the Reverend C. G. Gull, Head Master of the Grocers' School, and by officers commanding cadet battalions and corps

  1. That authority be granted for the formation of Public School Junior Volunteer Corps. in which uniform shall not be obligatory, but which in all other respects shall be on the same footing as cadet corps.

  2. That the arms fitted with Morris Tubes at present supplied to public schools on payment be issued free.

  3. That to junior volunteer corps as above defined D. P. arms be issued if applied for by the Commanding Officer in addition to the arms fitted with Morris Tubes.

  4. That a free issue of Morris Tube ammunition be made to such corps on the same scale as is now made to cadet corps in public schools.

  5. That the allowance now made to Volunteers attending camp should be made to all members of cadet battalions and companies.

  1297

  6. That travelling expenses to and from camp should be sanctioned to cadet battalions and companies under the same conditions as to Volunteers.

  7. That where the range accommodation possible for any cadet battalion or company necessitates a journey by rail the expenses should be borne by Government.

  8. That officers in cadet battalions and companies who have duly qualified as such shall be eligible for the grant for uniform on the same scale as now sanctioned for Volunteer officers.

  9. That an amount in the case of cadet battalions shall be provided to meet the pay of a sergeant major, and, in the case of cadet battalions of more than six companies, of one sergeant instructor.

  10. That paragraph 37 of the Volunteer Regulations be modified so that cadet officers shall occupy in regard to Volunteer officers the same position that the latter hold in respect of Militia officers, namely. junior of their rank.

  11. That Militia officers appointed to cadet battalions take rank according to the date of their appointment to such battalion.

  12. That sanction shall be given for the enrolment of cadets in cadet companies on the same conditions as now hold good for cadet corps.

  13. That serviceable arms shall be served out to the full establishment of cadet battalions and not to 60 per cent, as at present.

  These are not very formidable requests, nor do I think it can be said that, if granted, they will seriously affect the finances of the country. The Secretary of State for War, in an official account that was sent to the Press of the interview which, on November 25th, he granted to the deputation mentioned in my Question, is reported to have said that the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to Reserve forces was rather in the direction of efficiency than of numbers. That is a very excellent and laudable desire. I readily admit that efficiency with moderate numbers is more valuable than large numbers without efficiency. So far as I am concerned. I certainly have no desire to increase numbers at the expense of efficiency. I would be no party to any such policy of national suicide. On the other hand, with the experience of the South African war in our minds, can it honestly be said that the country, within the last three years, has found itself in the position of having at command too many soldiers? I think I. remember a time, not so far distant, when the Government were straining every nerve to get men to come forward,
  1298
  and could not get trained men even though they offered five shillings a day. I do not think, therefore, that it is possible, even with the shortest of memories, for His Majesty's Government to assert that there are too many trained men at their command anxious and desirous for military service. The modern theory of military preparedness is that the country should possess a small efficient Army, capable of very rapid expansion. Now, the cadet system, in conjunction with a small efficient Army, exactly fulfils that condition. It provides immense reserves without the drawbacks of conscription. In modern warfare with civilised nations, one cannot separate the nation from the Army or the Army from the nation; the two must either stand or fall together. That has been proved often in the case of what may be called, comparatively speaking, small continental and oversea wars. The proposals contained in my Question all tend towards efficiency, and not towards a mere increase of numbers, and, therefore, they ought to be entirely in accord with the policy of His Majesty's Government, as expressed by the Secretary of State for War in November last. I trust, therefore, that the answer which I shall receive later on will be a favourable one.
  In order accurately to appreciate the object and scope of these proposals, it is necessary to thoroughly understand the technical terms used in regard to cadets. The proposals do not affect in any way organisations such as the Church Lads' Brigade or the Boys' Brigade, which are supported for the moral, spiritual, and physical welfare of the lads who join them, and are in no sense military organisations. The organisations to which these proposals refer are strictly military, and are known by the names of cadet corps, cadet battalions, and cadet companies. Of these organisations there are in all 112, and of that number 101 are cadet corps, composed of lads belonging to the upper and middle classes who are at public schools. These 101 corps, with the exception of Eton and Harrow, are attached to local adult Volunteer battalions. The lads are permitted to join them at the age of twelve years, and

