Sitting of 17 December 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the County of Cambridge (Eastern or Newmarket Division), in

1467
the room of Colonel Harry Leslie Blundell M'Calmont, C. B., deceased.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)

PETITIONS.
  DESTITUTE ALIENS.
  Petitions for legislation: from Stepney (two); Stepney Green (three); Mile End; Bethnal Green; Commercial Road, East (four); Victoria Park; Stoke Newington; Upper Clapton; Old Ford; and Poplar; to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Ferry; and, Port on Craig; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Stoke St. Michael, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Ramsey, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  Copies presented, of Orders made by the various County and County Borough Councils in England and Wales under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT, 1894 AND 1896.
  Copy presented, of an Order, dated 9th December, 1902, relative to the landing in Great Britain of animals from the steamship "Fremona" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CASUALTIES TO SHIPS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 24th March; Mr. Lough]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 404.]
  NAVY (SHIPS' BOILERS).
  Further Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 13th May; Lord Charles Beresford]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 405.]

  POST OFFICE (PRESS TELEGRAMS BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND SWEDEN).
  Copy presented, of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Sweden for
  1468
  the exchange of Press Telegrams at reduced rates [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report, No. 375 (Gold Coast, Annual Report for 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Copy presented, of Return of all Loans raised in India, chargeable on the revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending on the 30th September, 1902, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 406.]
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the nine months ending 30th September, 1902, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers, Assistant Inspecting Officers, and Sub-Inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  COUNTY BOROUGHS (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 14th November; Mr. O'Doherty]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 407.]
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888 (RULES).
  Copy of Rules under Section 89 (3) of the Local Government Act, 188S.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return ordered, "showing under county boroughs and administrative counties, for each public elementary school receiving an income from school pence, the name and denomination of the school, and the religious denomination, if any, with which it is connected,

  1469
  and the amount received from school pence for the year ended the 31st day of August, 1902 (in continuation of the first, second, fourteenth, and fifteenth columns of Parliamentary Paper [C. 315], of Session 1900)."—(Mr. Bryce.)

QUESTIONS AND NSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Royal Engineer Officers.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that officers in the Royal Engineers have to serve eleven years after receiving their first commission before they attain the rank of Captain, and that they must he thirty years of age before attaining that rank, and seeing that this term of service as a junior officer is longer than is required in other branches of the service, he will consider the advisability of shortening the period for the Royal Engineers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The whole question is at present receiving my attention.

  Island of Lewis and Ross-shire—Epidemic Sickness.
  MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty): To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the number of public schools in the Island of Lewis which have been closed during the year on account of typhus or typhoid fever or other epidemics, and the period during which each school has remained closed.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The schools in the Island of Lewis closed since 1st January, 1902, on account of epidemic sickness, were as follows:—Stornoway, Aird Public School, March 7th to July 14th; Stornoway, Tolsta Public School, July 3rd—still closed; Stornoway, Knock Public School (Junior Section only), August 25th to September 15th; Stornoway, Bayble Public School (Junior Section only), August 23rd to September 8th; Barvas, Lionel Public School, April 9th to June 2nd; Barvas, Cross Public School, January 1st to February 18th; Barvas, Shawbost Public School, January 1st to March 24th; Barvas, Airidh-an-tuim Public School, January 1st to February 19th; Uig, Carloway Public School, January 1st to January 6th.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the report of the South Western District Committee for Ross and Cromarty, dated 26th July last, shows that there were several cases of typhoid fever and other infectious diseases in the district during the year, some of which proved fatal, will he state to what cause these outbreaks are attributable; were any public schools in the district closed on account of these outbreaks of disease; if so, how many, and for how long a period did each school remain closed.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am informed by the Local Government Board that the medical officer of the county is of opinion that the outbreak is traceable to the insanitary condition of a house in Loch Carron. The Secretary for Scotland is taking steps to secure fuller information. The schools closed during the year ended 31st July, 1902, in the district referred to were Kintail, Dornie Public School, about two months; Lochalsh, J. Earbusaig, about two months; Loch Carron, Strome, about two and a half weeks.

  Fishermen's Dwellings at Stornoway.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the whole of the twenty-nine quarter-acre sites for fishermen's dwellings near Stornoway have been applied for; have any sites yet been allotted; if so, how many.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am at present unable to furnish the hon. Member with any additional information to that contained in my Answer to his similar Question of 20th November,† and I regret that, as no notice of this Question has been given, I have been unable to obtain what further information, if any, may now exist.

  Port Ness Harbour.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, whether Mr. William Shield, who has been deputed to report on the condition of the harbour at Port Ness, Island of Lewis, has yet decided on a date on which he will visit the island.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) Mr. Shield has already visited Port Ness, and is engaged in preparing his report.
  † See (4) Debates, cxv., 21

  Island of Lewis—Continuation Classes.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, if he will state the names of any public schools in the Island of Lewis outside the burgh of Stornoway at which continuation classes are held.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) Up to the present date no proposals have been received from managers of schools for the recognition of classes under the Continuation Class Code during the current Session in any part of the Island of Lewis outside the burgh of Stornoway.

  Irish County and Borough Sheriffs.
  Sir JAMES HASLETTTo ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether, seeing that the high sheriff for a county in Ireland receives payment to cover to some extent his outlay in attending judges of assize, while high sheriffs of county boroughs do not receive any such payment, he will take steps to place the latter on the same footing in this respect.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) It has already been decided that the provision made by Parliament in respect of certain expenses of the high sheriffs of counties could not be extended to county boroughs. The law in regard to the shrievalty of counties and boroughs is widely different. In the former case the person appointed is obliged to accept office or, on refusal, to incur a heavy penalty. In the latter it is specifically provided by Section 7 of the Municipal Privileges (Ireland) Act, 1876, that the person appointed may decline to serve without incurring any penalty.

  Greencastle (Donegal) Postal Arrangements.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been directed to a memorial from the inhabitants of Greencastle district, County Donegal, requesting the substitution of a mail car for the present service by foot postmen, and will he state how much extra such service would cost his Department; and whether, in view of the importance of this district as a summer seaside resort, he can comply with the prayer of the memorial.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The memorial referred to has not yet
  1472
  reached me, but I will make inquiry respecting the postal service in the Greencastle district, County Donegal, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  London General Post Office—Alleged Insanitary Condition.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Postmaster General if he has now received the Report of Home Office Inspectors on the alleged insanitary condition of the General Post, Office, East, referred to in his reply to the sorters' memorial; and whether the nature of that Report can be made public.
  (Answered by Mr Austen, Chamberlain.)The Report has not been received, but I will make inquiry on the subject.

  Travelling Post Office Officials.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Postmaster General if there is Treasury authority for paying the removal expenses of officers taking up duty on the Travelling Post Office with headquarters in the provinces; and whether it is the practice of the Department to pay such expenses.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I fear that I cannot, in an answer to a Question, give a full account of the regulations governing the payment of removal expenses; but, speaking generally, an allowance is made, subject to certain conditions, to an officer who is required to change his headquarters in the interests of the public service.

  West Indian Cane Sugar — Government Experiments.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar): To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Colonial Office will present to Parliament a, précis of the information collected and published by the Imperial Department of Agriculture for the West Indies relating to experiments with varieties of sugar cane, and to the chemical selection of sugar cane.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) Pamphlets giving summaries of the Reports referred to by the hon. Member

  1473
  are published by the Imperial Department of Agriculture for the West Indies, and can be purchased of Messrs. Dulau and Company, 37, Soho Square, for a few pence. It would therefore seem hardly worth while to publish them separately for Parliament. The question of whether these and similar publications cannot be made more widely known is under consideration.

  Police Sales of Lost Dogs.
  COLONEL LEGGE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that dogs lost in London are seized by the police and sold by auction; and will be state how often these auctions are held, whether notice of them is sent to owners who have reported the loss of dogs to the police, and to what purpose the money realised by these sales is applied.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I have called for a report from the police on the facts alleged in the case on which the hon. and gallant Member informs me he has based this Question. I will communicate with him further in the matter.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent sale by public auction in London of stolen dogs under the order of the Chief Commissioner of Police; will he say whether this order has received his sanction; whether, seeing that the dogs were found in the possession of a man who was convicted for having stolen them, will he say to what purpose the money derived from this sale has been appropriated; and whether he will consider the advisability of directing that all stolen dogs, as well as lost or strayed, which fall into the hands of the Metropolitan Police and remain unclaimed, should be sent to the Dogs' Home at Battersea.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I beg to refer to my answer on a similar Question put by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Georges, Hanover Square, and to promise a further communication.

  Prison Officers' Pensions.
  MR. JOHN HUTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will undertake that the memorial of the officers of His Majesty's prisons, praying for the special consideration of their terms of service for pensions be referred to the Royal Commission on Civil Service Superannuation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I will see that the case is brought to the notice of the Commission, but I cannot undertake to say to what extent they may be able to deal with it under their terms of reference.

  Betting Laws.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware of the increase in devices for evading the laws as to betting, and in inducements to enter into betting transactions by systems of credit accounts and by other contrivances now being scattered through the country; and whether he has considered, and proposes either to lay before Parliament legislation on the subject next Session, or to deal with the matter administratively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I am aware that the facilities for all kinds of betting are only too numerous Certain phases of the evil were dealt with in the Report of the recent Select Committee of the House of Lords, and it is a matter which deserves and is receiving careful consideration. I have no special powers of administration with regard to it, and I am not in a position to make a statement as to the prospect of legislation.

  Catterick (Yorkshire) Church Graveyard
  MR. JOHN HUTTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the church graveyard at Catterick, Yorkshire, has by order of the Local Government Board been closed for many months; and whether he will explain the delay in inspecting the proposed new burial ground.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) An Order in Council was made in March last

  1475
  closing the churchyard at Catterick from the 30th June, subject to certain specified exceptions. A site for a new burial ground had already been selected, but on the 19th of June I was informed by the Parish Council that the medical officer of health could not give a certificate as to its suitability. Application was subsequently made to me for approval of a new site and for sanction to a loan of £500 for the purpose of providing a new burial ground. The Parish Council had been made aware in February and March of the particulars which would be required to enable the case to be dealt with, but it was not until the middle of November that the complete information was furnished. A local inquiry was then directed, and the Parish Council were informed that it would be held as soon as the engagements of the inspectors would permit. The inquiry has now been fixed for the 30th of this month.

  Statue of James II. in Whitehall
  MR. BRYCE: To ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the First Commissioner of Works when it is intended to re-erect the statue of King James the Second, which used to stand in Whitehall Gardens, and more recently on the south-east side of Whitehall; and whether, in selecting a site for it, regard will be had to the desirability of placing it in an open space of suitable size, and in 'which it will not be dwarfed by the neighbouring buildings.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) It is not possible to re-erect the statue at this moment, as the garden is under repair. In selecting a site careful regard will be paid to the surroundings.

  Bushey Park—Concessions to Tramway Company.
  Mr. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will state the exact nature of the details of the exchange of land to the London United Tramways Company in connection with Bushey Park; whether he will state what His Majesty's Commissioner of Works is giving to the London United Tramways Company for the portion of Garrick's Villa land he is acquiring from the Tramways Company; and whether the addition to Bushey Park, if any, will be open to the public.
  1476
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) As the hon. Member was informed on the 7th November, there is no exchange of land to the London United Tramways Company. Nothing is to be given to the Company. The land to be added to the park will be thrown into that portion which is already set aside for the care of the deer.

  MR. Aldritt, Mayor of Tamworth—Removal from Office of Justice of the Peace.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield): To ask Mr. Attorney General if he can state the reasons for removing Mr. Aldritt, Mayor of Tamworth, from the office of Justice of the Peace.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) I am informed that the circumstances are as follows: In an action for slander, Ash-wood v. Aldritt, tried at the Birmingham Assizes on Tuesday, 5th August, 1902, arising out of words uttered in respect of an application to the Bench by the plaintiff for a licence, the judge left it to the jury to decide whether, in uttering the words complained of, Mr. Aldritt had been actuated by an honest desire to do his duty as a magistrate, or whether, influenced by some other motive, he had intended to injure the plaintiff. The jury found against Mr. Aldritt, a verdict with which the judge agreed.

  Coronation Specimen Coins.
  MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Coronation set of specimen coins were charged by the Mint at more than their face value; and, if so, what additional charge was made.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) With the approval of the Treasury, the prices charged to the public for specimen coins struck at the Mint, bearing His Majesty's effigy, are as follows: Face value £9 1s. 10d. Specimen coins: A, comprising five pound piece, two pound piece, sovereign, half sovereign, crown, half-crown, florin, shilling, sixpence, maundy fourpence, threepence, twopence, penny, without case, £10; with case, £10 6s. Face value, £2 1s. 10d.: B, comprising sovereign, half sovereign, crown, half-crown, florin, shilling, sixpence, maundy

  1477
  fourpence, threepence, twopence, penny, without case, £2 12s. 6d.; with case, £2 17s. 6d.

  Rifle Clubs and Gun Licences.
  CAPTAIN BOWLES: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if a licence has to be taken out for a rifle by a member of a rifle club under the National Rifle Association, only used at the club practices.
  (Answered by Mr Hayes Fisher.) Rifles owned by members of rifle clubs affiliated to the National Rifle Association, but used only on rifle ranges, will be exempted in future from gun licence duty, and no licence will be required in respect of them.

  Post Office Assistant Clerk's Pension.
  MR. SKEWES-COX (Surrey, Kingston): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that an assistant clerk of thirty-two years service has recently been retired from the General Post Office at the age of sixty-one years on a pension of less than 15s. a week; and will he, state the reasons for a pension of this amount being granted.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) If the hon. Member will send me particulars of the case to which he refers, I shall be happy to investigate it.

  New Questions Rule—Cost of Printing.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what has been the approximate cost of the printing of Answers to Questions since the new Rule came into force.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) Approximately, £2,300.

  Indian Auditor's Salary and Allowances.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he, will state the sums paid to the auditor of the Indian home accounts for salary and allowances respectively during the period that he has been in the India Audit Office; and what was the maximum salary to be paid to him under the conditions on which he entered.
  (Answered Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The present auditor's scale of salary
  1478
  on first appointment to the Audit Office in 1860 was £100, rising by £10 annually to £250; in 1863 his maximum salary was raised to £450. In December, 1868. he was made junior inspector, with the prospect of rising to £500, which was subsequently increased to £600, to which a personal allowance of £100 was added in 1882. In October, 1892, he was appointed assistant to the auditor, the scale of salary being £700, rising by £25 annually to £800, retaining his personal allowance. In January, 1895, he was appointed auditor, salary £1,000. The salary of the post was increased to £1,200 in February, 1900.

  Donegal and Londonderry County Boundaries.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the public boards interested in the proposed change of union boundaries in the counties of Donegal and Londonderry have informed the Local Government Board as to their views on the boundary question, and that the, County Donegal Boards have reiterated their opinion that an inquiry should be held by the Local Government Board into the proposed change, and whether, seeing that the Local Government Board some time ago informed the public boards in question that such an inquiry should be held, he will state when the inquiry will take place.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Local Government Board awaits an expression of opinion from the Londonderry County Council before taking further action in this matter.

  Marine Works on the Donegal Coast.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what works it is proposed to carry out on the Donegal coast under the provisions of the Marine Works Act; and whether he will state his decision as to the requests made to him for the construction of piers at Port Noo, Falchorrib, and Kincasslagh, and the improvement of the pier and harbour of Portnablagh.

  1479
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No, Sir. I hope to settle these questions during the month of January, when I shall be able to confer with private and public bodies who may be interested locally.

  Dunquin (Kerry) Pier.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when will the construction of the pier at Dunquin, county Kerry, be begun.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Congested Districts Board's steamer is lying off the coast awaiting an opportunity to land the material for building this pier.

  Land Judge's Court Fifth Return of Estates.
  MR. M'GOVERN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a fifth Return of Estates in the Land Judge's Court in Ireland ordered to be sold, in continuation of the Order of the House dated 2nd August, 1900, and will he direct that the name of the county or counties in which these estates are situate be inserted in the Return.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) A fifth Return is in preparation, and when settled will be laid upon the Table. These Returns are in strict conformity with the particulars required to be furnished by a statutory rule, dated 23rd February, 1897, in relation to proceedings under the fortieth Section of the Land Act of 1890.

  Irish National Schools—Teachers' Responsibility for Cleanliness of School Premises.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the circular issued in August last to teachers of National schools in Ireland, stating that the inspectors' reports as to the neatness and cleanliness of the school houses and premises would be taken into account in questions of the grant and teachers' salaries, implies that the teachers have a responsibility in seeing that their schools
  1480
  are kept neat and clean, even should that involve the outlay of money on their part.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) All teachers are enjoined to promote cleanliness and neatness in respect to the school premises as well as to the pupils. If any expense be incurred in complying with this requirement it must be defrayed locally, though not necessarily by the teachers.

  Lismore Workhouse Master.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the appointment of Mr. George M' Donald as Master of Lismore Workhouse has yet been sanctioned by the Local Government Board; what are the usual tests as to qualification imposed on persons elected to the position of workhouse master before the appointment is sanctioned; and whether the Local Government Board has been requested by the Lismore Board of Guardians to sanction Mr. M'Donald's appointment.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The appointment has not yet been sanctioned. Candidates for the position are required to possess an elementary knowledge of arithmetic and English composition. Mr. M 'Donald has recently been examined in these subjects, and the matter is under the Board's consideration. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the affirmative.

  Garrison and Field Artillery Officers—Length of Service for Promotion.
  MR. FIRIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the supersession of officers of the Garrison Artillery by officers of the Field Artillery who had joined the same regiment after them, and who were junior to them when on the same list prior to June, 1899, he will take steps, either by brevet or by some other means, to remedy this state of affairs.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Will the lion. Member kindly refer to my reply to a Question put by my hon. friend the Member for Cambridge on the 18th November on this subject?†
  † See (4) Debates, cxiv., 1233.

  Buncrana (Donegal) Military Barracks.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office have as yet finally selected the site for the proposed new Military Barracks at Buncrana, county Donegal; and, if so, when will the work of construction commence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This case is still presenting difficulties, and, in consequence, the land required for the barracks has not yet been acquired.

  Army Contracts for South Africa— Preference for Supplies from British Imperial Sources.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability, when making contracts for supplies to the Army in South Africa, of making it a condition that all such supplies shall as far as possible be obtained from Imperial British sources.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The matter has been already considered, and the following clause inserted in all local contracts commencing on 1st January, 1003, viz.:—All supplies delivered under this contract shall be obtained from British Imperial sources, unless special circumstances necessitate otherwise, when the matter must be reported fully, and special sanction obtained for delivery of articles from any outside source.

  South Africa—Railway Hates for Canteen Supplies.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the rates charged on the South African Government Bail ways for the conveyance of goods for the supply of the military canteens are considerably higher than those charged for the conveyance of stores required for the concentration camps; and will he consider the expediency of taking such steps as may be necessary to secure for military canteens the same rates as are accorded to stores for concentration camps; is he aware that the railway rates now charged for canteen stores are higher than those charged during the war; will he say to what extent the rates have been increased,
  1482
  on what ground the change was made, and on what date the new rates came into force.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The transit of canteen stores has been charged for by the Railway Companies since the 1st August last at ordinary public rates, which are from two to three times as great as the rates for military stores. Stores for concentration camps are charged for at the latter rates. (Jan-teen stores were charged for at these rates during the war. The rates on the Cape and Natal Railways are fixed by the Governments of those Colonies. The matter is still the subject of correspondence with South Africa.

  Army Annual Preliminary and General Returns.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for War what course he proposes to pursue as to the publication of the Army Annual Preliminary Return and the Army Annual General Return for each year ending 31st December, 1899, 1900, and 1901 respectively; and whether there is any precedent for the non-publication of the strength and distribution of the Army as given in these periodical Returns for the information of Parliament.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Annual Preliminary Returns and the Army Annual General Return for the year ending 31st December, 1902, may be expected to be presented to Parliament before going into committee of Supply on Army Estimates for 1903–1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The composition of the Army Annual General Return is at present being carefully considered, in view of the efforts now being made to cut down Returns generally. Further, it is very improbable that accurate figures can ever be given for the period covered by the war. There is no precedent for such non-publication, but no war of such magnitude or of so prolonged a character has occurred since the Return was originated.