  1299
  when they attain the age of seventeen, they are eli ible for the Government capitation grant which is given to every efficient Volunteer. Until recently, the capitation grant went to the benefit of the Volunteer adult battalion, to which the cadet corps was connected, but by a recent concession, the money gained by these lads now goes to the cadet corps attached to the school.
  EARL SPENCER: With the exception of Eton and Harrow.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: Yes, with those two exceptions. These 101 corps, being composed of the sons of well-to-do parents, do not require, and do not demand, pecuniary assistance to any great amount, and I do not know that they desire any at the hands or His Majesty's Government. Therefore 101 corps out of the 112 do not ask anything from His Majesty's Government. But there are a larger number of public schools attended by the sons of respectable, if not well-to-do parents, who are unwilling or unable to provide their sons with the luxury of a uniform. They can manage to give them a good education, but consider that membership of a cadet corps is a luxury which they cannot afford. Consequently, there are a large number of lads belonging to the middle classes who have no opportunity of preparing themselves in any way for the military service of the country. The Lads' Drill Association, the headmaster of the Grocers School, and officers commanding cadet battalions and corps have therefore approached His Majesty's Government and asked whether they would permit corps to be formed in connection with these schools in which uniform should not be obligatory. They desire, also, that a free gift of arms should be made to them, and that they should have as much free ammunition as is at present given to the corps belonging to the richer public schools. These are not very great demands, and I trust that something may be done by His Majesty's Government to facilitate the training of those youths of the middle class, many of whom might attain a liking for the military profession and become very valuable officers in His Majesty's service. I have dealt with
  1300
  those corps which are formed of lads attending the upper middle-class schools.
  I now come to those organisations which are called cadet battalions, of which there are only nine throughout the whole kingdom—four in London and five in the provinces. They are composed exclusively of working lads, who must be fourteen years of age before they are permitted to join them. They are not connected with Volunteer battalions, but are independent organisations, although they take their place in the territorial system. How is it that throughout the United Kingdom there are only nine of these battalions, which ought to be a great deal more numerous than the cadet corps? It is simply because they are expensive organisations, and the parents of the lads are unable to provide their uniforms and the other expenses. These corps are dependent on voluntary subscriptions; they are largely maintained by the officers, and great difficulty has been experienced in finding men sufficiently well off to become officers in these battalions. Each lad costs from £2 to £5 per head, according to what the commanding officer considers necessary in the shape of equipment, but £2 is, I believe, ample for the purpose. The organisations are far too costly ever to be numerous without State assistance, and five out of the thirteen proposals which I have laid before His Majesty's Government refer to these battalions. If we are ever to have our youth properly trained, and trained in any large numbers, it will have to be accomplished by means of these battalions. There is one other organisation, called cadet companies There are only two companies throughout the United Kingdom, for the same reason that they are composed of working lads, and that it is impossible for the parents of those lads to find the necessary money. Like the cadet corps, they are connected with adult Volunteer battalions, and without State assistance they cannot possibly be increased.
  As I have said, the cadet corps, battalions, and companies together number 112, of which 101 ask for no assistance, but only for encouragement; the remaining eleven are bodies which need financial help. Of the thirteen proposals on the Paper, five entail no

  1301
  expense at all on His Majesty's Government. Last year, when the late Lord Frankfort de Montmorency introduced the Military Instruction (Schools and Cadets) Bill, Lord Raglan, who was then Under Secretary of State for War, asserted that cadet corps and battalions did not directly add to the defensive and offensive power of the kingdom, and that was his argument why no assistance should be given. Is it possible, notwithstanding the sad experiences we have gone through in South Africa, that his Majesty's Government think that no one can be counted as taking a really effective part in the defence of his country unless he is found in a Line regiment and actually drilled in the barrack square? We all know that if it had not been for the services of the Yeomanry and the Volunteers, both of the Mother Country and of the Colonies, many of whom had received at least a half-training, and many a great deal more, in their youth, we should have found ourselves in a much more difficult position, and in all probability the war would still be going on at the present moment. The cadet corps do not provide a large number of the rank and file of the Army. It is not to be expected that they should, because they are recruited from the upper and middle classes But they do provide a large proportion of officers, and the cadet battalions provide, in proportion to their numbers, a very considerable number of rank and rifle. The colonel commanding the cadet battalion of the King's Royal Rifles informs me that 92 per cent, of his lads, on leaving him, join the Army, Navy, Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers, and that actually ninety-eight of his old lads, or 20 per cent., served His Majesty in South Africa. He confesses that the average from his battalion is higher than the average if you take all the nine battalions; but, taking the average of the nine battalions, you will find that 14 per cent, of the lads go to the Army and the Militia, 3 per cent, to the Navy, and 65 per cent. to the Yeomanry and the Volunteers, a total of 82 per cent. I think, after these very striking figures, it cannot be asserted that cadet battalions do not directly contribute towards the rank and file of the Army. I hope, therefore.
  1302
  that I shall hear no more of the kind of argument used by Lord Raglan.
  I cannot, for the life of me, understand why His Majesty's Government should hesitate for one moment in encouraging and supporting the training to arms of the youth of this country. It cannot be denied that during the war men were sent out who could not shoot, who never made the least profession of being able to shoot, and who had probably never seen a gun before in their lives. Over and over again there were cases where untrained men were sent to South Africa who proved absolutely useless, and had to be sent back without ever having done anything in return for the heavy expenditure incurred upon them. On the other hand, we all know what splendid service Lovat's Scouts performed. These men were not men who were found in the barrack yard, or who had been in the Regular Army; they were men who in their youth, had been trained to scout and shoot and look after themselves. They were notoriously the eyes and ears of the force with which they were connected, and it cannot be denied that if we train our you the in a somewhat similar way they would be of very much more service in time of stress than lads who had never used a gun. I am not asking for any large pecuniary assistance for cadets. If your Lordships look through the proposals on the Paper you will see that the sums needed are comparatively small; but, if I were asking for large pecuniary assistance, I should have the greatest confidence in doing so. because, I should feel that we were obtaining for our money a, sense of security which would be invaluable. If it had been known in 1898 and 1899 that the lads of this country had gone through a course of training which enabled them to shoot straight, and to march and scout, I am perfectly certain that we should never have had a Boer war. There is an idea throughout the Continent that Great Britain is a powerful Colossus in some directions, but a Colossus with legs of clay, the clay being the want of smilitary defence. That has been proved to be a fallacious idea. It has been proved over and over again, that Great Britain has such resources that it has been able to

  1303
  contend against almost the whole world in arms. But, at the same time, there is sufficient truth in the idea to invite attack. But if we trained our youth to arms, and if it were known that our lads had had such a training and could shoot straight, we should not hear so much of rumours of war, and I believe firmly that we should be respected in a way perhaps that we are not now, and that we should be spared the expenditure of millions and millions of money.
  We are set a splendid example in this direction by our Colonies, throughout the whole of which the cadet system is almost general. The value of the training given in our Colonies has been proved by the splendid services rendered to the Empire by the Colonial troops. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales said in December, 1901, at the Guildhall—
  "I am anxious to refer to an admirable movement which has taken strong root both in Australia and New Zealand, namely, the establishment of cadet corps. I had the gratification of seeing march past several thousand cadets who, at the expense of their respective Governments, are able to go through a military course, in some cases with an ample grant of ammunition. I will not presume, in these days of Army reform, to do more than call the attention of my friend the Secretary of State for War to this interesting fact."
  In New South Wales the Government give a capitation grant to cadets, and annually 30,000 lads are trained and turned out fit to defend the Colony, and, if necessary, assist the Empire in offensive and defensive operations. In Victoria, until the recent financial crisis, every effective cadet received ten shillings per head, and, in addition, from £3 to £10 per corps was given by the Government. Rifles, as well as ammunition and camp equipment, were given free, and free railway tickets to ranges were also provided. In South Australia, Tasmania, and Queensland the system has been established, and is popular and progressive. In New Zealand, too, the cadet system has been received with enthusiasm. Arms and accoutrements are given free by the Government, and in no part of His Majesty's Empire has the movement been more taken up than by the Maories. In Natal compulsory service is the order of the day as regards lads, although I doubt whether there is one lad in ten who knows that it is
  1304
  compulsory. From the ages of six to ten, every lad has to be drilled; at the age of ten he is compelled to join a cadet corps, and when ho reaches the age of fourteen he is compelled to go to the butts to learn to shoot. Can it be said that Natal would have made such a grand defence if it had not been for the fact that her sons had had this military training? Natal spends between £3,500 and £4,000 a year in this way.
  I have quoted the opinions of Lord Roberts, of General Lord Dundonald, and of Lieut.-General Sir Ian Hamilton. If I had not felt that it would have unnecessarily added to the already lengthy extracts quoted, I should have given also the opinion of Lord Kitchener, but I think his opinion is well known. I trust that after this expression of expert opinion His Majesty's Government will take courage and grant the very moderate and economical proposals for the improvement of the cadet system of this country for which I ask—proposals which although they fall short of the steps taken, by our Colonies, will not, if granted, be without effect in strengthening the military power of the Empire.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, the noble Earl stated in his concluding remarks that he hoped His Majesty's Government would take courage. I can assure him that I feel the necessity of courage to reply to the formidable looking question which he has addressed to me, and I do not think any of your Lordships can recollect ever having seen so long a question put to any member of the Government. The noble Earl asks, in the first place, whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to certain observations by Lord Roberts, Sir Ian Hamilton, and Lord Dundonald. I do not know exactly whether the noble Earl asks if these speeches have been the subject of Departmental Minutes or have been circulated to the Cabinet, or whether he desires to know if the fact that the speeches have been made is within the knowledge of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War. If that is all he wishes to know, the answer is in the affirmative. I can go further and tell the noble Earl that everything that Lord Roberts said in the speech referred to, and, I believe,