  1483
  I may add that it is doubtful whether the Preliminary Return will be published in future.

  Army Reserve Statistics.
  MR. BECKETT: To ask the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the men annually enlisted pass annually into the Reserve on the completion of their term of service with the colours.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The percentage of the men annually unlisted who pass into the Reserve is as follows: Three years men, about 47 per cent.; seven years men, about 40 per cent.

  New Army Corps—Composition of Staffs.
  MR. BECKETT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the staff's of the six Army Corps are now complete.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The reply is in the negative. The Headquarters Staffs of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Army Corps will not be required until 1st April.

  Recent Explosion at Waltham Abbey.
  COLONEL LOCK WOOD (Essex, Epping): To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can give particulars of the recent explosion at Waltham Abbey whereby three lives were lost; and what compensation is due to the relatives of the deceased.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) A violent explosion occurred at 12.3 p.m., 15th December, in an incorporating machine which, so far as can be at present ascertained, was being charged with cordite modified paste. The man charging it was blown to pieces, and two other men were killed by falling débris, one just outside the incorporating bay and another in the engine room. The damage done is extensive, and immediate action is being taken to make this good. The question of compensation will be considered. It is impossible to state at present what will be granted.

  South Africa—:Clark's Siding Remount Farms.
  COLONEL WELBY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether
  1484
  he has yet received replies to his inquiries regarding the leasing of the Remount Farms at Clark's Siding, South Africa, and the private uses to which they were put; if not, when he expects to be able to communicate the result of those inquiries.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) No Report has as yet been received. I will press for a reply.

  South Africa Field Force Canteen Contracts.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the name of the authorities in South Africa by whom contracts for the supply of excisable liquors to the Field Force Canteen at Pretoria have been made since the termination of the war.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The general officer commanding is responsible for such contracts.

  Education Bill—Parliamentary Grants due before "Appointed Day".
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, Will the remainder of the school grants held by the managers of voluntary schools, have to be paid over to the local authority when the Education Bill comes into operation, or whether the annual grant has been forwarded to the managers as the result of past work.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) No part of any Parliamentary grant held by the managers of a voluntary school will have to be paid over by them to the local education authority when the Bill comes into operation. Parliamentary grants payable in respect of a period before the appointed day will be paid, and must be applied, in accordance with Schedule 2 (12) of the Bill.

  Education?—Inspector's Examinations of Individual Scholars.
  MR. NICHOLSONTo ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will consider the desirability of so amending the instructions to His Majesty's inspectors as to admit of an examination of individual scholars being held by one of His Majesty's inspectors,

  1485
  where such an examination is desired as a test of efficiency by the School Board or the authority responsible for the teaching of that school, and the inspector is willing to undertake such examination.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The instructions relating to examination will be carefully considered before the next issue of the revised instructions.

  Mediterranean Squadron — Ranking of Inspectors of Machinery.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean station has laid it down that, for purposes of official entertainments, engineer officers of the rank of inspectors of machinery shall rank with commanders in command; and whether, in view of the fact that, according to the King's and Admiralty instructions, inspectors of machinery have the relative rank of captain, he will take steps to ensure that these officers shall not lie for social purposes degraded below their proper rank.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster) The Admiralty are still without information on this subject. The Commander-in-Chief Mediterranean, was communicated with about a fortnight ago, but his reply has not yet been received, though it is now daily expected.

  Government Dockyard Employees—Imperial Service Medal.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Portsmouth): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to make the grant of medals to employees in His Majesty's Dockyards retrospective, in any degree, as regards those who have already retired on pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The regulations under which the Imperial service medal will be awarded provided that only those retiring from the service of the Crown subsequently to the 8th August last shall be eligible for the award of the medal. These regulations apply not only to dockyard employees, but to all other servants of the Crown.

  Devonport Dockyard—Discharges of Workmen.
  MR. LOCKIE (Devonport): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that about eighty men have been discharged from the Works Department of Devonport Dockyard, with one week's notice; and whether, in view of the decision of the Admiralty regarding the employees in His Majesty's Dockyard at Woolwich, that the discharges should not take place till April, instructions will be sent to the authorities at Devonport postponing the discharges till April, 1903,
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The facts are as stated in the lion. Member's Question. The men referred to were taken on for particular works, which have been executed by direct employment of labour; the works having been completed, it is necessary to discharge the men. Such discharges are incidental to the completion of all large works, whether executed by direct labour or by contract, and it is impracticable to avoid them in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.

  Central Telegraph Office—Extra Duties.
  MAJOR EVANS-GORDON: To ask the Post master General whether the Staff of the Central Telegraph Office have recently had a duty imposed upon them that extends from 11 p. m. to 7 a. m. one week, and from 7 a. m. to 2 p. m. the week following, and whether forty-two hours night duty is equivalent to forty-eight hours day duty: and whether, in view of Section 2 of the references to hours of work in the Tweedmouth Committee Report, and the assurances given to this House that the decisions of the Tweedmouth Committee would be adopted, he intends to continue the duty.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) This matter is already receiving attention, and my decision upon it shall be given as soon as possible.

  Poor Law Schools—Women Inspectors.
  MR. ASHTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a number of children, particularly

  1487
  girls, chargeable to various unions in the country are placed out by guardians in certified poor law schools over which the guardians have no control, and that many unions have passed resolutions in favour of the appointment of women (Local Government Board) inspectors for the inspection of such children; and will he state whether he can see his way to appoint women inspectors for this purpose.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long) I am aware of the matters mentioned in the first part of the Question. Certified poor law schools are visited by the General Inspectors of the Local Government Board. In the metropolitan district these schools are also visited by a lady inspector, but I have not found it practicable to extend this arrangement to the rest of the country.

  Venezuela—The "Ban Righ."
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the Under Secretary of State or Foreign Affairs whether any complaints or claims have been made to His Majesty's Government by the Government of Venezuela as to the failure of British authorities to prevent the sailing of the "Ban Righ "; and as to the losses caused by that steamer; if so, whether he has any official information showing the damage and loss caused by the operations of the "Ban Righ"; and whether the Venezuela Government have asked for arbitration as to such complaints and claims.
  (Answered by Lord Uranborne.) Complaints have on several occasions been addressed to His Majesty's Minister at Caracas by the Venezuelan Government on the subject of the "Ban Righ" in respect of the particulars mentioned by the lion. Gentleman, and they have reserved their light to claim at a future time compensation for damages alleged to have been caused by the vessel. With regard to the two last Questions, the answer is in the negative.

  British Cemetery at Corfu.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government is aware that a contract has
  1488
  been signed by the Greek authorities at Corfu, selling to a Franco-Belgian Company the British cemetery at Corfu, to be used as the site for building a gambling casino; and what steps have been taken to maintain the treaty stipulations confirming to His Majesty's Government the property of the British cemeteries in the Ionian Islands and to preserve the cemetery in question from desecration.
  (Answered, by Lord, Cranborne.) This matter is receiving careful attention. The site of the British cemetery has not been transferred, but it is understood that a company desire to acquire it for the purpose of building baths and a casino Gambling houses are forbidden by Greek law. A special Report on the whole question is expected within the next few days, on receipt of which the points raised in the latter part of the Question will be duly considered. The greatest care will be taken to prevent any action offensive to the very natural feelings which have been aroused by the use it has been proposed to make of these cemeteries.

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Venezuela—Anglo-German Naval Action — Present Position.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will make to this House a statement similar to that apparently made yesterday in another place by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the question of Venezuela; and whether he has any further information of any kind on the subject to communicate to the House.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am not aware that my noble friend made anything that can be called a statement in the other House. He did answer a Question put to him as to the course this country would adopt in case the seizure of Venezuelan gunboats proved insufficient to bring the present controversy to an end. I am perfectly ready to answer that Question in this House, although I think that by implication it is already answered in the Blue-book which is in the hands of hon. Members;

  1489
  and I rather think that I myself have given an answer by anticipation in the observations I made in debate two nights ago. At all events, the answer is perfectly explicit. Supposing that the seizure of the Venezuelan gunboats has not the result we all hope it will have, it will be necessary to proceed to a blockade. The blockade, of course, will be carried on by us and by Germany; but it will be carried on by the fleets of the two Powers as regards different portions of the coast, and though the fleets will be acting with the same object, they will not be acting as one force. We have no intention, and have never had any intention, of landing troops in Venezuela or of occupying territory, even though that occupation might only be of a temporary character. We do not think that would be desirable, either on military or on any other grounds.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: When will the notification of the blockade be published, so that the Powers may be aware under what circumstances and in what manner the blockade will be enforced? I would also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will place the House and the country in possession of the communications that have passed between His Majesty's Government and the United States of America, both antecedent to the intervention and sub sequently, so that we may know really how we stand in reference to the Government of the United States?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I also ask whether the Government, before deciding to institute this blockade, have considered and finally disposed of and removed the objections to such a blockade stated by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his communication to the Admiralty on October 22nd?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The whole matter, of course, has been very carefully considered, and all the conditions governing such a blockade have been drawn up and will be published in due time for the information of neutrals; but, without going into details, the Government are most anxious that these operations, the necessity for which we of course
  1490
  deeply regret, shall be as little inconvenience to neutral Towers as they can possibly be made. Papers are being prepared as rapidly as they can be, and they will, no doubt, include the papers the right hon. Gentleman opposite desires—at least, I assume so.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I assume that no difference will be made between the vessels of one neutral Power and those of another?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly, no difference will be made.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Have the United States consented to the blockade?
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I might put that question in a more specific way. Statements having appeared in Germany, which are believed in Germany, to the effect that the United States have declined to submit to the position of neutrals on the ground that there is no such thing as a pacific blockade, and that there are here no belligerents; have such representations been received here from the United States?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's Question, he refers to a controversy as to whether there can or cannot be such a thing in international law as a pacific blockade.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: That is, pacific according to the American view communicated to Germany yesterday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is very likely that the United States Government will think there can be no such thing as a pacific blockade, and I personally take the same view. Evidently a blockade does involve a state of war.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether there is any prospect of recovering the cost of these operations from the individuals on whose behalf they are undertaken?
  Mr. MACVEAGH: Will the light hon. Gentleman state the total

  1491
  amount of the British claims against Venezuela, and the approximate total cost of the present expedition?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is perfectly impossible to answer Questions like that without notice; but I may repeat the observation which I made the other night, that these operations are not undertaken in order to recover the debts of bondholders. They have been undertaken most reluctantly, and after long and patient delay, because the Venezuelans assaulted British citizens and seized British ships.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet learned what he did not seem to be quite sure of the other night—namely, whether the Germans, who are acting in this matter, have any grievance against the Venezuelans, except such grievances as arise out of their financial claims?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, I believe they have.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether the United States have assented to a blockade, which, as suggested by His Majesty's Government, would exclude United States vessels?
  *MR. CREMER: May I ask whether any further efforts have been made, or any suggestions or proposals received, from either His Majesty's Government, the United States Government, or the Government of Venezuela, as to settling the whole matter in dispute by arbitration?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I answered that Question most fully in the speech I made two days ago. The Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Louth, does not arise when you are in a state of war with a third party.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: A state of war! Has war been declared?
  MR. A J. BALFOUR: Does the hon. and learned gentleman suppose that without a state of war you can take the ships of another Power and blockade its ports?
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. gentleman say whether the offer of
  1492
  arbitration made on behalf of Venezuela will be accepted by His Majesty's Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I can make no statement.
  *MR. CREMER: What I desire to ascertain from the Prime Minister is whether any further efforts have been made in the direction of arbitration since the right hon. Gentleman's speech of two days ago.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. Nothing has occurred relevant to that particular inquiry since I last spoke on the subject.

  Glen of Imaal Artillery Camp—Forage Contract.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether foreign hay is being supplied to the artillery camp in the Glen of Imaal, county Wicklow; if so, can he state the names of the contractors and the period for which the contract has been made; whether tenders for the contract were invited by advertisement in the Wicklow or other Irish papers; and whether the forage contractors resident in the district of Imaal were given any opportunity of tendering for the supply of hay to the camp.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The camp is not at present occupied, and therefore no hay is being supplied to it. In readiness for the last training the General Officer Commanding Curragh obtained tenders and made contracts for the supplies required for a period of about four months. The forage contractor was Mr. P. Fitzgerald. I am not aware whether the requirements were advertised.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where Mr. Fitzgerald resides?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I cannot, but I should judge from his name that he is an Irishman.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: But he does not live in Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No.
  MR. NANNETTI: Why was not this contract advertised in the Dublin papers? Is it not usual to do so?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, but in this case it was not thought necessary.
  MR. NANNETTI: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are so advertised in the future?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I see no reason to change the existing system, which has been followed with advantage for many years.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Was the lowest tender accepted?
  MR. WYNDHAM: That is the usual practice. If the lowest tender were passed over it would be because it was thought the tenderer would not be able to carry it out.
  MR. NANNETTI: Will the right hon. gentleman take care that the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons is enforced in these cases, so that there shall be no exploiting of cheap labour?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.
  MR. TULLY: Was the advertisement sent to the Freeman's Journal?
  MR. NANNETTI: Send it to Tully's paper.

  1st Inniskilling Fusiliers—Return Home.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether there is any early prospect of further troops coming back from Africa; if so, whether the 1st Battalion of Inniskilling Fusiliers, sent for a further period of service in Cape Colony, are to be kept at Middle-burg; and whether, seeing that this regiment has been fighting in Natal and
  1494
  afterwards in the Transvaal, and has had 12 officers and 192 non-commissioned officers and men killed in action, and that the 2nd Battalion of the regiment is now at Mafeking, and that this is the only regiment since the peace which has both battalions in Africa, will he state how long will the 1st Battal on of the Inniskillings be kept at Middleburgh; and will he explain why have they been sent to this station, and on what principle has an Irish regiment been selected for so much duty, seeing that the Guards and other English regiments were allowed home soon after the peace.
  MR. BRODRICK: Will the hon. and learned Member kindly refer to my reply to a Question put on this subject by the hon. Member for Midlothian on the 27th ultimo?†
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The explanation was so unsatisfactory that I thought it necessary to repeat the Question. I think the Irish. Members are entitled to some explanation of the exceptional treatment meted out to this Irish regiment.
  MR. BRODRICK: All regiments are treated exactly on the same footing. There is not the smallest desire to treat this regiment unfairly.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then why is it that both battalions of this regiment have been sent to the most unpleasant places in South Africa, after hundreds of the men have been killed and wounded in the war, while the English Guards were allowed to come home?
  MR. BRODRICK: A good many officers would prefer to have both battalions in South Africa.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: But this regiment has been sent to the most unhealthy and unpleasant places in South Africa. It is their reward for valour.

  Boer War Prisoners—Case of De Haas.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, † See (4) Debates, cxv., 616.

  1495
  whether he will explain why a naturalised burgher of the late South African Republic, named De Haas, who was a stationmaster on the Pretoria railway, and who was never on commando during the late war, but who was sent as a prisoner to St. Helena, is now being deported to Holland; and can he say why he is not being returned to South Africa with the other prisoners of war who are being repatriated.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,for Mr. J. Chamberlain): The prisoner of war who appears to be referred to, is reported as being of foreign nationality, not a naturalised burgher. He is consequently not entitled under the terms of surrender to be returned to South Africa.

  Prize Firing in the Navy.
  MR. YERBURGH (Chester): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in "Notes of Naval Progress," July, 1902, published at the Government printing office in Washington, it is stated that the Return of the annual prize firing with heavy guns of the Channel Fleet ships has been published, and the results of the competition are given; whether, as this information is in the hands of a foreign Government, the Admiralty will place the said Return, and the Returns of the annual prize firing with heavy guns for 1901 in the other squadrons, in the hands of members of the House of Commons; and whether they will also grant Returns of the annual prize firing for 1901 of the various squadrons with light quick-firing guns.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): Yes, Sir. I am aware that a report of the nature referred to, having reference to the firing of one portion of the Fleet, viz., the Channel Fleet, was published as stated. The same Return has also appeared in the Press in this country. The particulars, both with regard to the Channel and other Squadrons, are not for sale as ordinary Papers, but are regarded by the Admiralty as being for the information of the officers of the Navy, and it is not considered desirable to publish them in the form of a Return.
  MR. YERBURGH: May I ask why these particular figures should be accessible to foreign nations, and not to the House of Commons?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The figures relate to a particular squadron. It is unfortunate that they should be accessible to foreign nations. Similar figures in the ease of foreign countries are in no case accessible to us. The proper course would seem to be to prevent them becoming accessible to foreign countries in future.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in 1901, at the annual prize firing of the various squadrons, forty-six ships did not fire at all, among them being two Admirals' ships, the "Revenge" and the "Royal Arthur"; and will he state whether it is obligatory upon ships to take part in the prize firing, and, if so, will he explain why these ships failed to do so.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The reply to the first two inquiries is in the affirmative. The reasons which prevent any particular ship from taking part in the annual prize firing are always reported to the Admiralty, and are carefully considered. In the cases referred to by my hon. friend the reasons given were satisfactory, the ships concerned being principally those employed on special duties in connection with the South African War and the voyage of the "Ophir," or newly commissioned ships which only proceeded to their station during the year.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that of the 127 ships that took part in the annual prize firing of 1901, while one ship made over 70 per cent, of hits and two ships made over 65 per cent, of hits, seventy-five ships missed the target eighty-five times out of every 100 rounds, and five ships never hit the target at all, and that one Admirals ship, the "Warspite," was last of its squadron in heavy gun firing; and will he state how many of the Admirals' ships were among the class that missed the target

  1497
  twice out of every three rounds, and what were the names of these ships; and can he say whether the Admiralty propose to take any steps to deal with this inefficiency in gunnery.
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: The attention of the Board was drawn to the results of prize firing in the ordinary course, but these results do not agree with the figures given in the Question. Prize firing in the Navy is, and must essentially be, a competition between guns of the same nature in individual ships, and not between different ships carrying varying armaments and firing under dissimilar conditions of wind, weather, light, and sea. A comparison of the latter nature would inevitably be misleading. For these reasons a comparison between the results obtained on the "Warspite" and those obtained on other ships in the Pacific Squadron and elsewhere would not be conclusive. On the receipt of the return of prize tiring on each ship, the Admiralty take such immediate action as may be considered necessary after duly considering the circumstances of the individual case, and in forming their opinion they have the advantage of full knowledge of all the circumstances. It is, therefore, not considered necessary to call public attention to special ships, as, by so doing, incorrect opinions might be formed, which, owing to the absence of detailed information, might be misleading.
  *MR. LUCASasked if it was not possible to publish a Return of prize firing in the British foreign Navies, on the same basis as the Return always moved for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean.
  SIR FORTE SCUE FLANNERY: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give us some explanation as to the steps being taken to improve the firing in the Navy?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, I have to say that his proposal cannot be acceded to, as we have no access to the prize firing Returns of foreign nations, and they are not published in the newspapers. In answer to the hon.
  1498
  Member for Shipley, I have to say that it would take up too much time to give him the particulars he wishes in the form of an answer to a Question.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Powers, signatories of the Brussels Sugar Conventions, have intimated to His Majesty's Government that, in their view, the Convention obliges Great Britain to levy countervailing duties on sugar and sugared products coming from such of her self - governing Colonies as grant bounties; and on what dates respectively were such intimations received; what Powers, non - signatories of the Convention, but having treaties with this country containing the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, have intimated that they will hold as an infringement of their rights under that Clause the imposition of differential duties on their sugar and sugared products; and on what dates respectively were such intimations received; has the correspondence with the signatory Powers resulted in a complete common agreement as to the effect of the Convention; and will he lay all that correspondence upon the Table of the House.
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): We have received no direct communication from any Government except that of Austria-Hungary calling in question our refusal to admit any obligation to enforce a penal Clause against any British self-governing Colony. A verbal communication was made by the Austria-Hungarian Embassy on the 29th November last, and further informal communications have since taken place. Statements on the same subject were made on the 9th of June last in the German Reichstag, and on the 2nd of December in the Netherland First Chamber. The answer in the second paragraph of the Question is that Russia is the only country which has made such an intimation. Communications from her were received on the 8th of July last and the 24th of September last. The answer to the

  1499
  third paragraph is that the correspondence has not resulted in a complete agreement. The correspondence is not complete, and it would not be desirable to lay further Papers at present.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, will His Majesty's Government undertake not to ratify the Brussels Sugar Convention until the disagreements as to its construction between Great Britain and others of the signatory powers have been removed, and until all correspondence with Foreign States relative to the Convention since its signature has been laid before Parliament, and this House has been afforded an opportunity of expressing an opinion thereon.
  MR. BRYCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the substance of his answer to the Question as to correspondence which I have on the Paper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid not. It is a Question which is not marked to be answered orally. In reply to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, I have to say that we see no reason to delay the ratification beyond the date fixed. My hon. friend has probably present in his mind that there is really no question between Great Britain and the other signatory Powers except as regards the liability of this country to penalise bounty-fed sugar from the self-governing Colonies. The objection is more theoretical than practical, as no appreciable quantity of sugar can be received from the Colonies during the five years of the term of the convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: But would it not be desirable to have a complete agreement between the Powers before the ratification? The right hon. Gentleman admits that there is a disagreement.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. We have never made any secret of our distinct and unalterable view with regard to the penalising of sugar from our Colonies; and we shall ratify the Convention on that distinct understanding. It rests with us, and only with us to penalise.
  MR. BRYCE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he feels confident that no self-governing Colony will give a bounty on sugar within the next five years?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I did not say that; but I said that I did not believe that there could be any amount of export of sugar from any self-governing Colony which is not a negligible quantity, in view of the great bulk of sugar imported. We have distinctly laid it down that this treaty does not require us to penalise sugar from our self-governing Colonies. We should regret if the Colonies put on bounties, but we are not bound to penalise them if they should do so.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Do any of the Powers agree with, or do any of them differ from, that view?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I have implied in my previous answer that there is not as yet an entire agreement between the Powers concerned in this Convention upon that point—an academic point, but, so far as we are concerned, a point which has an important bearing upon the relations between this country and our self-governing Colonies. It rests entirely with us to interpret the treaty as regards the self-governing Colonies, and we mean to interpret it in the sense I have described.

  Uganda Railway.— Commissions to Crown Agents.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY (Derbyshire, Chesterfield): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the amount that the managers of the Uganda Railway have paid in commission to the Colonial Crown Agents, and what was the nature of the service rendered for the commission or salary that was paid them.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The total amount which the Uganda Railway Committee have up to date paid as commission to the Crown Agents for the Colonies is £22,778, representing about half per cent, on the total expenditure on the line. The services for which this payment has been made are set out in detail on page 8 of Africa No. 4 (1900).

  Tuberculosis Commission.
  Mr. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state what progress has been made by the Commission on Tuberculosis in Cattle; whether he can state about what date their Report may be expected; and whether, in view of Dr. Koch's reiterated opinion and the failure of Dr. Gournault's experiment, instructions will be given to have greater care exercised in the confiscation of meat alleged to have been tuberculized.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Since my reply to a similar Question yesterday I have been informed that the Royal Commission have made considerable progress with their inquiry. Very extensive experiments are, however, being carried out, and arrangements have been made under which the Commission will be able to occupy the farms lent by Sir James Blyth for this purpose for two years from now. The Commission expect to be in a position to report within that time. As regards the last part of the Question, I do not think that pending the Report I can add anything to the observations contained in the circular letters issued by the Local Government Board in March, 1899.

  The Unemployed—Government Relief.
  MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether in order to prevent disadvantages resulting to certain localities by detached and isolated provision of relief works for the deserving unemployed, he will cause to be issued, as soon as practicable and before distress deepens, the 1893 Circular to all the Local Authorities in the United Kingdom, so that uniform action can be taken by responsible bodies to mitigate distress arising from want of work: and whether he will also recommend to Town Councils, boards of guardians, and other authorities the advisability of unifying and cooperating with all charitable and other agencies so as to prevent over-lapping and waste.
  The following Question also appeared on the Paper—
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a grant in aid from the public funds to aid local authorities in meeting the distress now prevailing, due to lack of employment.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Although I am sorry to say that there has recently been an unusual increase in pauperism, in the Metropolis, yet so far as my information goes the number of unemployed in the country generally does not appear to have increased of late, and the break in the cold weather is evidently favourable to work. The employment by Local Authorities of men on works to which they are not accustomed and which arc hastily undertaken is open to considerable objection and might even lead to an increase in the difficulties which it is desired to meet. I hardly think the time has come for urging the Local Authorities to proceed in this direction. At the same time, I have every sympathy with the object that the hon. Member has in view in making the suggestion, and I am giving the matter my unremitting personal attention. I shall continue to do so dining the Recess, and if it appears to me that it would be desirable that Circulars of the kind suggested should be issued, I shall certainly issue them, or take any other action which seems to me to be expedient. I may add, with reference to the Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil has given notice, that I could not undertake to apply to my right hon. friend to make a grant of the kind referred to in that Question.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsubsequently put his question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have answered it. Obviously it is one that should have been addressed to me. I am not prepared to ask my right hon. friend to make any such grant.

  Electrical Communication with Lighthouses.
  MR. CHARLES M' ARTHUR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress

  1503
  has been made during the year in providing electrical communications between lighthouses and the shore; how far these communications, when provided, are available for private messages; if the Departmental Committee appointed in 1900 to consider the above matters has issued its Report; and whether the signal stations at the Fastnet and Tuskar have been completed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): During the present year electrical communication has been established between two lighthouses and the shore. It has not yet been found possible to arrange for making these communications available for private messages. Further progress will be made with the work during the coming financial year. I understand that the Departmental Committee does not propose to issue any general Report; it makes each recommendation the subject of a special Report. Signal stations at the Fastnet and Tuskar have not yet been completed. The whole matter has been somewhat delayed by the consideration of questions surrounding the development of wireless telegraphy—a subject which is engaging the earnest attention of the Government.

  Argentine Cattle Trade Restrictions.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, considering the scarcity and present price of meat, and the outlook for the consuming public, he can now hold out any prospect of being able in the near future to remove the restrictions on the importation of Argentine cattle.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR (for Mr. HANBURY): I understand that the Argentine Government have now proposed and carried an Act which embodies conditions I thought essential for the security of our own herds and flocks to ask that Government to impose within its own territory. No official information on the subject has, however, yet reached me. On being duly informed of the condition in question having been complied with, it would become my duty to reconsider the existing prohibition against
  1504
  the landing of Argentine fat cattle for immediate slaughter at the port of arrival.

  Head Post Offices.
  Mr. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will state the numbers respectively of head post offices in Ireland, Scotland, England, and Wales; and of these respectively how many are under the annual value of £100, how many of £100 and not ceeding £200, of £200 and not exceeding £300, and how many of £300 and over.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIf the hon. Member will put this Question down unstarred, I will furnish a printed answer showing the particulars desired. They are too long for oral reply.

  Sunday Work in the Post Office—Rich mond Postman's Grievance.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Thomas Shrimpton, auxiliary postman of Richmond, Surrey, who has been dismissed the service for declining to work on Sundays, or in default thereof to find a substitute without cost to the Department; and whether, seeing that this man had agreed with the Department to work five hours a day for six days a week, and that he could not find a substitute other than an established postman, whose pay would be about 3d. per hour more than that of an auxiliary, and in view of the manner in which this man has done the duty which he contracted to do for 16 years, he will reconsider his decision and re-instate him.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Shrimpton's services were dispensed with, not for declining to work on Sundays, but because, without waiting for his appeal on that subject to be submitted to me, he deliberately refused to carry out the orders of his superior officers. He was not an established officer and only employed for a portion of his time. He had no agreement with the Department, and his services could be discontinued at any time on a week's notice.

  Christmas Work in the Post Office.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in

  1505
  the distribution of the extra work that occurs in his Department during the Christmas and New Year pressure, he will, wherever possible, give preference in such work to those who are at present without any employment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Arrangements for meeting this extra pressure of work have already been completed, but the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that since, generally speaking, the whole time of the additional men engaged is required, they are necessarily selected from those without other employment. I may add that, other things being equal, preference is given to ex-soldiers and Army reservists out of work.

  Post Office—Special Leave Regulations.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will state what decision he has arrived at in regard to the appeal made to him by Members of Parliament to modify the new special leave regulations.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have already addressed a letter on the subject to the hon. Member for South Islington informing him that, after full consideration, I am unable to depart from the decision arrived at by my predecessor. I may add that a similar communication has been addressed to the officers who memorialised me on the subject.

  Education Bill—Nominated Members of Education Committees.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if it would be competent for a County Council, under the provisions of Clause 18 of the Education (England and Wales) Bill, to refuse to accept a particular nominee of an outside body to serve on an education committee; and if the Board of Education will confirm n scheme providing that persons should be appointed by the County Council from among the nominees of certain outside bodies.
  THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The first part of the hon. Member's Question can be raised this afternoon in discussion on the Lords Amendments. The second part can only be answered as the occasion arises.

  Irish Stationery Office Tenders.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of tendering for Irish Stationery Office contracts that contractors shall take all paper, cardboard, vellum, leather, cloth, and other raw material from the Department; and whether, in view of the effect of this condition in the case of employers in the printing business in the provincial cities and towns of Ireland as compared with those of Dublin owing to the charges for freight from and to Dublin, he will take steps to have such materials delivered to contractors from Irish provincial towns free of charge.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES FISHER,): The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. The Stationery Office do not supply cardboard, vellum, leather, cloth, and other similar raw material to contractors. As regards paper, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my predecessor on May 7th, 1901.†

  South Dublin Union—Building Loan.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state on what grounds the Treasury have refused to recommend to the South Dublin Union a loan of £7,500 for building the Roman Catholic chapel and officers' quarters in the lunatic department; and whether, in view of the solvency of the Union and the fact that the poor rates are 1s. 7d. in the pound, as compared with 1s. 9d. in the previous year, he will take steps to have this loan issued without further delay.
  MR. HAYES FISHER: The Local Government Board sanctioned this loan, repayable in forty years. But in so doing, it was pointed out that in view of the high rates prevailing, which amount to 9s. 3d. in the pound in this area, the Treasury felt unable to authorise the issue of the loan by the Commissioners of Public Works until some reduction in the rates had been effected. It would be necessary, therefore, to obtain the loan from a bank or by tender in the open market.
  † See (4) Debates, xciii., 956.

  Irish bights Board.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the Admiralty inquiry respecting the correction of the existing list of Irish lights, any measures will be taken by the Government to reconstitute the Irish Lights Board and place it on a more representative basis.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I can add nothing to the replies I have already given the hon. Member upon this subject.

  Rae Estate Killorglin, Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain the cause of the delay in the sale of the estate of W. L. Rae, Killorglin, Kerry.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Land Commissioners hope soon to be in a position to make their Report on this estate to the Land Judge. No avoidable delay has taken place.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Examiner in the Land Judges' Court has refused to furnish a detailed account of the receipts and expenditure of the estate of W. L. Rae, Killorglin, Kerry; and whether, seeing that it was formerly promised that such an account should be furnished on application by the landlord, he will take steps to furnish him with a full account of the receipts and expenditure of the estate since it was placed in the present Receiver's hands.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I stated on the 29th October that copies of the Receiver's account would be supplied to Mr. Rae on payment of the usual fees for copying. The Receiver has since given a copy of his account to Mr. Rae.

  Imprisoned Irish Members.
  Mr. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many Members of Parliament are in prison as the result of sentences pronounced
  1508
  between the 27th October and the 14th December last by courts constituted under the Criminal Law and Procedure-(Ireland) Act, 1887.
  MR. WYNDHAM: None, Sir.

  Tipperary County Infirmary.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds the Local Government Board refuse to grant sworn inquiries into the management of county infirmaries that are supported out of the county rates; and what steps have they taken to remedy the alleged abuses with regard to the Tipperary county infirmary.
  MR. CULLINAN: Is it not the fact that the Tipperary County Council is thoroughly competent to manage this infirmary?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board has not, in any case, been asked to hold a sworn inquiry into the management of a county infirmary. In reply to the latter part of the Question, I have nothing to add to my reply to the Hon. Member's previous Question of the 24th November.†
  MR. TULLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the managers of this infirmary have refused to carry out their financial business according to the instructions of the auditor, and that a lot of swindling is going on—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Women Inspectors of Boarded-out Children.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the salaries and travelling expenses paid to the two lady inspectors of boarded-out children, and to what fund are these sums charged.
  MR. WYNDHAM: £200 a year in each case, together with first-class railway fare. The cost is defrayed out of the Local Government Board Vote.

  Sir F. J. Hort's Estate, Co. Cavan.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware
  † See (4) Debates, cxv., 1233.

  1509
  that the estate of the late Sir F. Hort, in the County of Cavan, was ordered to be sold by the Land Judge in 1893, and has been in the hands of a receiver since that date; and can he state why the judge's order was not carried out, or why the estate has not been offered to the tenants under the provisions of the 10th section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Land Judge is informed that at present this property cannot be sold to the tenants, as the redemption of the superior interests would amount to more than any sum which would be expected to be advanced by the Laid Commission. He is also: informed that the tenants are aware of the difficulty.

  Irish High Sheriffs.
  MR. ODOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state who is the officer responsible for investigating and reporting to the Crown on the eligibility and qualification for the office of high sheriff of a county in Ireland of the names returned to the Lord Lieutenant by the going Judge of Assize in each year out of which the selection is made of the high sheriff for the ensuing year.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The practice is that three names selected by the judges are submitted to the Lord Lieutenant and published in the Press. His Excellency almost invariably selects one name from the list. There is no officer whose special duty it is to inquire into the fitness of the persons named in the judge's lists, but his Excellency is quite ready to receive information on the matter from any reliable source.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Is there no statutory obligation on the Lord Lieutenant to inquire as to their property qualifications?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not sure it is a statutory obligation, but as the sheriff may have certain charges to defray, it is proper to ascertain perhaps that he has the necessary means.

  Scarva (Down) Police Barracks
  Mr. MAC VEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on whose recommendation the advice of the local magistrates has been rejected in the matter of the proposed re-establishment of the police barracks at Scarva, County Down; and whether he can state the; character of the extra steps to be taken for the preservation of the peace in that locality.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The views of the Magistrates were carefully considered; but the police authorities, who are responsible for the preservation of the peace of the locality, do not consider it necessary to re-establish this station.1have already stated that there are three other barracks within a radius of three miles, and that ample protection will be given to all persons needing it.

  Newcastle and Ballyrooney Railway.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps have been taken by the Belfast and County Down Railway Company towards the construction of their part of the new railway line between Newcastle and Ballyrooney; and whether he can give any indication as to the time which will be occupied in completing the construction.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information beyond the fact that on Monday last application was made by the Railway Company to the Board of Works to appoint an Arbitrator in connection with the taking of land. The statutory period for the completion of the line extends to the 30th July, 1905.

  Mullingar Lunatic Asylum Accounts
  MR. M'GOVERN: I have to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state who was the Auditor who audited the accounts of the Mullingar Lunatic Asylum for the years 1899, 1900, and 1901, and who certified the' accounts were correct for each of these years: seeing that it was afterwards found that the accounts were incorrect for some of these years, will he state what was the amount of rates embezzled by the

  1511
  Clerk; and whether this Auditor is still employed by the Local Government Board.
  MR. WINDHAM: In reply to the first paragraph of the Question, the auditor was Major Eccles, who is still the Auditor of the district comprising Mullingar. Upon his audit for the half-year ended September, 1901, he discovered that frauds had been committed by the late Clerk, and that the earliest fraud took place in that month. Frauds of a prior date were subsequently traced, but they were connected with monies not brought to account in the Asylum books. The Auditor could have had no knowledge of those; they could only have been detected, if by any one, by the Committee of Management or the Resident Medical Superintendent. So far as is known, the amount misappropriated is about £663.
  MR. M'GOVERN: Why was the Auditor not able to detect the frauds?
  MR. WYNDHAM: He did.

  Dillon Estate.
  MR. CABEW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether he can state on what grounds the Congested Districts Board took proceedings at the last Boyle Quarter Sessions against occupiers on the Dillon estate; what was the total amount due and the number proceeded against, and whether the Congested Districts Board have since taken any further steps in reference to the comments made in Committee on that occasion.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of tenants on the Dillon Estate is considerably above 4,000. The Congested Districts Board took proceedings against thirteen tenants for a total amount of £134 2s. 7d. But nine of these cases, involving a sum of £81 9s. 1d., were nonagricultural. No question of purchase under the Land Acts can arise in connection with them. The proceedings were taken in respect of ground rents and townfields. Four cases, involving £52 3s. 6d., were agricultural. But, in these, proceedings were taken to clear title with a view to re-arranging boundaries. In no case had the holding been
  1512
  sold to the tenant. The Congested Districts Board wrote on the 14th November to Judge O'Connor Morris drawing his attention to these facts, which he had unfortunately overlooked when commenting on these cases. It is much to be regretted that the learned Judge should have been misled by misrepresentations persistently put forward, in order, apparently, to discount the commendable punctuality with which the Dillon and other tenants on estates purchased by the Board have discharged their obligations.
  English Officials in the Irish P. O. Mr. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the discontent in the Irish postal service caused by the system of appointment of English and Scotch postal officials to Irish offices, he will undertake that in future appointments the claims of competent officials resident in Ireland will be favourably considered.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask the hon. Member to refer to the reply which I gave yesterday to the Question put to me by the hon. Member for South Leitrim,† to which I can add nothing.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Why does the right hon Gentleman give these appointments to officials who have absolutely no local knowledge?
  (No answer was returned).

  Dundalk Postmastership.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, with reference to the recent vacancy in the postmastership of Dundalk, if he will say how many applications were received for this vacancy, and of the total number what was the proportion received from members serving respectively in Ireland, England and Wales, and Scotland; what is the length of service of the official appointed in the present instance; whether he originally held the position of counter clerk in a London office, if so, whether he can state the date of his first promotion from this position, also the dates of promotions to other offices
  † See preceding volume, page 1339.

  1513
  and the respective salaries; and what was the length of service, salary, and official position of the most senior applicant from Ireland for this vacancy.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Thirty-seven applications were received. From Ireland twenty-six, England and Wales, eight, Scotland three. The official appointed, who, may say, was an Irishman, had thirty-five years service. He was originally a postman, hut was appointed a counter clerk in a London office in 1873. From that position he was promoted to the postmastership of Letterkenny in August, 1890, salary £160. In May, 1898, he was promoted to the Postmastership of Leek, salary £210: in November, 1900. to the postmastership of Poole, salary £230. The length of service of the senior applicant on the list of candidates from Ireland was thirty-seven years; his salary was £237, and his official position was that of postmaster.

  Edgeworthstown Postmastership.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, with reference to the vacancy which has recently existed in the postmastership of Edgeworthstown, whether he can state how many applications were received for this vacancy, and of these how many came from officials serving respectively in Ireland, England and Scotland; what is the salary attached to the office, and what is the length of service, salary, and official designation of the member of the Lanark staff appointed to this vacancy in the first instance; what was the length of service, salary, and position of the most senior applicant from Ireland, and to what office attached; and can lie say how" many members of the service holding appointments in Ireland have been appointed to postmasterhips in Scotland within the last twenty-five years; and, if any, to what offices they were appointed.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have already answered fully two somewhat similar Questions put by the lion. Member, but I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by giving all the particulars asked for in this Question, which could not lie collected without considerable labour. I accept of course full responsibility for the appointments which
  1514
  I make, but I deprecate any attempt to discuss the relative merits of different candidates by way of Question and Answer in this House. I may, however, say that the officer first appointed to this position declined the appointment. I then offered it to an officer in the Galway Post Office who, however, also declined it, and I have now offered it to a candidate from Castlebar.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is it not the case that these appointments were only offered to Irishmen after Scotchmen had refused them?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Waziri Expedition.
  MR. CREMEB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the military operations recently directed against the Waziri and other Afghan tribes are carried on in the mountain regions of what has been called the New Province, lying beyond the boundaries of His Majesty's Indian Possessions; if a copy of the Orders directing the commencement of these hostilities will be communicated to both Houses of Parliament before the end. of the present session, in accordance with section 54 of the Act of 1858; if the consent of both Houses of Parliament will be invited to authorise the expenses of these military operations carried on beyond the frontiers of British India and whether the cost will be defrayed from the revenues of India, or be paid from the British Treasury.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUBwas understood to reply that the matters referred to in the Question did not come within the purview of the Act cited.

  Session of 1903.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury,, whether, in view of the duration of the present Session of Parliament, he is able to fix an approximate date when Parliament will reassemble in 1903.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it will be necessary for this House to reassemble, so far as we are at present aware, before February 17.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it a couple of months later?