  1305
  everything that Sir Ian Hamilton and Lord Dundonald said, they believe now, and in similar circumstances would repeat them again. But if Lord Roberts or Sir Ian Hamilton were asked whether they consider that the training of these cadets is of such vital importance that part of the sums allocated by Parliament to the expenditure on the Army should be taken to meet the demands made by the noble Earl, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that they would declare that they could not recommend such a course. Of course, if the resources of the Exchequer were unlimited, and if in peace time we could spend as much money as we liked on the Army, I am sure we should be most willing to meet, as far as possible, the requests of the noble Earl. The noble Earl suggests that the requests he makes for assistance from the Government do not involve a very large expenditure. I shall endeavour, in the course of my remarks, to show the noble Earl, and, I hope, to convince him, that he is not entirely accurate.
  Reference was made to the system which prevails in the Colonies, and the encouragement which is given to cadet corps there. I would ask the noble Earl to allow me to call his attention to the difference in the military expenditure per head of population the Clolnies compared to the military expenditure per head of the population in this country. So far as the Colonies are concerned, they have practically no naval expenditure; on the other hand, we have a very large naval expenditure. Canada has no naval expenditure at all, and her military expenditure is 2s. per head of the population. New South Wales has a naval expenditure of 81/4d., and a military expenditure of 3s. 5d.; Victoria has a naval expenditure of 1s., and a military expenditure of 3s. 3d,; Queensland has a naval expenditure of 1s. Id., and a military expenditure of 3s. 9d.; the Cape of Good Hope has a naval expenditure of 3 1/4d., and a military expenditure of 2s. 11d.; Natal has a naval expenditure of 31/4d., and a military expenditure of 5s. 1/34d. In this country we have a military expenditure of 14s. 13/4d. per head of the population, and a naval expenditure of 15s.; so that altogether we pay £1 9s. 1/34d. per head of the population in respect of
  1306
  naval and military expenditure, whereas no Colony pays more than Natal, which pays 5s. 5d. I do not think it is quite a sound argument for the noble Earl to advance that, because the Colonies have these cadet corps, therefore it is perfectly easy for us to spend the same amount of money and give the same encouragement. The noble Earl mentioned a Bill that was introduced last session and referred to the arguments that were advanced by my noble friend and predecessor in office, Lord Raglan, against that Bill; and he stated that my noble friend replied that the Government did not consider that cadet corps could be looked upon as valuable for the defence of the country. That, of course, is perfectly true, and I support my noble friend Lord Raglan in what he said. The amount of money which this country spends on the Volunteers is gigantic, and I would like to give the House a few figures. The Volunteers, however, are men who are valuable in the event of an emergency arising. But no one suggests for a moment that these little boys should take up arms like the Boers in South Africa.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I suppose they will grow.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I suppose they will. But the point I wish to make is that in the system of this country we spend an enormous sum of money on the Volunteers, and if we were to treat cadet corps on exactly the same lines—
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I do not ask that.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: With the exception of the capitation grant, I do not see a single point in which it differs. The general proposal is to place cadet corps on the same basis as Volunteers. In 1869 the Volunteers received a cash grant of £1.32; in 1899 it was £3.13; and at the present moment each Volunteer is costing £6 per head per annum. We are paying in cash, exclusive of rifles, permanent staff, and such like expenditure, £720,000 per annum for the Volunteers, whereas ten years ago we were only paying about half that amount. I think the noble Earl will admit that we have done a great deal towards encouraging the Volunteers; and if he

  1307
  will allow me to take his points seriatim, I think I shall be able to show that the cost involved by his proposals is by no means small. The noble Earl asks that authority be granted for the formation of Public School Junior Volunteer corps, in which uniform should not be obligatory, but which in all other respects shall be on the same footing as cadet corps. I admit that that question has very little financial effect. I believe that the only additional cost would be the charges for the instruction of such officers as might be granted commissions. But we have always understood that one of the inducements to boys to join these cadet corps was the uniform. If, however, the noble Earl is convinced that a uniform is not required, and that boys would be induced to join these corps if they were allowed to do so without the wearing of uniform being obligatory, I see no reason why the Secretary of State should not grant the request.
  The noble Earl referred to the deputation which waited upon the Secretary of State for War in November last. Since that deputation was received careful consideration has been, and is being given, to the points which were laid before the Secretary of State, but it is quite impossible tonight for me to give any definite answer as to what we may be able to do. I think, however, I am able to give a definite answer as to what we shall not be able to do, but though I am, able to give the noble Earl a certain amount of encouragement I hope he will not take anything I may say as binding, but merely as our ideas as to the assistance which can be given these corps in the future. The second request submitted by the noble Earl was that the arms fitted with Morris tubes, at present supplied to public schools on payment, be issued free. The noble Earl has already stated that something has been done in this direction for certain corps. The difficulty we have in dealing with all these proposals is the impossibility of telling to what extent we may be committed financially. The noble Earl asked why there were not more cadet battalions, and he supplied the answer himself by saying that it was because no financial assistance was given by Government. He therefore implies that if financial assistance is given by
  1308
  Government the number of these corps will be increased, and, of course, if they increase, the financial obligations on the Government will increase also, and it is perfectly impossible for me, or any one. to tell how far we may be committing ourselves if we agree to supply free arms fitted with Morris tubes to all the corps that required them. Taking the number of corps that exist at present the total value of 1,800 carbines and 1,800 tubes, and accessories, which would be required to supply the cadet battalions, would amount to £10,222. That, I say at once, is perfectly impossible to consent to. The third request submitted by the noble Earl was that D.P. arms be issued, if applied for by the commanding officer, in addition to the arms fitted with Morris Tubes. It is not clear exactly what is meant by D.P. arms, and whether carbines or rifles are intended. But taking the numbers in the cadet corps at present, and assuming that half of the boys in a school would join and. would require rifles, the number would be about 60,000, the value of the D.P. rifles would be £109,750, and the carbines £73,000.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: Do you assert that there are 60,000 lads in middle-class schools of that character?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Yes that is the number we assume. In fact, we think there would be more. The third request really hangs on the first. If authority is to be given for the formation of these corps without uniform, we can only calculate what our obligation will be by the numbers of boys in these schools. We calculate that if these boys were to form themselves into corps as suggested that would be the total number of rifles we might have to supply. As regards the fourth request—namely, that a tree issue of Morris tube ammunition be made to such corps on the same scale as is now made to cadet corps in public schools—that is also an expensive matter. The proportion of Morris tube ammunition is eighty rounds per member of a corps, and therefore for 60,000 scholars the total would come to 4,800,000 rounds, and that would cost £4,140 per annum. The fifth, sixth, seventh

  1309
  and eight requests of the noble Earl are clearly financial ones, and I have endeavoured to find out what the cost would be likely to be. These requests apply both to cadet corps and cadet battalions.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I beg the noble Earls pardon. They apply to cadet battalions and companies only.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Taking requests numbers five and six, and assuming that allowances for regimental camps only are given—that is to say, 19s. for each boy and 52s. for each officer—the cost for 60,000 cadets would be £57,000, and for 750 officers, £1,950.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I am not asking this for cadet corps, but only for cadet battalions and companies—about 6,000 lads.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: The noble Earl asks that the allowance now made to Volunteers attending camp should be made to all members of cadet battalions and companies.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: Yes, but not corps. There are only nine cadet battalions and two companies.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I had taken companies as meaning corps. I will take the case of the nine battalions. I understand that there are about 5,200 boys in the cadet battalions and 200 officers. The total cost of sending them to camp would be £5,460 per annum. Them as regards the request that where the range accommodation possible for any cadet battalion or company exists within a journey by rail, the expenses should be borne by the Government, the cost of that would work out at £2,000.
  I think, my Lords, that on these five heads I have shown that it would be impossible to grant the assistance asked for unless we were prepared to go to the Treasury for a very large sum of money. I admit that in the request that an amount in the case of cadet battalions should be provided to meet the pay of a sergeant-major, and in the case of cadet battalions of more than six
  1310
  companies of one sergeant-instructor, a very large sum of money is not involved. It would cost £1,080 for the sergeant-majors, and about £186 for instructors. The total cost of these proposals excluding the cadet corps, would amount to £9,200. Of course, as I have said, it is impossible to calculate what the cost of the cadet corps would be, because we do not know how many would be formed. The request that paragraph 37 of the Volunteer Regulations be modified so that cadet officers shall occupy in regard to Volunteer officers the same position that the latter hold in respect of Militia officers, namely, junior of their rank, has already been granted.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I am very glad to hear it, but I venture to think cadet officers are not aware of it.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I come now to the request that Militia officers appointed to cadet battalions take rank according to the date of their appointment to such battalion. I confess I do not proposal is. No expense, of course, is involved. I do not think, military authorities could grant it, and if they did I do not think any Militia officers would join cadet battalions. A Militia officer joining a cadet battalion remains an officer in the Militia, and he does not join the cadet battalion for any other purpose except that he wishes to encourage these boys and has probably been applied to by those who are interested in the battalion. I can hold out no hope that the request contained in this paragraph will be granted. Then the noble Earl asks that sanction shall be given for the enrolment of cadet corps. I presume that the noble Earl wishes the age reduced so that lads can join between twelve and eighteen years of age.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: The idea is that they should be able to receive the capitation grant, and retain it the same as they do in cadet corps when they reach the age of seventeen.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I am afraid I can hold out no hope that that will be granted. At the same time, it is a point that shall have very full consideration. The last request submitted by the noble Earl is that serviceable arms shall be served out to the full establishment of cadet battalions, and not to 50 per cent, as at present. I would point out that there is no demand for such a step. Take, for instance, the 1st Manchester, with a total strength of 547 boys. They only applied for fifty rifles. I think it is hardly reasonable that we should be asked to supply, at enormous cost, serviceable rifles to every boy in, a cadet battalion when an important battalion like that of the 1st Manchester only requires 50. I think it is obvious that a great many of these cadets are very young and cannot carry a large rifle, and to issue serviceable arms to boys of twelve and thirteen years of age, would be, in many cases, a waste of money.
  I am afraid the noble Earl may think that I have treated him somewhat unsympathetically and given him little encouragement, but what little hope of assistance I can hold out I have kept to the last. The noble Earl has pointed out that these lads, after leaving cadet battalions, join the military forces of the country. The military authorities will, I feel sure, be prepared to go a long way in assisting these cadet corps if they can be assured that they tend to increased efficiency of the forces, and especially of the regular forces. Some of these boys join various branches of the service, but we are particularly interested to find out how many join the regular army. I have the figures of one battalion. During the eighteen mouths ended September, 1902, 301 recruits who had been members of cadet battalions joined the regular army. I have no returns with regard to other battalions. We understand that these boys who had gone straight into the regular army have proved smart, and very quickly become efficient soldiers; and it will be a matter for the consideration of the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief whether or not it will be possible to offer a bounty on every boy who goes into the regular army. That bounty would be paid to the corps, and would be a set-off against
  1312
  the expenses incurred. I think the noble Lord may entertain some hope that something of the kind may be done.