  Education Bill-Elementary Instruction for Adults in Evening Schools.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, in the present form of Clause 22 of the Education Bill, it would he competent for any local authority to provide purely elementary instruction for adult students in an evening school.
  At the same time may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the terms of Clause 2 of the Education Bill to the effect that the moneys available from the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Fund and the rate in aid contemplated under the Clause are only available for education other than elementary, it would be competent for any local authority to use these moneys for giving elementary instruction to adults in an evening school; and, if not, out of what funds the local authority would be able to maintain such instruction.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In reply to the first Question, the lion, gentleman correctly states the position. The rate for education other than elementary may be used for all forms of education and in any kind of school except a public elementary school. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the definition in Clause 28, sub-Section 3, he will see that that is made perfectly clear. As regards the second Question, it follows from what I have just said that the money available from the local taxation fund is applicable for the purposes of education in an evening school; that is, if the education is in an evening; continuation school it can be paid for out of that fund.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, "Yes" or "No," if it will he competent for a local authority to give purely elementary instruction to an adult in an evening school?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir. The answer to that Question is in the affirmative.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Uganda Railway Bill, without Amendment.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Lords Amendment further considered.
  Lords' Amendment—
  "In page 5, line 8, after 'authority,' insert 'shall as regards its character be.'"
  The next Amendment read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  (3.0) LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich): This is the main question about which many of us have complained of the action of my hon. and gallant friend and the Government, and I think it is necessary to say some final word about the controversy which has so long engaged the attention of this House. It would have been competent, of course, to any hon. Memher of this House to have moved an Amendment which would have raised expressly the main issues about which we have been contending, namely, the issue whether an incumbent ought or ought not to be deprived by the managers of the right I he now enjoys in the majority of cases under the trust deeds, of himself providing and undertaking the religious teaching in a Church school. I do not myself move such an Amendment, because it does not seem to me to serve any good purpose to press the House to a division upon a subject upon which it has so often declared its opinion, but as the question now is whether we should finally agree with the Lords Amendment which apparently—we do not know what interpretation will be put upon it—destroys the right of the incumbent to teach in a school except with the consent of the managers, it is necessary to say a few words of final protest against the course which has been taken. Our objection to that course is, first of all, that the rights of incumbents existing under trust deeds are just as important and just as deserving of respect as any other of the rights arising under these deeds, and, therefore, in so far as denominational education deserves respect at all, it is respect out of deference to a i right which is precisely the same, and neither more nor less sacred than the right of the incumbent which is disregarded. In my view there is no reason for giving Church teaching in any Church school that cannot be urged for allowing the incumbent to supervise the teaching. The

  1517
  rights are exactly parallel, and the distinction now drawn most unjust and indefensible. That is my first objection to the Clause.
  My second is that, if not in express words, in substance and reality there is an unmistakable censure and condemnation passed upon the work of those who, in my view, do not deserve censure but rather the gratitude of the community. This censure, in effect, is not minimised because veiled by the language of panegyric and eulogium used in both Houses. What is in effect conveyed is that the clergy are not to be trusted save under lay control to do what it is their express duty to do, namely, the teaching of religion, and put it in whatever phase you please: this is a real censure and an undeserved censure which ought, and will be, deeply resented. But here 1 must be concise, or I shall be trespassing upon another Amendment. In reference to matters of doctrine I do not think that the restriction of the rights of the Bishop is anything but another insult to the wisdom and integrity of the Episcopal Bench, not made any better by the manner in which it was conveyed in another place. I do not suppose it ever happened before that the Episcopate of the Anglican Church has been invited to give an assurance, and when that assurance was given has been told that it is altogether inadequate, implying that at the worst they were deliberate liars, and at the best boasters who made promises that they could not any out.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord seems to be entering on a very wide discussion of a very narrow Amendment. 1 was under the impression that this was a drafting Amendment.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I think that the character of the religious instruction raises the question to which I am solely addressing myself. The words of the Amendment "shall as regards its character" limit the operation of the trust deed to the character of the religious instruction. It does not allow the trust deed to operate in respect of the person who is to supervise the teaching. I intend to make my observations relevant to that Amendment, and if 1have trespassed it is unintentionally.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is right, and if he keeps to those lines he will be in order.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I do not intend to go beyond the lines of that argument. My third objection is that I think a wrong is done in overthrowing the rights of the incumbents not only to the clergy and the bishops, but also to the members of the Church of England. Neither the theory of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Life as to the State relationship, nor that of my right lion, friend the Prime Minister as to the family relationship with these schools, can be sustained for a moment. The schools do not bear any relationship to the family. The parents are neither formally nor informally represented on the board of management. There is not the slightest ground for thinking that they will reflect in any real degree the opinion of the parents. The clergyman himself is most in touch with the ideas of the parents as to the education of their children. Although I am aware that the Government do not hold that view, I believe this argument can only be defended on the hypothesis that this is a Church school, and that the lay members had a right to supersede the incumbent in his theological views. That sets up a principle to which all those who are sincerely attached to the constitution of the Church of England are unalterably opposed, and 1 very much regret that in this Bill step should have been taken to raise in this Clause issues of the most farreaching importance, the raising of which cannot but alienate very much indeed members of the Church one from another and a large number of the members of the Church from the Government and those whom they hold responsible for introducing this provision in the Bill.
  Next I regret very much that a standard, not of orthodoxy, not of right teaching, not of wisdom, but of popularity, should have been erected for clergymen of the Church of England. The clergyman is to be deprived of his right under the trust deed, not because he teaches what is not the doctrine of the Church of England—very likely as many will give what is not right teaching in the future as in the past, for the Bill gives no security that they shall not—but because they are not popular, and not

  1519
  popular with the upper and middle class among their parishioners; perhaps because they have quarrelled with a had landlord about the condition of his cottages, or with a trader who carries on business by dishonest methods, or a publican whose house is ill-managed, or a farmer who grinds down his labourers. I dare say some religious pretext in such cases may not be found wanting to drive a clergyman away from his schools. Such is the standard of ministerial duty that will be set up. Before all things they must be popular, not with the poor, but with those who are rich and well to do. To set up such a standard is in a very real sense to do wrong to the Church of England and to lower the standard of public duty among the ministers of that Church. My right hon. friend in a speech recently delivered made an appeal to those who have to work the Bill to carry it out loyally and with a real disposition to make it work. I hope and believe the appeal will be responded to; but I am sure it will not be responded to in regard to this particular provision. The general character of the Bill is, no doubt, of such a kind that those who wish well to denominational schools will endeavour to the best of their ability to make it work, but if there are to be found anywhere managers who are so disloyal to the character of the Church of England as to endeavour to supersede the clergyman without any authority from or approval of the Bishop, I am quite sure that every means that can be taken will be taken to resist them. If there is any ambiguity in the trust deed the matter will be carried to litigation. In any case there is always the pressure of public opinion to give or withhold financial support, and my right hon. friend and the Government may be quite sure that no considerations of peace or tranquility will stand in the way of those who feel that they are maintaining a great and important principle by resisting the character of this Amendment.
  I believe that the Government have done a most unwise thing in allowing this Amendment of the Bill. The real grievance might have been dealt with more easily and efficaciously by other means. They have chosen a course which is offensive to the religious sentiment of a large portion of the
  1520
  Church of England, very offensive to the clergy, very offensive to the Bishops. I trust that in the contest that may perhaps arise out of this Amendment they will maintain their efforts, not in disregard of the supreme interest of the religious education of the schools, but being sure that that religious character of the Church of England and the maintenance of its principles are the fundamental conditions under which alone that religious education can be properly carried out in this country—I hope they will charitably but manfully, and without cessation, maintain their efforts until they have succeeded in inducing Parliament to relinquish a policy which in an evil hour they undertook, and of which 1 am persuaded that the longer it is persisted in the more certain it will be found to be one of those blunders into which States are hurried when they offend the religious sentiment of a part of the community.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I feel that my noble friend who has just sat down has spoken out of the fulness of his heart upon a subject on which he feels very strongly, and in a cause in which he is conscientiously prepared to sacrifice many public interests; and one owes much sympathy to any one who addresses this House, and, through the House the country, as an advocate of a cause which, after all the discussion, in this House and in another place, must be regarded as an unpopular cause. Anybody who, I say, advocates principles which are unpopular principles, out of a deep religious conviction deserves, and will obtain, the sympathy of all who hear him. But having paid that tribute to my noble friend's motives, I confess that, after hearing him again on this subject, the feelings of regret with which I have heard him on frequent occasions during these debates have not been in any way diminished or alleviated. I do not pretend to understand exactly the line of argument on which my noble friend relies. He has mixed up in the speech to which Ave have just listened two sets of considerations which appear to me to lie utterly diverse, and which I do not think will run as a well-matched pair for the controversial purposes for which my noble friend desires to use them. He partly relies on the theological argument and partly on the legal argument. In other words, he

  1521
  partly relies on his view of the position in the Church of England a clergyman necessarily occupies in the parish where he officiates; and partly he derives his argument from the fact that, in his view, certain trust deeds are violated or affected by the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. These really are quite separate arguments; and the practical answer is evident when you remember that in a large number of schools, and in a large number of Church of England schools, the clergyman has no special rights whatever under trust deeds. Very well; is the doctrine of the Church of England violated in the case of these schools which have no trust deeds? If it is we have not heard of it before. My noble friend has never protested that sacred inviolate ecclesiastical doctrines are being tampered with when the clergyman, by trust deed, is not given special rights in these schools in regard to religious education. If that be so, I think my noble friend is very ill advised to rely on what I have described as the legal argument in defence of his position. The legal argument is merely incidental. My noble friend complained that the Government have tampered with trust deeds, and I do not deny that the Bill does affect the trust deeds of voluntary schools, and I do not believe that any Hill dealing with elementary education which admitted voluntary schools to any share in public money could avoid making alterations in their trust deeds. The change in the position of schools is so great, is so fundamental, that some alteration is necessary unless these schools are to be entirely left outside the scope of your legislation. But supposing it were a crime to touch these trust deeds, who incited the Government to commit that crime? Why, the two Houses of Convocation. I shall have a word to say about the Resolution passed by the two Houses of Convocation directly. My noble friend may perhaps differ from my contention, but he will not differ from what I now urge upon the attention of the House. Surely he cannot differ from me because all I am stating is that the Committee of the two Houses of Convocation deliberately suggested that legislation should be brought in which would add to the existing managers two from outside.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid trust deeds were broken in consequence of the arrangements for secular education; but why, mi his right hon. friend's principle, should he not go the whole length of the Opposition and say that denominational instruction should be put under popular control? There was only one rational line of division between religious and secular instruction, and that he thought the Government had taken, but it was inconsistent with the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not dealing with the theological problem. I am dealing now entirely with the legal branch of the argument. Am I to understand that you may violate a trust-deed in regard to secular property, and that you may not violate it in dealing with religious instruction?
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid in consideration of the use of public money there was interference with secular instruction.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not a question of altering trust deeds. My noble friend is trying to run together two quite different lines of argument. It seems to me that he has no case whatever on the legal aspect, and I leave the legal branch of his argument and come to that to which, I think, he attaches far more importance and on which he places more reliance. He has attacked something I said in a previous speech in which I said an elementary school had more analogy to the family than it had to the service and work carried on in the ecclesiastical edifice, be it the church or the chapel in a parish. My noble friend disputes that proposition. He has pointed out with perfect truth that the analogy is not in any sense complete, and that it would be absurd to say that a child in school is precisely in the same position as the child in the family, but I do distinctly reiterate the argument I used, which was to this effect, that in the education given in an elementary school you do for the children of the poorer classes that which in regard to the children of the richer classes is, if not invariably, commonly done in the domestic circle by the parents themselves,

  1523
  or by persons engaged for the purpose. It seems to me perfectly clear that when you are dealing with the children of the poor, and providing them with the education their parents have not the time or money which their richer neighbours can afford, that when you compel them to send their children to an elementary school and say to them you propose that not only shall the children obtain secular education, but also that religious instruction, which, if the children were educated under easier circumstances at home the parents would give them—then I say the analogy is extremely close. Though it is perfectly true you cannot describe any part of the elementary school system as giving a co plete representation of the parental care of the children, surely it is absurd to say that since there is this distinction between the school and the family as a necessary consequence you must regard the clergyman as having the sole authority in that instruction.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid the whole conception of the school was that it should be conducted on the principles of the denomination, and if those principles were abandoned, then there was really no answer to the opposition.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then the school is not conducted in accordance with the principles of the denomination unless the clergyman has control!
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Not in the Church of England.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: lam referring to Church of England schools, but I cannot go the length to which my noble friend goes. I agree that the natural leader of religious thought should be the clergyman, the natural guide in education should be the clergyman; but that there is this inalienable right upon which nobody should trespass — that there is this fundamental right and responsibility— there I cannot go with my noble friend. I have never put this matter on criticism of the clergy, but I quite agree, and it is impossible to deny, that a great deal of the controversy has arisen in large
  1524
  sections of the community from the fact that certain of the clergy have shown themselves utterly unfitted to carry out this duty that my noble friend says devolves upon them. I do not say there are many cases, but that there are some, my noble friend, of course, could not think of denying for a moment. There was a case mentioned the other day by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, which I think was accepted as authentic in its main details. I am sure my noble friend will not deny that there have been certain cases where clergymen have shown themselves quite unfit to conduct the education as the sole authority. But I am disposed to go further and ask my noble friend how far he means to press his contention. So far as I understand it, it is that he thinks that the clergymen should be in precisely the same position during the hours of religious instruction in the school as he is in during the service in the parish church. If that is the position he thinks clergymen ought to occupy, then I say 'clergymen as a whole have deliberately abandoned it. A clergyman in a parish; church does much more than superintend the instruction or service carried on. He: does the work himself. He very rightly regards himself as the person, and the one person only, directly commissioned to carry out and direct the offices of religion. But what does ho do in the school? In a very large number of parishes he delegates the whole work of religious instruction to laymen. I think that in most cases he acts rightly in so doing, not because laymen are more qualified to teach religion to children, but because the schoolmaster is more qualified to teach religion to children in large numbers; a schoolmaster is an expert; he is accustomed to keep discipline; he knows the individual children, and their scholastic idiosyncrasies; he is trained to instil knowledge into young minds; he is an expert, and does the educational work better than the man who is not an expert. I believe that it is for the interests of religious teaching that this work is in a large measure done by laymen, but if the position of the clergymen in the school is to be similar and on all fours with his position in the parish church, then I say he has not the slightest right to delegate

  1525
  the duty to laymen, and 1 should like to know on what theological ground my noble friend would justify it.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid the position was not entirely on all fours, but the same principle was involved.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We get far from a divine mission when the mission is carried out by the casual layman. My noble friend has not been content throughout all these controversies to merely express with great ability and eloquence his own opinions, which I know are largely shared by many persons outside; but be has attacked the Government with great severity on every occasion he has spoken where I say the Government are not open to his criticisms. We have never concealed the view we took on this question from the beginning. This is not a surprise policy started in the later stages of this Bill; this policy of what is called the Kenyon-Slaney Clause was the policy of the Bill from the beginning, and 1 believe it was the policy of the two Houses of Convocation when the passed the famous Resolution in favour of having some additional re presentation on the boards of management. I will call my noble friend's attention, and the attention of all who hear me, and of all who do me the honour to read me, to the terms of the Resolution, which run as follows—
  " That the government of every school, and especially the appointment and the dismissal of the teachers, be left in the hands of the present committee of management, with the addition of certain members appointed by or under rules made by the local authority, such additional members not to exceed one-third of the whole number."
  I really want to know whether, when the two Houses of Convocation passed that Resolution, they intended the world and the Legislature to believe that when they talked of the government of the school being handed over to a body thus composed, it really meant that the government of the school in certain particulars should be handed over to the body thus composed, but that in so important and controverted a subject as the religious education of the children, it was not to be handed over to that body at
  1526
  all, but should be retained exclusively, at all events in certain schools, in the hands of one single individual.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: What was then before the public and before Convocation was the question of the public authority as against managerial authority. No one's mind was directed to the incumbent's authority as against the managerial authority. That did not arise at all.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Am I really to believe that when the two Houses of Convocation were considering the form of government they wanted to see adopted in Church schools they forgot all about the religious teaching? It may be so. I am not attacking Convocation. I am defending the Government, and all I say is that the defence of the Government is complete. My noble friend's explanation of the conduct of Convocation may also be complete. All I say is that we, being poor, fallible laymen, should not be blamed for interpreting their words in their plain and obvious signification, and as carrying with them the inference and conclusion that when they said the government of the school was to be given to a body of a certain kind they meant exactly what they said. That is the first point I have got to make in defence of the Government—a thing which I should not have undertaken if my noble friend had not, not for the first time, made this vehement attack upon them. May I remind the House of the last thing I should ever wish to remind them of—my own old speeches? As the Minister in charge of the Bill, I have had to speak on it on many occasions both in this House and out of it—occasions of great publicity, occasions on which what I said was fully reported both in Hansard and in the Press. I explicitly stated, for example, on the Second Reading of the Bill, that the principle of the measure as regards the management of the schools was the abolition of one man management. J stated that in perfectly plain terms.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I do not deny that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then my noble friend has relieved me from the wearisome task of reading extracts from my speeches. He admits, then, that on the Second Reading, and on other occasions quite early in the discussions on the Bill, made it clear that that was the principle of the measure.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I admit you said it. My point is that you did not make it perfectly clear.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then I am afraid I must read one or two extracts, although I do not want to bore the House. This is what I said, for instance, to the deputation of Nonconformists that waited upon me soon after the Bill was read a second time—
  "No doubt what are known as voluntary schools will retain a denominational majority on the board of managers, and the board of managers will select the teachers, subject, in every case, to the approval of the local authority, and deal with religious instruction."
  And then I went on to say—
  "It has been constantly stated as an objection that the schools are often under the simple management of the parson of the parish. Please observe that ' one man-managed' education will no longer exist after this Hill is passed, and lay members of the community will then be in an immense majority, not merely on the education authority, but on the local boards of management. Henceforth what the management do, will be done in public, and when I remember that, even under the existing system, the number of children withdrawn by their parents from religious instruction is almost infinitesimal, I think 1 may fairly claim from every impartial investigator of the subject that, so far as the parents are concerned, the Bill leaves little to be desired."
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I did not mean to complain of my right lion, friend. All I meant to say was that he was certainly not so understood.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then I will read another sentence. It is a speech I made in this House on July 21. The House was in Committee on what was then Clause 7, the whole object of which was to give a denominational majority on the board of management. In the early stages of the discussions upon that famous Clause I said this—
  "Under the plan of the Government the whole of the six managers were equally concerned in the selection of the teachers and the
  1528
  regulation of the religious curriculum. The religious education will be under the control, not of one man, and that man the parson of the parish, but of a board of six."
  My noble friend says I did not make it clear. I may lack lucidity of expression on many occasions; but on this occasion I surely did, if only by accident, blunder into a phrase which was absolutely precise and unmistakable, and which I do not think even a theologian can explain away. And all that time, while I was making these speeches, and while, it is not too much to say, the fate of this Bill was hanging in the balance, was I criticised on the subject by the leaders of ecclesiastical opinion in the country I never received a single word of complaint or criticism from any public authority; nothing was stated on any public platform, nothing, as far as I remember, was ever written to me, until Clause 7 was through. Well, really, whoever else may be blamed, it is not the Government. Because what was Clause 7, the Clause on which we fought for three weeks If I may remind the House, if it needs reminding, that Clause was a Clause to give a denominational majority on the boards of management of the voluntary schools. Is it to be supposed that this House would ever have thought of passing Clause 7 if they had known that that Clause was to be interpreted as meaning, not that the board of management thus constituted was to have the control of religious teaching in the school, but that it was only to have the control in those particular cases where the trust deeds did not otherwise provide? If I had got up and made the announcement that that was the policy of the Government, or if my noble friend had said that he understood the Clause in that way, or if he had said then that by taking the course we had done we had alienated Church opinion, what would have happened to Clause 7? Would this House have looked at it? I had difficulty enough in passing it as it was, and the difficulty was not confined to Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I had difficulty with those who are among my most constant and loyal friends on this side of the House. What would those difficulties have been if I had told the House that

  1529
  Clause 7, which it was thought, on the face of it, was giving too much to the denominational majority, had an occult, secret, and recondite meaning which, when revealed, showed that not merely was there to be a denominational majority upon these boards of management, but that there was to be a denominational absolutism given into the hands of one individual in the case of every school which had trust deeds of a particular kind? If I had said that, we should not have been discussing the Lords Amendments to this Bill to-day, and my noble friend would have been contemplating Church principles in the abstract without having to consider their relation to a Bill, which I think he must admit has done as much as the friends of the Church could possibly hope for to render denominational teaching a practical possibility in the public elementary schools of this country.
  My noble friend says that no considerations of peace will induce him and his friends to desist from agitation against this Clause when the Bill is passed. From what I know of my noble friend I am sure he is not making a boast which he will not absolutely fulfil. I do not believe that any consideration of peace will restrain him, but I must frankly say that I think him ill-advised. No man has a greater authority than my noble friend amongst a most important, devoted and able section of the clergy of this country. They look up to him, they follow him, especially in matters in which politics and religion are both concerned. They regard him, and I think they rightly regard him, as the ablest exponent of their views. I think my noble friend ought to remember that, if he has thus gained and earned great power, he has with it taken upon himself a great responsibility. And as he has with great frankness told the House and the country what he thinks of the Government, I am bound honestly to tell him that he cannot do a worse service—I will not say to the Government and to the Party to which he be longs, because, rightly, he looks upon these considerations as inferior and subservient to those considerations which have a higher origin. I think he is doing much more than hat. He is doing a great disservice to the cause of that religious
  1530
  education of which he is so enthusiastic an advocate, and I believe he is driving deeper the wedge, which, unhappily, is separating certain classes of ecclesiastical opinion from the great body of religious lay opinion in this country, and in which I, at all events, see the greatest danger looming in the future to the cause of religion as a whole, and more especially to the cause, the welfare and the prosperity of the Church of England.
  (3.45.) SIR WILLIAM HABCOURT: The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich has rendered a great service, first of all in stating the views he entertains, and secondly, in eliciting from the head of the Government the speech we have just heard. The view which the noble Lord has put forward is that the care of religion and the determination of the doctrines of the Church rest with the clergy and the Bishops. That is a fundamental contradiction of the principles of the established Protestant Church of England. It is true we were told the other day by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth that the doctrine of the Church of Rome was that religion belonged to the clergy and ultimately to the Bishops. Yes, Sir, and that is exactly the distinction between the Church of Rome and the Protestant Church of England. The Protestant Church of England does repudiate the supremacy of the clergy and the Bishops in the doctrine and practice of the Church. That rests with the laity and with the lay tribunal. The lay tribunal can equally call in question and deprive any clergyman or any Bishop from a violation of the doctrine of the Protestant Church as interpreted by the tribunal who represents the Crown and the laity in this country. I know very well that a section of the clergy who repudiate the name of Protestant have for their dearest object the getting rid of that lay tribunal which by the law of the Established Church has the final power to determine its doctrine and its practice. And if there is in those trust deeds, of which we do not know the contents, any pretension that the Bishop should have the final right of determining the doctrines of the

  1531
  Church of England, it is in absolute conflict with the doctrine of the Established Church. The important point is, what is to be the position of those trust deeds? I am very glad to understand both from the noble Lord and the First Lord of the Treasury that this Amendment is to be understood as overruling altogether those trust deeds, except on the particular point which is reserved in this Clause. That is the main point, upon which we should have a very clear understanding, because in this Amendment and in the Bill we have the reservation of the trust deeds on one point alone, and that is upon the reservation of the appeal to the Bishop. I say that the pretension of the Bishop of determining the doctrine of the Church is a pretension which cannot be sustained for a single moment. You have got half a dozen Bishops laying down different doctrines and pursuing different practices, and every layman has the right to appeal against the decision of the Bishops on a point of doctrine to the lay tribunal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The First Lord of the Treasury has said, very truly, and there is a great difference between the position of the clergyman in the church and the clergyman in the school, because as regards the school the children are compelled to go there, and no man is compelled to go to the church, and can remain away if he does not approve of its doctrines.
  The First Lord of the Treasury has put forward in very clear and definite terms what is the real meaning and intent of this Clause. It is to do away with the practice, if it had been a practice, of the clergyman claiming any monopoly or exclusive right of religious teaching in the school, and to keep the control of religious teaching to the managers. It is of the essence of the Bill that the majority of the managers should be laymen, but I do not know why they should not manage to put on four managers who are clergymen. I do not know if that has occurred to the noble Lord as a proceeding which might be adopted. What I understand is that those managers may be regarded as persons who represent the lay opinion of that particular community as against the pretensions of the clergyman to impose upon them a form of
  1532
  teaching which is repugnant to their feelings and conviction. The First Lord of the Treasury referred to the case of the clergyman who tried to compel the schoolmaster to teach that the doctrine of the Church of England is that there were seven sacraments. I know it is the fashion to say that instances of this kind are rare. They are not rare. Anyone who reads the documents of the Church Union will know they are not rare. The author of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment read a passage from a speech by the Bishop of Liverpool which would show that they are not rare at all. The Bishop of Liverpool complained of the clergy, and said he did not know what to do. He said "he had got a number of these people to deal with, and he did not know how to deal with them. He declined to be present at their services, to preach in their pulpits, to confirm in their churches, and to license any of the assistant clergy." That is to say, a Bishops only resource is to boycott the disloyal clergymen. The noble Lord referred to the impatient explanation of the Duke of Devonshire in another place, and said, "You have got the power, why don't you use it?" That is the question. An extraordinary statement was made by the Bishop of Liverpool, that "if deprivation were substituted for imprisonment, it would be manifestly my duty to take the severer course." This is most extraordinary ignorance of ecclesiastical law on the part of the Bishop of Liverpool, for everybody knows that the penalty under the Church Discipline Act is not imprisonment, but deprivation. Why have the Bishops not taken that course? Why have these clergy not been deprived by the Bishops? Because some of the Bishops from sympathy, but more of them from fear, shrank from doing the duty which is imposed upon them by their oath of consecration. Because they had not restrained these practices, and had allowed them to go on and alienate from the Church the respect and affection of the laity of this country. It is mainly in consequence of the conduct of the Bishops in not enforcing the true doctrines and teaching of the Church of England that the conditions to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred have arisen. But now I understand that the object of the Government is to assert the right of the laity in the denominational schools to control the

  1533
  religious teaching. With the single exception of the appeal in point of doctrine to the Bishop, which is not and cannot be final—for no Bishop has the right finally to determine the doctrine of the Established Church—all matters which refer to religious teaching are, by the words of this Section, to belong to the managers. I am very glad it should be clearly understood that that is to be the controlling Clause which overrides any trust deeds existing now, or which may hereafter be made, because I am told that there is an active agency now engaged in manufacturing trust deeds. Suppose you have schools in connection with which no trust deed has existed hitherto, and there is a trust deed drawn up and a Clause put in that the religious teaching shall be under the control of the parson and nobody else. I understand that the Clause we are now considering will overrule that, and that no declaration in a trust deed giving exclusive power to the clergyman, with or without the Bishop, to conduct the religious education in the school shall stand against the words of the statute that the control of religious education shall belong to the lay managers. It is necessary that that should be clearly understood; and I state the case in these distinct terms in order that if there is any doubt it may be set right. If that is so, it is, of course, an absolute and decisive condemnation on the part of the Government and the House of Commons of the claim put forward by the noble Lord that religious education in the school is the monopoly of the clergy, Bishops, or ecclesiastics. This Bill is not meant, to borrow a phrase used by the right hon. Gentle man at the head of the Government, to represent the opinion of a clerical clique. That is a graphic expression and a very true one, and if that is so, a great service has been done by the noble Lord in bringing the matter clearly forward, and by the right hon. Gentleman in the conclusive reply he has made to that contention.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he was very anxious to say a few words upon this Amendment, because he saw that among the various hard words that had been applied to
  1534
  him by authorities of the Church was one by the Dean of Chester that he was a "mob orator." That was rather hard on the conferences which he had often been invited to address. He would venture to say a word or two by way of an impartial reply to the speech made by his noble friend the Member for Greenwich who had attacked his Amendment so severely. He was afraid the noble Lord had been beguiled by the strength of his opinions into identifying himself with possible action which he would have only too good cause to regret. The noble Lord had taken exception to this Clause on the ground that it conveyed a censure on the clergy. He denied that the Clause conveyed a censure on the clergy as a whole, though it did upon some who had undoubtedly misconducted themselves. But the censure conveyed against those clergy was the same as would be conveyed by the Bishops themselves. The only difference was that this censure was expressed by the laity instead of by the Bishops. There was no censure on the clergy as a whole.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid this Clause did not distinguish between one clergyman and another.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYthought that that distinction would be quickly made by the operation of this Clause. The noble Lord had spoken of this Clause as being an insult to the Bishops, but he did not know that it could be so considered. On the contrary, he thought that, so far from being an insult to the Bishops, it would fortify their position, enabling them better to restrain their exuberant clergy, and to assert more strongly than they had hitherto been able to do their authority. The noble Lord had spoken of its alienating the Church. He took the exactly opposite view. Instead of breaking up the Church, he held—and he claimed to voice a far greater number of clergy than the noble Lord in saying this—that it would promote more active sympathy, cooperation, and unity between them and the laity. The exclusion of an incumbent from his school was a power very rarely used, but if it were it would only show that the incumbent was not a man of

  1535
  ordinary commonsense. He regretted extremely the threat with which his noble friend concluded his speech.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid be used no threat. All he said was that in a case where the Clause was enforced in such a way as to exclude a clergyman without the consent of the Bishops, it would be the duty of the Church to resist it.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid the threat of the noble Lord would, if acted upon, be an unfortunate thing for those who associated themselves with him. He warned those who might take up a position of opposition to the working of the Act that they would be opening the sluice-gates of a great flood of public opinion, which would not only overwhelm them individually in their own parishes but would wash away the very foundations of the Church itself. It was his deliberate opinion that in a large number of rural parishes this Clause would retain, or win back where it was lost, the confidence of parents in the teaching of the only school which was available for their children, whether these parents were Anglicans or Nonconformists; and if, as the result of that confidence, the children attended school in larger numbers, the Clause would have done a good deal for the common cause of education. They were not trying to set up little colleges for the encouragement of theological disputants, or training schools for the discussion of abstract points of theological philosophy. They merely desired to ensure that in this country there should be that simple effectual religious teaching which would fortify and safeguard the children against the difficulties and dangers of after life. The close association of the laity with the clergy could work only in the direction of making the religious instruction more in consonance with that which the great bulk of the people desired—a result that would be for the good of the children, and, therefore, for the welfare of the nation. As he had followed the controversy that had raged around this subject, he had become more and more assured that the Amendment was one which could be accepted in the certain hope that it would work well for all those to whom it was intended to apply.
  MAJOR JAMESONsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire bad once more attacked the High Church Party, and had brought forward as a reason for excluding the Bishops from their proper sphere the dictum of the Bishop of Liverpool. But that particular Prelate represented only a very small portion of the Church of England, and he alone of all the Bishops had endeavoured to bring into disrepute the authority of the Episcopate and the clergy of the Church. If the Bishop or the priest of the parish was good enough to preach on Sunday, to lay down doctrine to a well-educated congregation, to visit those in trouble or distress, and to give comfort and consolation in the hour of sickness and death, surely he was good enough to teach the young in the schools. There was hardly a Member of the House but had been glad to welcome the advice and consolation of the clergy in houses of need, and were they, the grief having passed away, to forget the comfort brought to them by those they now sought to ignore? If so, gratitude had left the members of every section of religion, and ho did not care to belong to such a religion. Every priest, whether Roman Catholic or Anglican, endeavoured to endear himself to his congregation; and was he to be excluded from the school simply because one or two members of his congregation differed from him on points of doctrine? He earnestly hoped that all Members of the House who had ever received any good whatsoever from their Church would go into the Lobby in support of what the Bishops had done.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELL(Wigan) thought that, being Vice-Chairman of the House of Laymen of the Province of York, he might speak as the representative of a considerable body of lay opinion. Though not directly authorised to speak on behalf of the House of Laymen, he should not have been elected to the position of vice-chairman had his opinion not concurred with the predominant feeling of the members. The great majority of Church-going and Church-loving laymen did not share the apprehensions of alarm expressed by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. He believed that the effect of the Clause would be highly beneficial to the Church, as it would tend to increase

  1537
  lay co-operation, and the consequent harmonious concert between clergy and laity would result in the increased strength arising from mutual confidence. He might mention that, according to the phraseology of the trust deeds of the National Society, the authority given to the clergy was that of superintendence. The word "teaching" did not occur, and judging from the old discussions with reference to the trust deed he thought there was some good reason for the omission of the word. Much was heard in these days of the desire to increase lay power in the Church of England, and he could not express too strongly his deep regret that this, the first effort to give by legislation new power to laymen, should be resisted by a large section of the clerical party. That opposition was a bad omen and excited great alarm. He hoped the House would support the Clause, as he was certain that it would work for good, promote peace, and secure strength.
  *(4.30.) Mr. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he wished to address a question to the Attorney General. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire pointed out very clearly to this House the constitutional position of the Church of England, and what Churchmen were concerned with was not the Roman Catholic Church or the Wesleyan body, but they were deeply concerned for the national Church. He wished to ask whether under this Section there would be any appeal from the bishop in each diocese in respect of what was and what was not a reference under the trust deed.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That point hardly arises under this Amendment. It has nothing to do with the control of the bishop.
  *MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he could only say on this Amendment that he, thought that they must all rejoice that although, somewhat tardily, the intrinsic rights of the laity had been vindicated in this House, the position taken up by the Prime Minister having certainly been a surprise to a great
  1538
  many. The acceptance of that now famous institution the Konyon-Slaney Clause would give to all who had the best interests of the Church of England at heart the most lively satisfaction. He did not desire to pursue this subject further on the present Amendment, which covered a much wider ground than he had anticipated, and he would reserve the other remarks he had to make for the Amendment dealing with the Bishop's appeal.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords' Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 5, line 10, agreed to.
  Lords' Amendment—
  "In page 5, line 10, after 'managers,' insert 'provided that nothing in this sub-Section shall affect any provision in a trust deed for reference to the bishop or superior ecclesiastical or other denominational authority so far as such provision gives to the bishop or authority the power of deciding whether the character of the religious instruction is or is not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed.'"
  The next Amendment read a second time.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether he would be in order in proposing, as a consequential Amendment, in consequence of the alteration made by the House of Lords, after the word "shall" in line 10, to insert the words "subject to."
  *MR. SPEAKER: The only thing that is material to look at now is the Lords' Amendment. On consideration of the Lords' Amendments no Amendment can be moved to the Bill itself unless it be a purely consequential Amendment upon an Amendment of the Lords.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that with great deference he submitted that it had not been unusual when a very large and wide change had been made in a Clause to enable it to be amended.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Not only is it unusual, but it is unprecedented to allow it to he done unless it can be done as consequential upon the Lords' Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALYpointed out that the Lords' Amendment had resulted in the striking out of the words "the tenour of." Those were the enabling words of the provision, and, therefore, he submitted that that enabled him to engraft an Amendment thereon.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is merely a drafting Amendment.
  *MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he wished to ask the Attorney General, in reference to a trust deed such as was contemplated by the sub-Section, whether there would be any appeal from the decision of the Bishop so long as he was acting in a bonâ fide character?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): No, Sir; there will be no appeal, unless it is given in the trust deed. If the trust deed refers it to the Bishop, his decision will be final; if it provides for a further appeal, of course it will be different.
  *MR. AUSTIN TAYLORthought it was best to have the position put clearly before the House, so far as the general character of the trust deeds was concerned, and the position of the various ecclesiastical authorities. The Amendment he moved was a discriminating Amendment as regarded the Church of England; it had no reference whatever to the Wesleyan body, or to the Roman Catholic body; and he thought he could show the House why it was necessary that, as regarded the National Church, it should be inserted, and why, as regarded other denominations which were outside the purview of the State, there was no need for any such safeguard. It was a matter of perfect indifference whether the Roman Catholic teaching given in a Roman Catholic school was in accordance with the fifth Council of Lateran, the Council of Trent, or the Vatican Council. These were matters in which they, as an integral part of Parliament, were not concerned; but he thought that that House, as an integral part of Parliament, and as representing the laity in the Church, were deeply concerned in the maintenance of the Protestant character of the doctrines of the Church of England. He did not know whether the hon.
  1540
  and gallant Member for Newport realised that under this Section practically what was being done in the schools for the first time was sanctioning by statute an appeal to a purely ecclesiastical authority of the Church of England, viz., the bishop in each diocese. And what was the nature of that appeal? It was as to whether or not certain teaching was or was not in accordance with the standard of the Church of England. To him this seemed a most extraordinary position. They had heard a great deal from the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and the Prime Minister about the rights of the laity of the Church of England, and no one, he was sure, welcomed more heartily than he did the vindication of those rights drawn from the Prime Minister in such unfaltering accents. It might be certainly a little late in the day, seeing the mischief that had already occurred in the Church of England by the unrestricted action of the clergy, but better late than never. Still, in applying that remedy, let them be careful they were not making the position, as regarded the Church of England in these matters of doctrine, more difficult in the future than it had been in the past. It seemed to him a monstrous thing that, by statute, they were to give to each Bishop in his own diocese the absolute right to decide what was or what was not the doctrine of the Church of England.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Where the trust deed so provided.
  *MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid trust deeds were now being drawn, complying with the provisions of the Bill in such a way as to comprehend a final appeal to the episcopal authority. If that was the position, what were really the circumstances under which they found themselves? They had had an interesting discussion between the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and the Prime Minister upon the real character of these elementary schools, in which religious teaching, mainly the teaching of the Church of England, was to be given, and while the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich insisted that these were Church schools, and that in them the authorised officers of the

  1541
  Church had alone the right to give religious instruction, the Prime Minister reiterated his opinion that they were an annexe of the family, in the sense that the children of the poor must go to these schools to receive that religious instruction which, in the wealthy ranks, was given in the home. He would, with great respect, venture another definition of those schools as the meeting place of State and Church in that most solemn and tender of all relationships, the religious and secular education of those millions of tender plants in whom the promise and potency of this country really lay. If these schools, as he believed them to be, were the meeting-place of Church and State in the giving of religious and secular instruction, why should the reference as to what was or was not the doctrine of the Established Church be by statute conferred on a single ecclesiastic in each diocese? They had never had by statute such an arrangement contemplated. What were they to expect as the result of such an arrangement? Reference had been made by the hon. Member opposite to the Bishop of Liverpool. He certainly yielded to no one in his admiration for that Prelate in the firm stand he was taking—a stand not narrower than the Church of England, and no wider—in refusing to admit the introduction of practices and ceremonies which at the time of the Reformation were thought to be finally abandoned by the National Church. If that was his line, what was the line of the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Rochester, the Bishop of Salisbury, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Exeter, the Bishop of London, and other Prelates? He should anticipate with some amusement the different definitions of the Anglican doctrine which would emanate from those worthy Prelates in their respective dioceses. It was nearly sixty years since, the beginning of that movement in the Church of England, of which today they were gathering the first fruits in the determination of that House to put a period to the movement, not in the churches, but in the schools, so far as in them lay. The extraordinary part of the thing was that while the appeal in the churches was to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the appeal
  1542
  in the case of the schools—quite as important, surely—was to be made in a grotesque fashion to each Bishop in his diocese, to decide according to his own ideas what was or was not the doctrine of the Anglican Church. No superior authority was imposed to bring them into uniformity. No appeal was given by which aggrieved managers—and they might have aggrieved managers other than clerical—could carry the matter further. They would have to carry out in each diocese whatever might be the predilections or idiosyncrasies of the Bishop, who would give to his decision the theological tinge which he happened to possess, He had in his hand the opinion the Attorney General delivered on 27th November on this Clause. Before the Bill went to the House of Lords there was a slight obscurity surrounding this Clause, which had been dissipated by putting it in another form. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he read the Clause as not interfering in the slightest degree with the functions of any ecclesiastical authority to determine what the doctrine was of the Church with which the school was associated, and if the question arose as to whether a particular doctrine was the doctrine of the Church of England, and if the trust deed provided for the decision of that by the Bishop, his decision would be obtained and it would be the duty of the managers loyally to carry out the decision of the authority provided by the trust deed of which they were the administrators. He hoped that before this sub-Section finally left the House, words such as he had indicated would be inserted so as to secure that each Bishop in his own diocese, in giving a decision in this matter, would have respect to the general ecclesiastical law of the Church of England. If they had no security of that kind, he ventured to say that the position in the various dioceses of this country would be a grotesque nullification of the benefits with which that Clause was supposed to be charged. The managers were to administer the dose which the Bishop was to prescribe, and in each diocese no doubt each Bishop would have his own idea of what that dose was to be, and what was or was not Anglican doctrine. He was speaking