  THE RE-STOCKING OF SOUTH AFRICA.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps, if any, are being taken to improve and increase the stock of cattle and horses in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies. Your Lordships are, of course, aware that in consequence of the war a vast number of cattle and horses have been destroyed, and I suspect that the breeding establishments out there have become disorganised, if not completely destroyed. This is a question of the greatest importance to the prosperity of the new Colonies, and I desire to ascertain from the Government what steps they propose to take to restock the country with a proper supply of cattle and horses, and whether they have come to any decision as to the particular breeds of cattle best adapted to the climatic and other conditions of South Africa. Those conditions may make it necessary to import cattle from Australia and other parts of the world, but I venture to hope it may be found that there are hardy breeds at home, such as Herefords, available for the purpose. For some years past, cattle and horse diseases have been rife in South Africa, and it would be interesting to know what steps the Government have taken, or are going to take, to check, if not to thoroughly extirpate, these diseases. It is, of course, impossible to expect, owing to the disturbed condition of the country, that there should be an efficient Department such as our Board of Agriculture at home, but we should like to know what steps the Government propose to take to deal with this question. It is obvious that it will be necessary, for the prosperity of the new Colonies, to set up breeding establishments for horses. The native horses have been to a large extent exterminated, but I have no doubt that among the horses imported during the war there are many that would make excellent brood mares. I doubt, however, whether there is any adequate supply of sires, and I should like to know if the Government have any intention of importing or of encouraging the importation of sufficient stallions to secure a good breed
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, this matter has been brought to the notice of the Colonial Office, and by the Colonial Office to the notice of Lord Milner, through the Board of Agriculture, who have been in communication with some of the leading breeders of cattle and horses. Some generous and spontaneous offers have been made, and Lord Coventry has been good enough to say he will do what he can to assist the Department in improving the breed of cattle in South Africa. The noble Lord has correctly stated that a large amount of disease is prevalent in the new Colonies. Unfortunately, South Africa is a prey to all sorts of cattle diseases; but as the stock has been considerably reduced by the war, the moment seems to be propitious for concentrated efforts to stamp out these diseases, if not altogether, at any rate in certain quarters. The Government are considering whether they should not send out bacteriological experts to inquire into some of these diseases, which are little known anywhere outside of South Africa. They may, as the result of their experience, be able to suggest some manner in which we should be able to cope with these diseases. That is the first step to be taken. It is not possible to establish a Board of Agriculture in the new Colonies, but it is the purpose of the Transvaal Government to establish without delay a Veterinary Department. The Government are endeavouring to prevent the decrease of the stock in the Colonies, and have passed an ordinance, both in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, making it a penal offence to slaughter and offer for sale a heifer or cow for two years to come. That will not prevent any one from using their own heifers or cows for food. By that means we hope to maintain the female cattle which were left after the war. We are now purchasing and importing from the neighbouring Colonies and Dependencies stock that are, to some extent, inured to South African diseases. We propose also to obtain stock from distant countries where similar diseases exist. An importer has been authorised to bring 500 cattle from Texas, where the disease known as red-water exists. They are to be kept for three months at the importer's risk, in small lots in different parts of the new Colonies, and if at the end of that
  1314
  Period they seem to be inured to this disease, they will be taken over by the Government. I hope that before long a certain number of bulls will be imported from England. We do not think that cows would be of much use, but Hereford or Shorthorn bulls might be imported. I am happy to say that this is likely to be done, not by the Government, but by private enterprise. As to sheep, we are importing a large number of Australian sheep and some English rams. Then with regard to horses, we have retained from amongst the horses the War Office no longer require, 1,500 specially selected mares, and we have also purchased a certain number of stallions, fifteen in all, including six English, two having won Queen's prizes at Islington, one from Argentina, and six Arabs. We have ordered a further twenty-five from Australia. Besides these matters, it is proposed to establish experimental farms, and it is intended by these to show the Boer farmers how to combat the diseases incidental to the climate of South Africa. I hope that as a result of these experiments, which will not be costly, we shall be able before long to considerably improve and increase the stock of cattle and horses in the new Colonies.

  BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION
  LORD WELBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the statement made by the Prime Minister that the Law Officers of the Crown in 1880 gave an opinion to the effect that to impose a countervailing duty in order to neutralise a foreign bounty on sugar would be contrary to the most-favoured-nation Clause in existing commercial treaties, whether His Majesty's Government, before advising His Majesty to ratify the Brussels Convention, will lay before Parliament information showing:—

  (a) what countries are engaged in the Production of sugar.

  (b) Which of the countries in list (a) have commercial treaties with the United

  Kingdom containing a most-favoured-nation Clause.

  (c) Which of the countries contained in list (b) are not parties to the Brussels Convention.

  1315

  (d) What is the annual value of the exports from the United Kingdom to each of the countries in list in the last five years.

  Of course, the opinion of the law officers is in no sense a declaration of law; it is only advice given to the Government of the day. But the law officers who, in 1880, gave that opinion were men of great legal repute—namely, Lord James of Hereford, and the late Lord Herschell, and no doubt foreign powers who are interested in the question will take full advantage of their admission. I full recognise the importance of the answer given by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons to the effect that the present law officers do not share the view of the law officers of 1880, but assuming that the opinion of the law officers of 1880 is correct the question will seriously affect English trade, which to a great extent depends upon the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. I therefore appeal to the noble Marquess whether before the time arrives for the ratification of the Convention, he can lay before Parliament the information asked for in my Question.

  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE.
  My Lords, I understand that the argument of the noble Lord opposite is of this kind—that if we are to regard the opinion given by the law officers of the Crown in 1880 as still holding the field, we should thereby be precluded from imposing countervailing duties upon bounty fed sugar entering this country from other countries with which we have commercial treaties containing the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. The form of the Return for which the noble Lord has moved suggests the idea that if that be the case we should be exposed to reprisals on a large scale at the hands of foreign Powers, with the result that our commerce might be very seriously checked. I think the Return is intended to show what the extent of that check might be. I can state in half-a-dozen words why it is that we are not deterred by these apprehensions. A good deal has happened since 1880. I think I am not wrong in saying that public opinion, both at home and abroad, with regard to the obligations imposed by the
  1316
  Most-Favoured-Nation Clause has undergone very considerable change; and I am also confident that I am not incorrect when I say that legal opinion upon the same subject has meanwhile undergone considerable modifications. Perhaps I should say rather that it is not so much legal opinion that has changed as the circumstances of the case, which have justified our legal advisers in giving advice of a different kind from that which was tendered to the Government of 1880. Since 1880 there have been what I may call two important leading cases bearing upon this subject. There was, in the first place, that of the United States of America, when they in 1897 resorted to the imposition of countervailing duties upon bounty fed sugar. The imposition of those duties involved the United States Government in considerable controversy with the Government of Russia, but the United States Government successfully maintained their rights. Two years later the Government of India found it necessary to impose countervailing duties on bounty fed sugar. At that time the Government of the day obtained the advice of high legal authorities both in India and in India and in this country, and that advice was to the effect that these duties did not involve an infraction of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause in commercial treaties.
  I think I may say that the most instructive instance of all is the conduct during the present year of the Powers who were represented at the Conference at Brussels. At the Conference of 1888 the Powers thought it necessary to insert in the Convention then agreed to, but not ratified, an article pledging them not to render nugatory the penal Clause against bounty fed sugar to which they had agreed by any appeal to the privileges conferred by the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. On the occasion of the recent Conference—the Conference of 1902—the Powers, with all those facts before them, deliberately came to the conclusion that the insertion of such an article was not necessary; I think, therefore, we may regard these Powers as deeply committed to the view that the imposition of countervailing duties or the prohibition of bounty fed sugar does not involve an infraction of the commercial treaties. As far as signatory Powers represented