  1543
  not only for today but for the future, and not only for the schools but for the future of the national Church of this country. They had had an extensive discussion today travelling over the whole field of Church polity and of those excesses which had marred her work and brought into discredit a considerable section of the clergy. He did not wish to follow in the wake of that discussion, but he thought the House ought not to shut its eyes to the possibility of the situation that the day would come when the question of reform in the Church of England must be considered unless, indeed, Parliament was driven to a solution which would involve the cutting of the knot which today bound Church and State together. He was one of those who did not wish to see the day come when that question of the dissolution of partnership would have to be considered, but he did wish, when constructive legislation such as was indicated by the hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire took place, both in the church as well as in the school, that the House should consider how far it would be prejudicing a settlement upon the supreme question of what was or what was not the doctrine of the Church of England, by allowing a different authority and a different standard to be set up today in Anglican schools to what was the constitutional authority for deciding disputes in the Anglican Church. These disputes had been active and acute to an extraordinary degree, and he only wanted to say that, while he did not desire for one minute to narrow the position of the Church of England, with those who desired to upset her adherence to Reformation standards, he wished for no truce, and would make no terms. He would apply in all its severity the old Spanish proverb—
  "The war is not over as long as my enemy lives."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: A nice religious spirit.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he held his convictions as dearly as the hon. Member held his with regard to his own Church, and it ill-became such an exemplar of courtesy and charity as the hon. Member
  1544
  for North Louth to fall foul of any man for exhibiting a spirit which possibly, for the moment, might have been intolerant and outside the limits of debate in this House. He desired to urge upon the House the absolute necessity of clearing up this point before they finally dismissed the Clause. He must press his Amendment, not because he wished to cast a slur upon the Bishops of the Church of England, but because he desired them to understand clearly from this House what it was they expected them to do, and that in giving their various decisions in the different dioceses they should respect the general ecclesiastical law of the country—the law which had been defined in the past by the supreme tribunal of law and order and which might be defined with equal exactitude in the future. He moved to add to the Lords Amendment:—
  Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment—
  "At the end, to add the words, 'But where any such decision is given by a bishop or other superior ecclesiastical authority of the Church of England, the decision shall be in accordance with the law as declared by the courts having jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical."—(Mr. Austin Taylor.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be added to the Lords' Amendment."
  (5.0.) SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he did not think it necessary to follow his hon. friend into all the topics upon which he had dilated with so much ability and earnestness. He felt that his hon. friend had a little exaggerated the scope of this Clause when he spoke of it as for the first time giving statutory recognition of an appeal on the doctrine of the Church of England to the Bishops. It did not create any such tribunal. The only effect was that where a trust deed provided for a reference of any matter in dispute to an ecclesiastical authority, the trust deed should not be interfered with by the provisions of the Clause. He thought the House would agree that there might be great convenience in a provision of that kind. His hon. friend's Amendment was confined to one of the many churches that might be affected by this Clause; it was confined to the Church of England only; and the hon. Member appeared to be under some misconception of the provisions of the Clause upon which he

  1545
  proposed to engraft his Amendment. The reference to the Bishop, or other authority, was to be on the question whether the character of the instruction was, or was not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed, and the Amendment was inapplicable to the Clause. If the trust deed provided that the teaching was to be in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England, then the Bishop would, of course, in the exercise of the authority given by the trust deed, decide if the requirements of the trust deed were adhered to as to the nature and character of the religious teaching. That would be the only question with which the Bishop would be competent to deal. His hon. friend proposed to say by his Amendment that the decision of the Bishop should be in accordance with the law as declared by the courts having jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical; but how did the hon. Member propose to enforce that? What was the use of a brutum fulmen of that sort? If he school was intended to teach the doctrines of the Church of England, of course it would be for the Bishop to decide what the doctrines were; but what was the use of saying to the Bishop that he should do his duty? To have any effect, the matter would have to go further; there would have to he an appeal from the Bishop to some higher authority; but his hon. friend had not proposed that in his Amendment, and for the best of reasons. What was wanted was a ready decision which would be defeated if an appeal to a higher court were permissible.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: With great deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, I think he has missed that which is the really governing fact of the whole of this case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that this is not the introduction of the Bishop for the first time, because the Bishop is already acknowledged in the trust deed to be the proper authority to settle the doctrine to be taught in the schools in conformity with the doctrine of the Church of England in all respects. But the trust deed, so long as it governs the conduct of the school, which after all (although it receives Government assistance) is a private school, in order to carry out the desire for religious education, and other education, according to
  1546
  the ideas of the subscribers who have set it up. But that is a very different thing now. The same school is supported out if the public funds and by the rates, and when it comes to stand on the same footing, practically as the church itself—I do not mean the church with the big "C," but the church with the small "c," i. e. the church of the parish—let the House consider for a moment, how extraordinary would be the state of things that would be created by this Clause if passed as it at present stands. Suppose a certain parishoner is aggrieved at the doctrine which he hears taught in the church—he himself being a, member of the Communion of the Church of England and attending the administrations of the incumbent. He hears a certain doctrine preached which he thinks is not in conformity with the principles of the Church of England. Then we provide him with a certain means of obtaining redress. We say "You will have an appeal to a certain authority instituted by Parliament for the purpose. He has an efficient remedy, though I admit it is slow and costly. But the same man finds that his child is being taught the same doctrine in the school, and his only remedy there is an appeal to the Bishop, and the Bishop's decision is final. The two cases seem to me, by the legislation of this year, to be brought into parallel relation with each other; and yet we deal with one in an entirely different way from that in which we deal with the other. What reason is there that this matter should be left to the decision of the individual Bishop? One Bishop may differ from another in his views and opinions, and you might have one kind of teaching in one diocese differing from that given in another diocese. When a Bishop was translated from one diocese to another he might find that the decisions of his predecessor in regard to the doctrine of the Church of England were entirely contrary to his own views. You will thus have a state of confusion. These may be on very small points, but when taken in globo—enmasse—they would lead to a very serious state of affairs. Why is one kind of doctrine to be ministered to the lambs and another to the sheep? I do not see any reason for it. I do not think it is any answer to the hon. Member opposite for the Attorney General to say—"You

  1547
  have proposed this Amendment, but you have not provided the machinery for enforcing it." Of course the hon. Member has not provided the machinery; and I should not be surprised if the hon. Gentleman did not consider himself competent to do so. It may require a great deal of thought to provide a proper court of appeal: but there should be some appeal as to the doctrine taught in the school, just as there was an appeal to the highest Court in the realm as to the doctrine taught in the Church. To say that we should leave the decision as to the doctrine taught in the school entirely to the Bishop, means that one decision may be given by one Bishop, and another decision by another Bishop. But surely it goes more closely to a man's heart to hear erroneous doctrine taught to his child than to himself. If he is well enough informed, and cares enough about the subject, he can, at least, defend himself against it; but in the case of the child there is not, under this Amendment, that safeguard. And therefore there is, in the child's case, a higher claim to some appeal than the mere ipse dixit of a Bishop than in the case of the father himself. I accordingly think that the words the hon. Gentleman proposes are absolutely necessary to bring this matter of the school into the same position as the Church now is in, and in order to obtain that order and regularity in the doctrines and practices of the Church and in the school which ought to prevail so long as the Church of England is to retain its connection with the State.
  COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid he thought this was a most important point, and ought to have been foreseen and provided for by the promoters of the Bill. The Church of England was the Church of England by law established. The Roman Catholic Church was not by law established, and none of the Free Churches were Churches by law established. But the Church of England was by law established with the King at its head, and all matters pertaining to its doctrine and discipline were referable to and decided by the Privy Council. Now, by this Clause it was stated that any Bishop of the Church of England had in his diocese absolute power to decide what was the
  1548
  doctrine and discipline of the Church of England. How could a trust deed be legal if it over-rode the ecclesiastical law of England? In this case they should be doing an exceedingly injudicious, perilous and dangerous thing if they passed this Clause without the Amendment proposed. He should have thought that an Amendment of this sort would have been at once adopted by the Government. If a Clause of this kind were passed he believed it would be unconstitutional, and it would be a Precedent which would be very dangerous at some time or another to the Church of England if that Church was going to remain paramount in the land. He was not a lawyer; but when he heard the speech of the Attorney General, he was astonished that he should have allowed a thing like this to go through without providing a safeguard. That was an extraordinary thing to him as a layman, and as an Englishman. He appealed to the Government to put this matter right. Where would they be unless it were provided that the matter should not go through without the safeguards that his hon. friend had asked for? He should certainly vote for the Amendment. No member of the House of Commons, no Member of the Church of England, no Englishman, ought to be so foolish or so unpatriotic as not to vote for the Amendment of his hon. friend. Unless the Lords' Amendment were amended he should vote against it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid they ought to have the views of the Government on this matter. The Attorney General had given only a legal opinion on the Amendment. The question was, were they going to make the Bishop the one clerical personage who was, in point of fact, to overrule the lay managers? Was that the intention of the Government? The decision of the Bishop would govern all the elementary schools in the diocese. Then, as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment very properly said, each of the Bishops would give a different decision. The point was to ascertain what were the doctrines of the Church of England; and for that they ought to go to one single authority not to twenty or thirty authorities all differing from each other. That was

  1549
  not the way to get at the doctrines of the Church of England. What had happened during the last few years? One Bishop insisted on a clergyman leaving his diocese on account of his being disloyal to the doctrines of the Church of England; but he was immediately instituted into a living in another diocese. That had happened in two most flagrant cases. What was the use of leaving it to individual Bishops to determine what were the doctrines of the Church of England when they had not the authority to do that with reference to the ministers of the Church itself. In his opinion the effect of the Amendment put in in the Lords would be to destroy denominational education altogether; because they would have the spectacle of a number of Bishops, each on his authority determining the doctrines of the Church of England in different directions. It seemed to him to be a most injurious proposal; and one which would introduce chaos into the denominational system.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he thought the Amendment before them mainly concerned the Church of England and the question of the orthodoxy of that Church. But this was a matter which also concerned the Imperial Parliament. This was not the Parliament of the Church of England. It consisted of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Atheists, and although, of course, it was true that the Church of England was by law established, at the same time, every hon, member of every other Church must have a similar concern for the orthodoxy of his Church as the hon. Member for East Toxteth had for the teaching of the orthodoxy of the Church of England. He understood that the hon. Member's opinion was that if the lay managers, consisting of the farmers or grocers of the district, were dissatisfied with the Bishop's appeal there should be a further reference to the judges of the Divorce Court, which finally settled all these questions in regard to the Church of England. Today it was Lord Cowley and Sir Charles Hartopp, to morrow the doctrines of the Church of England. He was not immediately concerned, but he should like to ask whether he should be in order in moving after
  1550
  the words "affecting the Church of England" the words "and in the case of the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the decisions of His Holiness the Pope." That was the logical result of having an Imperial Parliament to consider questions affecting the religion to which he belonged
  COLONEI, PILK1NGTON: On a point of Order, I wish to point out that the Church of Rome and the Free Churches are not under the Crown.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to forget that this was an Imperial Parliament, and he had as much right as a Catholic to safeguard the interests of his Church as the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division had to safeguard the teaching of the Church of England. Why was he to be denied, if he had any apprehensions on this subject of religious teaching, the right to see that in the ultimate result he got the quintessence of orthodoxy, just as the hon. Member sought to get it through the Divorce Court?
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he must interrupt the hon. Member who had just credited him with delusions which he did not possess. He had never even imagined an appeal to the Divorce Court. The appeal he desired was to the Superior Ecclesiastical Courts of England, which could not benefit the Church of Rome, which had no connection with the State whatever in its capacity as a Crown institution similar to that which the Church of England had.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he always thought that religion was a divine institution, and not a Crown institution, and it was under that delusion that he proposed his Amendment, and then as all these bodies necessarily desired orthodoxy, the Jews could have a reference to the Chief Rabbi, and the Nonconformists—say to Mr. Perks. It was only when the hon. Member for East Toxteth contemplated the result of his own Amendment that he would begin to discover its absurdity. He was sorry the hon. Gentleman had

  1551
  accused him of a desire to show some want of courtesy upon this question, but he assured the hon. Member that they look as deep an interest in proposals which affected the Church of England as perhaps the hon. Member did in regard to the Church of Rome. What appeared to him to be the view of some of those representing the Church of England was that they wanted endowed nonconformity in the Church of England; and, therefore the position taken up by the Nonconformists seemed to him to be much more logical, because they were willing to part with all the advantages which belonged to the Church of England in order to assert their right of private judgment, which he thought was a much more honourable position. He wished to know if he should be in order in moving his Amendment.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid he did not know whether the hon. Member was serious in asking that question. His proposal would not be relevant, having regard to the first words of the Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then I bow to your ruling Mr. Speaker.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, with the best intention in the world, they could not at this stage travel over the whole field of ecclesiastical controversy. He ventured to think that this was hardly a proper occasion in which to deal with the matter; and he would, therefore, suggest that a division be now taken.
  (5.28) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 93; Noes, 215 (Division List No. 642).

  AYES.

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Asquith Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brigg, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Langley, Batty

  Spear, John Ward

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Burns, John

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Caldwell, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Toulmin, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Crombie, John William

  Lough, Thomas

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Weir, James Galloway

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Evans. Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gladstone. Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Grant, Corrie

  Partington, Oswald

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

  Perks, Robert William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Rea, Russell

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Mr. Austin Taylor and

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Colonel Pilkington.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arrol, Sir William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Ambrose, Robert

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

  Bigwood, James

  Graham, Henry Robert

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  O'Doherty, William

  Boland, John

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

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

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Groves, James Grimble

  O'Dowd, John

  Rousfield, William Robert

  Hain, Edward

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  O'Malley, William

  Bowles, T. GibSon (King's Lynn)

  Hammond, John

  O'Mara, James

  Brassey, Albert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Percy, Earl

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Platt-Higgius, Frederick

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H.(Somers't, E

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Chamberlain. Rt Hn J. A.(Wore.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Purvis, Robert

  Chapman, Edward

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pym, C. Guy

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

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

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Knowles, Lees

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leamy, Edmund

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lecky. Rt Hen. William Edw. H.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Crean, Eugene

  Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rutherford, John

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lockie, John

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cullinan, J.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Delany, William

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Dorington. Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Doughty, George

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, Donal

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M'Govern, T.

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G.(0xf'd Univ.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Kean, John

  Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n, N

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw, M.

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

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

  Tully, Jasper

  Ffrench, Peter

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Field, William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Mooney, John J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Rannatyne

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Fison, Frederick William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wilson. Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Flower, Ernest

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gailit, William

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

  Sir Alexander Acland

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  (5.48) Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the
  The House divided:—Ayes, 229; Noes, 82. (Division List No, 643).
  Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)

  AYES

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fison, Frederick William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Mooney, John J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Aroold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Flower, Ernest

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Arrol, Sir William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Forster, Henry William

  Myers, William Henry

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Garfit, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Baldwin, Alfred

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

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

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

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

  O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Graham, Henry Robert

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Groves, James Grimble

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Big wood, James

  Hain, Edward

  O'Doherty, William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (M'dd'x

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

  Boland, John

  Hammond, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick George

  O'Malley, William

  Brassey, Albert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Mara, James

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Heaton, John Henniker

  O'Shee, James John

  Campbell, John (Armagb, S.)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Carevv, James Laurence

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Percy, Earl

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somerset, E

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Chapman, Edward

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Purvis, Robert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Qailter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Rearly

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Atho e

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Knowles, Lees

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Scaly bridg.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGroeg

  Crean, Eugene

  Leamy, Edmund

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Crossley. Sir Savile

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cullinan, J.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Curcie

  Rutherford, John

  Delany, William

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lockie, John

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albeit

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Doogan, P. C.

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Doughty, George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, Ea t)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Smith, James Parker (Lanaras

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lundon, W.

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxtelh)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N

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

  M'Govern, T.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kean, John

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Field, William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshiie)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo North)

  Tully, Jasper

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

  Valentia, Viscount

  1556

  1557

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. CE(Taunton

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund, Lyne

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Wyndham, lit. Hon, George

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  NOES

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

  Helme Norval Watson

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Asquifch. Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Brigg, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Langley, Batty

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Leese, Sir Joseph E. (Acerington

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Burns, John

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Toulmin, George

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lough, Thomas

  Walton, Joseph Barnsley

  corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Crombie, John William

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Davies, M. Vanghan-(Cardigan

  Morley, Charles (Breconsbire)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Elibank, Master of

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk. Mid.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Perks, Robert William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Hudd'rsf'd

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Grant, Corrie

  Rea, Russell

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Robertson. Edmund (Dundee)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Mr. William M 'Arthur

  Lords' Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 5, line 32, agreed to.
  Lords' Amendment—
  "In page 5, line 32, after 'section,' insert as a new sub-Section, 'Any transfer of a public elementary school to or from a local education authority shall for the purposes of this Section be treated as the provision of a new school.'"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time—
  MR. BRYCEthought the Amendment open to great objections. While reserving his right to take exception to the sub-Section afterwards, he desired now to call attention to a matter of drafting. The Transfer Clause of the Act of 1870 was not repealed by the Bill, and therefore prima facie remained in force. The terms of the Amendment, however, seemed to imply that the procedure of the present Bill was to be substituted for that of the Act of 1870, and that conse quently the latter was to be pass vely repealed. The question ought to be settled distinctly one way or the other, and he moved to insert after "section,"
  1558
  in the second line, "and subject to the provisions of Section 24 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870."
  Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment—
  "After the word 'section,' to insert the words 'and subject to the provisions of Section 24 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870.'"—(Mr. Bryee.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment."
  THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON), who was almost inaudible in the Press Gallery, was understood to say that the words were unnecessary. There was no idea of repealing Section 24 of the Act of 1870.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE(Wiltshire, Cricklade) thought the matter ought to be made quite clear, as it was very desirable that the Councils at starting should not be involved in a great mass of legal uncertainty.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the words of the proposed Amendment would give rise to infinitely more doubt and difficulty than the sub-Section as it stood.
  MR. YOXALL(Nottingham, W.) understood his right hon. friend's fear to be that unless the Amendment were made the regulations with regard to transfer would override and millify the provisions of Section 24 of the Act 0f 1870.
  DR. MACNAMARA(Camberwell, N.) suggested the addition of the words "but nothing in this provision shall authorise the Bishops." If any doubt existed, he thought those words would remove it.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, because the words of the Clause were quite clear as they stood, and he desired that the Amendments should not be multiplied.
  Proposed Amendment to the Lords' Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid this was an important Amendment. He did not desire to take uptime unnecessarily by dwelling upon the machinery contained in Sections 8 and 9. Section 29 contained elaborate provisions for the publication of notices, and what he objected to was the great delay that would ensue in consequence. Those provisions would involve an enormous amount of unnecessary work, and, as this matter was fully discussed in this House, he should have thought that what was good enough for the House of Commons ought to have satisfied those who sat in another place. He hoped the Government would not insist upon this House adhering to the Lords' Amendment upon this point. They might fairly anticipate that, this
  1560
  was a matter which the House of Lords would not attach any very great importance to.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsubmitted that the cases of a new school and that of transferring an existing school were essentially different. In the case of a new school there might be a need for the statutory precautions; but in the case of an existing school no hindrance should be placed in the way of its cheap and rapid transfer to the local authority. This was a mere transfer of a school with its scholars, and it seemed to him that the view taken by the Government originally, as opposed to the view taken in the other House, was much more correct and far more adapted to the circumstances. So far from introducing obstacles, they ought to provide the utmost facility for the transfer of schools in either one direction or the other, and unless they adopted that course, they would in the end be placed in a position most disadvantageous to the education of the nation, always, in his expressed opinion, a matter of vital importance, and an opinion which had been confirmed by his recent observation and experience in America, compared with which we were many years behindhand in public education.
  MR. ALFRED IIUTTONsaid that this Amendment applied cumbrous machinery to the transfer of schools in both directions, whether from the private owners to public authorities or from the public authorities to private managers. Suppose the transfer was to take place from a private owner or a railway company. He was considering the case of the purely denominational school. Why should not those private owners or public companies be allowed to transfer their schools, which had been erected in a sense with public money? Why should they not be allowed to transfer their schools without this period of three months in which they would be liable to receive all these complaints from all quarters? The Government were doing all they possibly could in the interests of denominational schools. The machinery which was now proposed was far too cumbrous, and they ought to oppose it and endeavour to make it as easy as they possibly could for those public spirited owners to transfer their schools.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the Amendment only made perfectly clear what had been said over and over again in the House—namely, that when a school changed its character it came under the operation of Clauses 8 and 9.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEasked if it would not be better from the Government point of view to leave this proposal out altogether.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he never understood that Clause 8 was meant to apply to these cases of transfers. They had always taken the words "new public elementary school" not to apply to the changes in the character of existing schools, but to the creation of a new school altogether, and consequently they were greatly surprised at the introduction of this Amendment. His hon. friend was under a complete misapprehension if he thought that they ever took Clause 8 in that sense. He thought this proposition would add very much to the expense which would be incurred by local authorities if they were obliged to go through all this process, and it would render it far more difficult to make private bargains. In the interests of the economy of the rates, it was very much to be deprecated that this Amendment had been introduced. In the interests of the rates he objected to this elaborate machinery being brought into play in the case of the transfer of an existing school.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the Prime Minister had long ago made it perfectly clear to the House that Clauses 8 and 9 would apply to the transfer of existing schools as well as of new schools. The proposal here was to make it clear that such a transfer would, as in the case of the expiration of a lease, fall under the operation of this Clause.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he recollected that the Prime Minister made a statement that when once a school had been transferred to the public authority it was never to return to private management. He ventured with great respect to submit his recollection of that statement to the Attorney General, who had spoken of his own recollection of what the Prime Minister said. This Amendment, when
  1562
  made on the Bill in another place, came I upon him as a matter of great surprise, and he believed that surprise was shared by many hon. Members on this side of the House. He appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether it would not be in the interest of this part of the Bill not to press the Amendment. It could not pass without a division, because they felt a little sore about it. It was thoroughly understood that this was not to apply to transfers, and therefore they were bound to oppose the Amendments.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he was a little surprised at the opposition which was being offered to this Amendment. There were many cases where the voluntary schools were at present leased from the local authority, and where the lease would expire in the course of a year or two. It was perfectly possible for the Board of Education to declare the school unnecessary; the school would not then be run as a voluntary school. The managers might get the building and the plant back, but they could not run it again as a voluntary school. He should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have considered it to their interest to support the Amendment. To his mind the Clause made for the diminution of those small, unnecessary, and very often denominational schools.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the machinery here proposed was cumbrous. The great bulk of the cases would be transfers of voluntary schools to the local authority. In that event what would happen would be that the local authority would first of all give notice to the managers of any other school in the district. Those managers could appeal, or any ten ratepayers could appeal, to the Board of Education. The result would be almost interminable delay before the transfer could take place. Under the present system a transfer could be effected promptly within a few days, but under the machinery now proposed it might take twelve or eighteen months, or even two years. It would involve great expense and deprive the children in many cases of the opportunity of getting proper education.
  (6 23.) Question put.
  The House divided:— Ayes, 224; Noes, 79, (Division List No. 644).