  1317
  at the Brussels Conference are concerned it seems to me there can be no question as to their attitude. Then there are the remaining non-signatory Powers, of whom there are. I believe, altogether twenty-one, but a great number of these Powers do not occupy any very important position as producers or exporters of sugar. I find that of the whole twenty-one only six send sugar into this country. They are Argentina, Columbia, Mexico, Denmark, Russia, and the United States. The last two are the most important. So far as the United States are concerned, I do not believe it is unreasonable to contend that they are absolutely committed by their action in 1897 in insisting on the imposition of countervailing duties themselves. I do not see how they can possibly adopt any other policy. There remains Russia. I do not think the Russian Government can have any ground of complaint of the manner in which they have been treated in this matter. Russia did not think fit to be represented at the Brussels Conference; and in the, year 1899, when the Government of India resorted to countervailing duties, it was, in the course of a diplomatic correspondence which then took place, fully and clearly explained to the Russian Government that we claimed the right of imposing those duties and did not admit that their imposition involved an infraction of the most-favoured nation Clause. No reply was received to that representation. We thought it, however, not unreasonable to inform the Russian Government that, if they considered themselves aggrieved by what had taken place, we had no objection to denouncing our commercial treaty with them; and that offer has lately been renewed in consequence of what took place at the Brussels Convention. Therefore, if I may say so, I do not think there is any cause for apprehension of these wholesale reprisals, the expectation of which seems to be in the mind of the noble Lord opposite. We at any rate shall not be deterred by any fear of such reprisals. With regard to the return for which the noble Lord has asked, we are, of course, quite ready to afford any information which may be instructive to the public upon so important a subject: but I can hol
  1318
  out no hope that the information which the return is likely to disclose will deter us from advising his Majesty to ratify the treaty at the proper moment. There is a slight change in the form of the Return which I shall suggest privately to the noble Lord, but we shall be glad to give him substantially the information for which he asks.

  WESTMINSTER ABBEY—SUPPOSED ILLEGAL ORNAMENTS
  *LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty 's Government whether they are aware that there has been erected in Westminster Abbey a stone altar and a crucifix, together with two figures of saints, at the shrine of Edward the Confessor; and to ask who is responsible for their erection; and whether His Majesty's Government are prepared, if such erection is illegal, to correct this abuse of authority.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR): As regards the first part of the Question, I can only give the answer which has been given in another place, and that is that the stone altar and the sculptured group, consisting of a crucifix and figures, were removed to their present position at the shrine of Edward the Confessor on the sole authority and on the responsibility of the Dean and Chapter. It is not a matter with which His Majesty's Government have anything to do. The latter part of the Question touches a legal point which I have the Lord Chancellor's permission to leave to him.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): As to the legal side of the Question, the noble Lord must be aware that in the present state of the law any three male persons of full age living in a diocese who have any reason to complain of any new ornament being placed in a church or cathedral, have the right to appeal to the Bishop of the diocese. It is certainly not part of the duty of His Majesty's Government to inquire whether each ornament introduced into a church is

  1319
  illegal. I do not know whether this ornament is illegal or not. It is a delicate matter which may come before me judicially to determine. Speaking generally, it is not illegal to have ornamentation of this kind. I would remind the noble Lord of the decision in the case of Allcroft v. the Bishop of London. In that case the allegation was that—
  The Dean and Chapter of the Cathedra1 Church of St. Paul have introduced into the said Cathedral Church and set up upon the altarpiece or reredos therein an image or sculptured subject, representing our Lord upon the Cross, in a conspicuous position, immediately above the Communion Table, the figure of Our Lord being of the height of 5 ft, or thereabouts. The said image or sculptured subject is constructed so as to have the appearance of such an altar crucifix as was used in the Church of England immediately before the Reformation, and so far as to answer the purposes for which such a crucifix was intended. The said Dean and Chapter have introduced into the said Cathedral Church and set up upon the said altarpiece or reredos therein an image or sculptured subject representing the Blessed Virgin Mary with the Child in her arms, in a conspicuous position, a few feet above the image or sculptured subject, the figure of the Blessed Virgin being of the height of 5 feet 6 inches.
  In that case it was held that the Bishop had acted within his jurisdiction and exercised the discretion vested in him; that whether the reasons he gave were good or bad the Bishop, having considered all the circumstances which appeared to him, honestly exercising his judgment, to bear upon the particular case, his reasons could not be reviewed; and there was no ground for a mandamus. The noble Lord who has asked this question seems to assume that such sculptured subjects are illegal. No such proposition can be maintained for a moment. A matter of this kind requires careful examination; the noble Lord, however, has said nothing on such a point as to whether the group is made the subject of idolatrous worship. The Government have no reason to suppose the group is illegal, and if it were illegal it could properly be made the subject of complaint by three persons, as I have pointed out, under the Public Worship Act, and the question would then be determined in due course of law.
  House adjourned at Seveno'clock, till Tomorrow, Six o'clock.