  AYES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.,

  Field, William

  M'Kean, John

  Agg Gardner, James Tynte

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Massey-Mainwaring. Hn. W. F.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fison, Frederick William

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E.(Wigt'n

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Arrol, Sir William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Flower, Ernest

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Garfit, William

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

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

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH' mlets

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Graham, Henry Robert

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

  Bigwood, James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Boland, John

  Groves, James Grimble

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hain, Edward

  O'Doherty, William

  Bonsfield, William Robert

  Hammond, John

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

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo

  O'Dowd, John

  Brassey, Albert

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O Kelly, James(Roscommon N.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  O'Shee, James John

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Higgin bottom, S. W.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somerset, E

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Percy, Earl

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pilkington, Lient.-Col. Richard

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon J A(Wore.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Chapman, Edward

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Purvis, Robert

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Pym, C. Guy

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Knowles, Lees

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Crean, Eugene

  Leamy, Edmund

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Leeky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Crossley. Sir Savile

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Cullinan, J.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Delany, William

  Lockie, John

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rutherford, John

  Dixon-Hartland Sir Fred Dixon

  Long. Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Doogan, P. C.

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

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Doughty, George

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lundon, W.

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Duffy, William J.

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G Ellison

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M' Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

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

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Govern, T.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Valentin, Viscount

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Yerhurgh, Robert Armstrong

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Tully, Jasper

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

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Asher, Alexander

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Brigg, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Taylor, Theodore. C (Radcliffe)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Thamas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

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

  Burns, John

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Caldwell, James

  Lloyd-George, David

  Toulmin, George

  Campbell-Bannernian, Sir H.

  Lough, Thomas

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Maenamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Wrrner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Crombie, John William

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, Eugene (Clackniannan)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Weir. James Galloway

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Norton, Capt, Cecil William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Elibank, Master of

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Partington, Oswald

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Philipps, John Wynford

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Rea, Russell

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

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

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eilion)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Scale-

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Mr. Yoxall and Sir John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Brunner.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Lords' Amendment—
  "In page 5, line 39, leave out 'already, and insert 'for the time being.'"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that the words "for the time being" were in the original Bill, and "already" had been substituted for them. Why had the Clause been altered again to its original form?
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the purpose was to make it quite clear what the meaning of the Clause was. "For the time being" referred to the moment at which the question arose, not to the passing of the Act.
  Lords' Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 9, lines 10 and 11, agreed to.
  Lords' Amendment—
  "In page 9, lines 10 and 11, leave out 'they continue to charge fees,' and insert 'fees continue to be charged.'"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson).
  MR. BKYCEsaid that this Amendment might be of very great importance according to the interpretation put upon it. If it meant merely a simple change of phrase, then, of course, no one could object to it; but if it meant that the power of charging fees, which was given by the Bill as it left this House to the local authority, was to be transferred to the managers with the consent of the Board of Education, then the objection to that was very strong. He could hardly believe that that was the meaning of the Government, for they had repeatedly assured the Committee that the local authority would have complete control of finance.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was not the slightest intention to alter the power of the local authority in regard to charging fees. The substituted words were only meant to make the power more general.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that that explanation might be satisfactory; but he must say that the original words were far preferable, because the unrepealed Clause in the Act of 1891, which empowered the Board of Education to regulate the charging of fees, might be held to override the words in the altered form, and to give the Board of Education power to impose fees or modify them, without reference to the local education authority at all. The rights of the local authority, unless clearly stated in this Clause, might also be affected by the Code recently introduced by the Board of Education in regard to night schools, which insisted that fees should be charged.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that the House ought to have some assurance, or explanation from the Attorney General as to the power of the educational authority to fix or to abolish fees in regard to these schools. He understood that the education authority would have the power in regard to secular instruction, but the destination of the fees might not necessarily be for secular instruction; they might go to other objects, such as repairs, which the education authority would not administer. It seemed to him that if it was not made clear in the Bill that the power to charge fees was taken from the managers, and rested in the local education authority, the presumption would be, if the Lords Amendment were accepted, that that power remained in the hands of the managers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought the suspicions of hon. Members had very slender foundation and were leading them into unnecessary refinements of drafting. The whole object of the Lords' Amendment was to make the meaning clear, in which apparently it had not been successful. With that object in view he would consent to alterations, leaving out the word ''fees" and inserting "they;" and after "continue" inserting the words "to allow fees."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lords' Amendment amended—
  "By leaving out in the words to be insetted the word 'fees,' and inserting the word 'they,' and by inserting, after the word 'continue,' the words 'to allow fees.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
  Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Lords' Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 10, line 16, agreed to.
  Lords' Amendment—
  "In line 16, after 'nomination' to insert' or recommendation.'"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE, said that after the answer which had been given to him by the Secretary to the Board of Education during the afternoon, the hon. Gentleman would not be surprised if he asked for an explanation of this Amendment. He wished to know how they stood now in regard to it. There was considerable discussion in Committee as to the meaning of the word "nomination." Originally it had one meaning attached to it in this House; and another meaning was afterwards attached to it by the President of the Board of Education in another place. He wished to know whether, when a body was nominated, the County Council would have the right of rejection or not. He also wished to know what distinction was drawn between "nomination" and "recommendation." The whole question was somewhat complicated by the words in the proviso "where it appears desirable;" and he appealed to his hon. friend to throw a little more light on it. His hon. friend, in reply to a hypothetical question, said that it was time enough to consider the solution of problems when they arose; but these problems would arise in the very immediate future, as the local authorities would have to consider within the next month or two what kind of scheme they would send up for confirmation. Surely, it would save the local

  1569
  authorities trouble, and the hon. Gentleman himself trouble, if the local authorities were given some information as to the views of the Board of Education on these very doubtful words. If the hon. Gentleman could not answer now, would he before the end of the year send out circulars to the county authorities explaining the views of the Board?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that from the very beginning of the Bill, he had called attention to the way in which the local authorities had been treated. He believed that any County Council worth its salt would resent the attempt to put on their committees men whom they did not wish to have. If the Government wished their plan to work, they should treat the County Councils in a very different manner.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he was quite sure that the Borough Councils would object strongly to a nominative non-elective element being imposed upon them. The word "nomination" was ambiguous, and the addition of "recommended" established an alternative which gave additional force to the objectionable word "nomination."
  (6.53.) SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that from experience, he had little hope that explanations from him would assist hon. Members in the solutions of conundrums they had themselves constructed. It seemed to him that no statement in these debates was so simple as not to call for explanation, and that every explanation seemed to darken counsel. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think some indignity was put upon County Councils, but, so far as his communications had gone, he had not discovered any disposition on the part of County Councils to receive in any but a favourable light the proposals in the Clause, and he believed they would endeavour by this means to constitute committees worthy of the position and adequate for the work. Appointment would be made by the Council, but if the Council invited some body within its area to make a nomination, such, for instance, as a University college, there might be some difficulty in rejecting the person nominated. Still, in many
  1570
  areas there would be bodies of such dignity that a Council would desire them to have representation, and would ask them to make a nomination, reserving the ultimate right of appointment. But there might be other bodies, associations, federations, or unions of various kinds, to whom the Councils might not think it necessary to send invitations to nominate, although it might be desirable to invite them to recommend, and recommendations would involve the Council in much lighter responsibility of acceptance or rejection. In fact the result might be arrived at by informal communications between the Councils and the bodies concerned. The Amendment was, he believed, an attempt to meet some of the difficulties which his right hon. friend had suggested on a previous occasion. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the Secretary to the Board of Education began by observing that all the explanations given by the Government had only succeeded in darkening counsel. They might agree with that. He himself certainly recollected four or five cases whore they had endeavoured to ascertain without result the meaning of new words which had been introduced. He understood the explanation of the Secretary to the Board of Education to be this, that where a scheme gave nomination to a body, the County Council was obliged to accept the person—that it had no choice in the matter.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: No, no. What I said was that the appointment is with the Council, but that, when the Council has asked a body of some dignity or position to nominate a person, it would be exceedingly difficult for them to reject the person nominated.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that in that case, if the County Council could reject the person nominated, there was no difference between "nomination" and "recommendation." The idea of the Government apparently was that where there was a recommendation it could be refused without offence; but that where there was a nomination it would be an insult to refuse it. What would happen if the County Council continued

  1571
  to refuse the particular persons nominated? Must the Council, in the last resort, accept a person, however displeasing, because the word "nomination" conferred an absolute right on the nominating party? He should be obliged if the Government would explain that.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he thought lie understood this simple matter until he had beard the speech of the Secretary to the Board of Education. When the proviso was first introduced, it was agreed that it meant that every scheme proposed by a County Council was bound to provide for nomination by other bodies. In answer to an objection, the Government introduced the words "where it appears desirable." Therefore, it was now within the discretion of the County Council to decide whether its scheme should provide for nomination or not; but, where it did provide for nomination it was compulsory. If his view were correct, the word "recommendation" was very much better than "nomination;" and, in the circumstances, he thought the House would do well to agree with the Lords' Amendment.
  MR. BRIGGsaid he did not yet quite understand the position. Would the Secretary to the Board of Education say whether a County Council could of its own will nominate the bodies from whom it would receive representatives.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Amendment.
  Lords' Amendment—
  'In page 10, line 17, after 'bodies,' insert 'including associations of voluntary schools.' "
  — the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid as the House had not sufficient time properly to discuss many important Amendments
  1572
  which remained to be considered, they would have to express their views on the Amendment now before the House by dividing against it. The Clause in the Bill was perfectly clear. He believed that some Roman Catholic Members of the House were under the impression that the Amendment was of some importance to them; but he submitted that the Roman Catholic Bishops would be brought in under the words "persons acquainted with the needs of the various kinds of schools in the area." The associations referred to in the Amendment were the diocesan associations. In a Parliamentary term they were created only by the grant to poor voluntary schools, and would cease to exist on the passing of the Bill; and in regard to them, he would only say that they had not carried out their work to the general satisfaction. Those who had experience of the working of those boards did not like them to be included in the nominating bodies under the Bill. They were happily extinguished by the Bill, and he would prefer their members to appear in a representative capacity, rather than as nominees of the boards. The Amendment was unnecessary, because the best of the members would be brought in under the words he had quoted; but the Amendment would increase the representation of these boards on the education committees, not by the county gentleman nor by the leading clergy, but by the secretaries of the boards against whom it was charged that they had not administered the grants to poor schools made by that House with that discretion and fairness which they should have expected of them.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he regarded the inclusion of these words as good evidence of the partisanship which had been displayed both in the House of Lords and by the Government. He regarded the words as most objectionable from the point of view of the local authorities and of education, and as a direct invitation to that very religious strife and controversy which the Prime Minister had expressed his intention to avoid by some of the other provisions of the Bill. Moreover, the representatives of the voluntary schools would see that the provision of new schools would be in the direction of denominationalism and to the detriment of public schools. Why

  1573
  should the representatives of denominationalism be allowed to put a spoke in the wheel of public interest and public progress. He thought the Amendment was evidence of special favour, of which the Government ought to be ashamed. They had established on the management; a permanent denominational majority of four to two; but, apparently, that was not enough; and the Amendment was introduced to still further secure the interests of the Voluntary schools. They had a majority of four to two on the Board of Managers, and surely that was sufficient protection for the interests of denominationalism.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether it was under stood that the diocesan associations would have the right to nominate members upon the county governing committees, or whether it was in the option of the County Council to put such members on or not. In connection with the Intermediate Education Act in Wales, representatives of the Voluntary schools had been put on the local subcommittees, which afterwards elected representatives to the county governing bodies. There was no representation of diocesan associations. Would the County Council be able to secure the representation of Voluntary schools in a similar way, or would they be compelled by this Amendment to put on representatives of the diocesan boards? If the latter was the ease, the provision as amended was more mischievous than in its original form.
  Mr. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that, supposing a County Council framed a scheme which excluded the representation of diocesan associations, the Board of Education would apparently be able to alter the scheme. He thought the House ought to reject the Amendment. It was pro posed to give a right to sectarian bodies to interfere in educational matters—a principle which was objectionable in all parts of education, and which was now being introduced for the first time in reference to secondary education.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURdid not think the Amendment would have the effect which was apprehended. Referring to the two specific points which had been
  1574
  put to him, he said it was impossible for him to state what the Board of Education would do with regard to hypothetical schemes which were not yet before it. He was sure the Board, under the guidance of the President and the Parliamentary Secretary, would do its best to make these schemes really workable schemes for all classes of education carried on under the control of the local education authority. In reply to the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, he said that there was nothing in this Amendment, or in the Bill as it now stood, making it obligatory that the schemes of local authorities should provide for the representation of the diocesan association or any other association. That was a point which would depend on the character of the scheme. There was nothing in the Amendment or the Bill to prevent the County Council suggesting another method of representing the interests of Voluntary schools, such as the method for which the hon. Gentleman had a preference based on the experience of Wales.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORCEremarked that all he said was that that was the method which had been pursued up to the present.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURunderstood the hon. Member to express a preference for it, but the point was immaterial. There was nothing in the Amendment to make it absolutely necessary that the education authority or the Education Department should adopt one plan rather than the other.
  Mr. BRYCEsaid it was not denied that this Amendment, taken in conjunction with the rest of the Bill, gave power to the Board of Education, against the will of Borough or County Councils to, provide for the representation of diocesan associations.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not relevant to the Amendment.
  MR. BRYCEmaintained that it was relevant, because the associations were mentioned. Here was a specific direction singling out these voluntary associations, and wherever a specific direction of

  1575
  that kind was given in an Act of Parliament the Department which had to administer the Act had regard to that direction. His view was that in many cases the Board of Education would place, against the will of the County Council, representatives of voluntary associations
  on the committees. He would vote against the Amendment.
  (7.28.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 204; Noes, 68. (Division List No. 645.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

  Fergusson, Rt Hon Sir J.(Manc'r

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Field, William

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fisher, William Hayes

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  M'Govern, T.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Flower, Ernest

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E(Wigt'n

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gardner, Ernest

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Garfit, William

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Gilhooly, James

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bigwood, James

  Graham, Henry Robert

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

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Boland, John

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

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

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Groves, James Grimble

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hain, Edward

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Brassey, Albert

  Hall, Edward Marshall

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

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Doherty, William

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  Healy, Timothy Michael

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  O'Dowd, John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  O'Malley, William

  Chapman, Edward

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  O'Mara, James

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hoult, Joseph

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  O'Shee, James John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Percy, Earl

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Joyce, Michael

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Knowles, Lees

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

  Purvis, Robert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Leamy, Edmund

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cullinan, J.

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Delany, William

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lockie, John

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Doughty, George

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Rutherford, John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Long, Rt Hon Walter(Bristol, S.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Duffy, William J.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hum. George

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Tully, Jasper

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Medley

  Valentia, Viscount

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  TELLERS FOR: THE AYES —

  Talbot, Lord K. (Chichester)

  Whiteley, H. (Asht'n-nnd. Lvne

  Sir Alexander Aclaud-

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

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wortley, lit. Hon. C. B Stuart-

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Asher, Alexander

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Shipman. Dr. John G.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Brigg, John

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Spenoer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Nortiiants

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliff'e)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thonias, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Hums, John

  Lloyd-George, David

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

  Caldwell, James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Toulmin, George

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Markhani, Arthur Basil

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Norman, Henry

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Norton, Capt Cecil William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Fiizmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Rea, Russell

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Hudderst'd

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Tellers FOR. THE NOES—

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Robson. William Snowdon

  Mr. Herbert Gladstope and

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Question, "That this House disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

  It being after half-past Seven of the Clock, Further Consideration of the Lords' Amendment stood adjourned till the Evening Sitting.

E VENINU SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND and WALES) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments further considered.
  "In page 10, line 31, after 'council' insert 'otherwise than under Part III. of this Act.'"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  (9.0.) Lords' Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved that the House should disagree with the Amendment. He said that the Amendment moved in Committee in the Commons, which the present Lords' Amendment destroyed, was agreed to by the Government. It was very unfortunate that it was struck out by the Lords, because it was of the utmost value that the assistance of the elementary teachers should be secured in the framing and working of the education schemes, and
  1578
  he was very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education agreed with the Motion he now had to move.
  Lords' Amendment—
  "In page 11, lines 1 and 2, leave out 'and may, if they think lit, hold a public inquiry.'"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not understand why the Lords had made this Amendment, for the provision was inserted in the Bill after a long discussion. Was it not really desirable for the Board of Education to hold an inquiry?
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONexplained that the power to hold an inquiry was simply transferred from one Clause to another.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: If that is the case, I do not object.
  Lords' Amendment agreed to.
  Lords' Amendment—
  "In page 12, line 6, after 'expenditure' insert 'or rent.' "
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is my duty to inform the House that this involves a breach of privilege. Sub-Section (c) of Section 19 permits County Councils to apportion capital expenditure among certain parishes. This Amendment proposes that they should be allowed to apportion, not only capital expenditure on provided schools, but rent. That is very much on the same principle as the apportionment of capital expenditure, and is, in fact, an addition to the expenditure, the incidence of which is affected. Therefore, I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that it is a breach of privilege.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he would move that the House should waive its privilege in this matter, which, after all, was a small one, and agree with the Lords. As the Hill stood, if the local authority had to build a school it could charge the cost and the instalments of repayment of the cost on the particular district which the school served. It seemed fair that where premises were hired by the local authority, the rent should be charged, like the instalments, on that particular area. The whole objec of the Amendment was to include rent in the general term "expenditure."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid it was most extraordinary that the Secretary of the Board of Education in moving that the House should waive its privilege should give no explanation to the House of the circumstances under which this breach of privilege had occurred. He had spoken as if it were one of those cases in which the Lords' Amendment was necessary to fill some gap left by the House of Commons, and in which by universal consent the House had sometimes consented to waive its privilege. There was, so far as he knew, no
  1580
  precedent for its being done against opposition. He should at any rate be very much astonished if the Government could provide one. The extraordinary thing about this was that the Government were aware of the necessity, from their point of view, of this Amendment when the matter was before the House on an earlier occasion. It was down on the Amendment Paper at the Report stage, and, with several others, was ruled out of Order. The proper course for the Government, surely, I was to recommit the Bill on this precise issue. There was no precedent what ever for a breach of privilege being thus wilfully committed by a Government. He did not propose to discuss the question of privilege at any length, because the House was exhausted by the theological discussion on which it was engaged during the afternoon, but he would remind hon. members that experience in the Colonies had demonstrated that they could not be too careful in insisting on the strict observance of precedents in these matters.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the observations of the right hon. Baronet were not made for the purpose of preventing the House from waiving its privileges on this occasion, but rather for the purpose of criticising the Government for not having recommitted the Bill on the Report stage. It might, perhaps, have been better to recommit the Bill on the Report stage, but he would recall to the House the difficulties under which that stage was carried through. He was not arguing whether the guillotine was a wise or an unwise proceeding; but it would have been felt as rather a hardship by Members who wished to discuss substantial Amendments on that occasion if the Government had gone through the elaborate process of recommitting the Bill in order to introduce this Amendment. On the question of waiving their privileges, he would remind the House that their privileges did not exist for the purpose of annoying the House of Commons. Their purpose was to keep the House of Lords in order. Why make this protest against doing what the House of Commons really wanted to do? This was to turn the privileges of the House into a positive disadvantage

  1581
  instead of an advantage. This Amendment would be an advantage to the local authority. In these circumstances he hoped that the House, remembering its ancient procedure in matters of this kind, would waive its technical privileges and would introduce an Amendment which was intended to further an object equally desired, as he believed, by both sides.
  MR. BRYCEsaid there were two aspects of the question—merit and privilege, As regarded the former he felt rather strongly that it would be better for the Bill if the Amendment were rejected. The principle of the county charge was being departed from to their great regret, and naturally they resisted the Amendment. There might be some alleviation afforded to the county ratepayers, but there would be no advantage conferred on the parish ratepayers, on whom the Amendment might impose a heavy charge. In his opinion they ought to extend their indulgence to the parish ratepayer rather than to the county ratepayer. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the time allotted for the Report stage was very limited, and that it was not possible to recommit the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman had the guillotine, and he would remind him that there was a legal axiom that no man was entitled to take advantage of his own wrong. At any rate, there was time for recommittal on the Third Reading, which was exempt from the guillotine altogether, and hon. Members on that side
  fully expected that on that stage the Government would have recommitted the Bill in respect of that particular point. It would not have occupied much time, and there was no law of the Medes and Persians which compelled them to complete the Third Reading in a given time. As to the breach of privilege on the part of the Lords, the right hon. Gentleman had said that they existed for the benefit of the House. On that he differed with him, and he maintained that the privileges possessed by the House of Commons in this matter were introduced for the protection of the people, and lion. Members should be careful not to depart from these privileges more than was necessary. This particular privilege insured that when an alteration of this nature was made in a Hill, it should only be done in Committee and it secured two stages. It was therefore a rule of privilege of real value and substance. It was a mere subterfuge to insert in the House of Lords' Amendments which had been brought to the notice of the House of Commons and then to ask hon. Members to waive the proper method of considering them. He urged that the House was bound to insist on the recognition of its privilege, and on that ground he and his friends must oppose the Motion.
  (9.22.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 127: Noes, 43. (Division List No. 646.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Colston, Charles Edw. H. Atho'e

  Flower, Ernest

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Forster, Henry William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Garfit, William

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cullinan, J.

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

  Balfour. RtHnGerald W.(Leels

  Doogan, P. C.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Bignold, Arthur

  Doughty, George

  Groves, James Grimble

  Bigwood, James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers-

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Bond, Edward

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn'd (Somers t, E

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Ffreach, Peter

  Hudson, George Bickerstech

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Wore

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Chapman, Edward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rutherford, John

  Leamy, Edmund

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  O'Doherty, William

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isleof Wight

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  O'Dowd, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  O'Mara, James

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmonth

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Lundon, W.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Percy, Earl

  Talbot, Rt. Hn J G (Oxford Univ.

  M'Govern, T.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Tully, Jasper

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham(Bute

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Purvis, Robert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. Georgo

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Brigg, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Toulmin, George

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lloyd-George, David

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Weir, James Galloway

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whitley, J, H. (Halifax)

  Caldwell, James

  Rea, Russell

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Cremer, William Randal

  Reckett, Harold James

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

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

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Mr. Causton and Mr.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Robert Spencer.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Lords' Amendment—
  "In page 12, line 13, after 'loans,' insert 'or rent.'"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)
  *Sir CHARLES DILKE: You have not, Mr. Speaker, made the same statement in regard to this Amendment.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is obvious that the same remarks apply.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that this Amendment raised the same point of breach of privilege. There was no precedent for this case, where, on the Report stage of a Bill, the House was informed that certain financial Amendments were out of order. Instead of the Government taking the opportunity to put the Amendments in the Bill, when the debate would have
  1584
  been confined to the question, the course was adopted of inserting them in another place, it being known beforehand that this would be a breach of privilege.
  MR. BRYCEsaid it would be understood that they repeated their protest upon this occasion, but he would not trouble the House with a division.
  Lords' Amendment—
  "In page 12, line 28, after 'apply,' insert n lieu of the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, relating to accounts and audit.'"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution."—(Sir William Anson.)
  *SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid this Amendment emphasised a provision in the Bill to which great exception was taken. There

  1585
  had been no opportunity of discussing this most important question because, on both occasions when the Bill was before the House this Clause had not been reached, and was closured. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board did receive a most influential and representative deputation upon this question, but he did not take the view of that deputation, He simply desired now to enter a strong protest against a claim being made which was at variance with municipal feeling throughout the whole of the country. He still believed the boroughs welcomed this Bill on the ground of its municipal principle, which was his own reason for supporting it in the interest of public education, in which we were lamentably behindhand, a condition which he hoped and believed through municipal authorities commanding, as they did, large resources, and marked by much enterprise, would redress, but this proposal was a non-municipal innovation. It had a precedent in the County Councils Act, but the County Council had a widely distributed area where a local audit might be a matter of difficulty, but in boroughs there was no such difficulty, and it was felt that this was only the thin end of the wedge in regard to the adoption of this principle. As far as municipal education was concerned, it was an innovation, and two audits by two different sets of auditors must create very considerable confusion. By this proposal there might be differences of principle and opinion arrising on these audits, and there might be a great expenditure of time and money on the part of the local authority and its officers. He thought this change would be a very distracting one in the interests of local self-government. While he did not propose to divide the House, he had been asked by municipal people belonging to all parties to enter an emphatic protest against a change to which there was great objection, and he asked the President of the Local Government Board for the most explicit assurance that it should not be carried further in municipal matters. They did not want their boroughs or schools Cockertonising.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,)said that as the time at their disposal was of a very limited character, he only desired to
  1586
  say a few words in answer to this protest. The Government had adhered to the existing law with regard to audit for two reasons. There was a distinction between the expenditure under this Act and any other expenditure incurred by a municipal authority because more than half the sum would be received from the Imperial Exchequer. Again, Parliament had laid down the lines on which the money should be spent, and without a system of Government audit it would be impossible to tell whether the orders of Parliament were obeyed. The Government did not in any way prejudge the question of the audit of municipal accounts. It was perfectly true that the audit spoken of by his hon. friend was as good as the Government audit, but when they came to the question of the purpose for which money was spent the only audit which was efficient was the Government audit, because the Government auditor was the only auditor who could surcharge illegal expenditure. This was not a case of driving in the thin edge of the wedge at all. All they said was that these accounts were now subject to this audit because they were different from the ordinary municipal accounts, and for that reason they had thought it right to continue the system of audit now in existence, and not impose upon the corporations any system which applied to general accounts, but which was not equally applicable to education accounts.
  Lords' Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 14, line 12, agreed to.
  Lords' Amendment—
  "In page 14, line 12, leave out from the first 'Education' to the end of the sub-Section."
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)
  DR. MACNAMRAsaid that the effect of the Lords' Amendment was to exclude evening schools altogether from the definition. The original form of the Bill was thus returned to; and he preferred it to that introduced by the

  1587
  Government on Report. There was much elementary work done in the night schools; and it would not be made higher education by being called so. But it was now clear that any local authority was at liberty to give elementary instruction in any evening school to any adult pupil.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that although this elementary education could be given to adults in evening continuation schools, it would have to be paid for out of the money which, under Clause 22, was to be used for higher education. That would be detrimental to higher education in the counties, where the rate for higher education would be limited to 2d. He thought that in administrative counties there would be a difficulty, for what would happen would be that in administrative counties the higher education money, which was limited, could be used for night school work, and he was afraid that this would be detrimental to higher education. Nevertheless he thought it was much better to go back to the original state of the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite admit that the Government in their wanderings, have, like Ulysses, returned to the place whence they originally started. We first accepted an Amendment that elementary education might be given. What is elementary education? The hon. Gentleman has been severe upon the definition of non-elementary education, which includes reading, writing, and arithmetic, but there may be corresponding criticism of what is called elementary education in the code, which, I think, includes everything up to fiddling and dancing. I have not verified the accomplishments, but it will be admitted that things are introduced into the Code which no one would describe as elementary. This proves that it is impossible to define elementary education so as to make it fit in with the ordinary usages of the English language, and therefore we must have some arbitrary element in the definition. Our first change was to use the word "elementary." That broke down because "elementary" does not really mean
  1588
  elementary in the ordinary sense of the word. We have tried in our second metamorphosis to substitute "reading, writing, and arithmetic." These are undoubtedly elementary, but then the Bill, as thus amended, is open to this objection which will be obvious to anybody when it is stated. You limit the elementary night schools and evening continuation schools in which reading, writing, and arithmetic are taught. Those can be paid for out of the unlimited elementary rate in the borough. In a non-county borough, which has a right to manage its own elementary education, but is under the county as regards secondary education, an evening continuation school in which alone reading, writing, and arithmetic are taught can be paid for out of the unlimited elementary education rate. But if one boy in that school wishes to be taught elementary geography for the purpose of passing an examination for the Post Office or some other place of that kind; if he wants to go beyond the narrowest limits of reading, writing, or arithmetic, and his wish is acceded to, the school at once becomes a higher school and cannot be paid for out of the borough elementary rate. When that boy leaves the school, it returns to its original position. That is a hopeless state of things; and when the whole subject came up for consideration in another place, the Government were for the second time driven out of the position they had taken up, and had no choice but to go back to our original plan of making the sharp, clear and necessarily arbitrary definition which now finds its place in the Bill. I am quite sure everybody will admit that administratively that is the convenient course to have adopted. The only question is, will it interfere with the successful prosecution of this invaluable educational work of the elementary continuation evening schools? Well, I think I may confidently say it will not. The hon. Gentleman has perfectly accurately repeated in substance certain answers I gave at Question time today, and from these answers the House will see that the whole of this important work can be carried on under the Bill, although it must be paid for out of the whisky money and out of the

  1589
  secondary education rate. The only question that remains is—will it be at too great a cost to that rate; will it throw such a heavy demand on that rate that there will not be a sufficient sum available for the purposes of secondary education in the larger and truer sense of the word. I think my answer to that will be conclusive. In the first place, the rate for secondary education is unlimited in the boroughs, and in the counties, though it is not indeed unlimited, it can be increased if necessary. Secondly, what is perhaps more to the purpose than either of those considerations, we have some experience of what this kind of work has cost. It has been largely developed in a large number of counties, I will not say to excess but on a liberal scale. The experience we have of this kind of work in the evening continuation schools shows that on the whole they are not expensive, and certainly that portion of evening continuation school work which is concerned with reading, writing, and arithmetic will impose a fractional burden upon the ratepayers and take a fractional part of the 2d. rate in the counties and of the secondary rate in the boroughs. In these circumstances, I think the House may feel that the Bill as it stands will in no wise interfere with the admirable work which is now being carried on, and will, I hope, be carried on with even greater efficiency in the future in evening secondary schools. I think the House will feel that, though the Government may be open to the charge of having been too easily persuaded in Committee to alter the original form of the Bill, in substance the intentions of both sides of the House in regard to this matter are adequately carried out by the Bill as amended in another place.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he would not follow the right hon. Gentleman through his long wanderings, because there was not time now, the House having spent too much time on the religious controversy at the beginning of the Sitting. He only wanted to point out that although elementary education could be given in these schools, it could not be called elementary education. Before the Cockerton judgment, what was really
  1590
  secondary education was called elementary. Now they had reversed the position, and what was really elementary education was to be called secondary. Reading, writing, and arithmetic would be purely elementary education, but it would come out of the secondary rate and be given by the secondary education authority.
  (10.0.) MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen that the Secondary Education Commission recommended that the evening continuation schools should come under the supervision of the secondary education authority. He had had considerable experience of evening schools in his own county, and he knew from his own knowledge that a large number of them did give secondary education. In many cases the education was of a mixed character. He ventured to say on the Committee Stage of the Bill that the Government would make a great mistake if they attempted to draw a line between the evening schools which were of an elementary character and those which were of a secondary character. It was an impossible problem, and he was glad to think that the prognostications in regard to this matter had been justified.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he should have agreed with every word of his hon. friend who had just spoken if the financial arrangements had been different. There was very great danger that if the charge for elementary education in the evening schools was met in the way proposed, the higher education portion of the Bill would be very disappointing.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid that if the House divided on this Amendment which was made in the House of Lords he should support the action of the Government on the ground that the alteration which was made on the Report stage was of the most deplorable character. He was amused at the attempts of his right hon. friend to define what was elementary and what was higher education. The right hon. Gentleman had reduced the definitions to an absurdity.

  1591
  He was perfectly sure that the day was not far distant when those attempts to draw the line between elementary and higher education would disappear. It was absurd that the same instruction which was given before four o'clock should be elementary, while after four it was higher education. If that was not reducing definition to an absurdity, he did not know what it was.
  *MR. HELMEsaid that the present arrangement was most disadvantageous, as it opened a prospect of division where he would gladly have avoided it —viz., between the elementary day schools and evening continuation classes. The arrangement which the First Lord of the Treasury agreed to when the House was in Committee contained a very satisfactory development of the plan that was found useful in years which were gone; but as the Bill now stood, in the large Urban Districts and non-County Boroughs it would be found disastrous to transfer the management of evening schools from the local educational authority to the County Councils. Surely this was an illustration of the absurdity of the claim of the Government that this Bill provided a single authority for all sorts of education.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was agreed on all hands that the present settlement was unsatisfactory. He did not think that with a perfectly free hand the Prime Minister would have suggested such a solution. It divided the authority in respect to elementary education. The wiser course would have been for the Government to amend the Lords' Amendments by handing over work which was purely elementary to the elementary authority. There were a number of authorities which dealt with elementary, but not secondary education. During the evening elementary education went out of their hands into the hands of someone else. That was a most unsatisfactory arrangement. What he apprehended was that the 2d. rate, especially in poor counties, where the assessment was low, would be completely absorbed by purely elementary work, and that there would be nothing left for secondary or higher education.
  Lords' Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 15, line 6, agreed to.
  Lords' Amendment—
  "In page 15, line 6, after 'school,' insert 'or college.'"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)
  MR. BRYCEasked for some explanation of this Amendment. He said he had looked through Parts II. and IV. of the Bill, and he did not find any reference to a trust deed. He did not see why the word "college" should be brought in here.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman would find the reference to colleges in Schedule III.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he would like to ask whether the Secretary to the Board of Education supposed that under these provisions anything could be done to interfere with the trusts of these secondary schools or colleges, which had schemes made for them by the Charity Commission or the Endowed School Commissioners.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: No.
  A Consequential Amendment made to the Bill—
  "In page 15, line 7, by leaving out 'Local Education Authority,' and inserting 'Council.'" —(Sir William Anson.)
  Lords' Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 20, line 26, agreed to.
  Lords' Amendment—
  "In page 20, line 20, after 'purposes,' insert 'provided that the Board of Education may, if they think fit, pay any share of the Aid Grant under The Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, allotted to an association of Voluntary Schools, to the governing body of that association, if such governing body satisfy the Board of Education that proper arrangements have been made for the application of any sum so paid.'"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time,
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid it was perfectly straightforward that any outstanding grant upon which the managers of voluntary schools had a claim should be paid over to them, but what he wanted to ask was what liability these associations had incurred. These associations were called into existence under the Act of 1897, for paying the grants to the voluntary schools. Their formation was not compulsory, but only permissive; and it was beyond his comprehension to know what claims these associations must have between the close of one system, and the beginning of another. He could not conceive of any liability which they would have to entitle them to this money at all. They were estimable bodies who had done nothing but meet together to dispense this money to the managers. This money ought to be applied to the school managers, who had done good work. In the absence of any explanation from the Secretary to the Board of Education as to what serious liability these voluntary school associations had entered into, he was entitled very strongly to object to this Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could not quite understand why the hon. Gentleman objected to the Lords' Amendment. No money was taken from the taxpayer, because this was money which he had already parted with, and therefore he was not wronged, and the provided schools were not injured. The only people, therefore, who could be injured by the Amendment were the managers of the Voluntary schools. But this Amendment was introduced entirely in the interest of the managers of these Voluntary schools. It was thought that arrangements should be made that the managers should regard themselves over a great area as one corporate body, and that the money should be paid to them to give assistance to the weaker schools. Nobody would be hurt by that. He did not think that anyone interested in the Voluntary schools would take the line suggested by the hon. Member, and he hoped that the House would consent to the Lords' Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the Prime Minister had suggested that nobody was damnified by the proposal in the Amendment, but he certainly thought the taxpayer was. He believed that a sum of £150,000 accrued to these voluntary associations to meet all the liabilities of the Voluntary schools. But supposing the managers said that they had no liabilities, were the voluntary associations to retain the money in their own hands, and have the right to hold the money, and use it for a building fund?
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was very glad to hear that admission, because it showed quite clearly why this Amendment had been inserted. All these payments were made in advance, and this money would be paid over to the voluntary associations immediately before the charge for maintenance was transferred to the County Councils. It was quite clear that this £150,000 would be retained by the voluntary associations as an additional little gift to the Bishops and their satellites.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that if the hon. Member would look carefully at the Amendment he would see that there was no ground for the suggestion he had made. The money would be applied in payment of outstanding liabilities, and the amount not required for that purpose would be taken over by the managers of the schools for the purposes sanctioned by the Act. This was merely a provision that instead of the money being paid to the individual managers, it should be paid to the voluntary associations to be distributed by them.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid this Amendment could not be separated from one which had been discussed earlier in the evening when they found that these voluntary associations were to be galvanised into life for this special purpose, for a hint had fallen from the Attorney General that the voluntary associations were to be allowed to distribute this money, not according to the claims of the individual schools, but for any purpose the associations thought fit. The objection which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of

  1595
  Dean had made was that, in the county a part of which he represented, there was a suspicion that there had been a great deal, if not of favouritism, at least of favour. If this money was to be paid over to these voluntary associations to be distributed as they thought fit, then they were fully justified, even at this last stage, in making a final protest against it.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid this was an arrangement for meeting a gap until the appointed day occurred. The noble Lord the Member for the Cricklade Division had reiterated the charge made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, that the voluntary associations of Gloucester had been guilty of malpractices in regard to the distribution of this
  grant. He repudiated any such charge whatever, and he ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have stated more fully the evidence on which he had made that charge. The right hon. Gentleman's information had evidently come from a schoolmaster who had been refused an increase of salary, not by the school committee, but by his own managers, and who had raked up a long list of inequalities in the distribution of the grant. But these inequalities had been sanctioned by the Board of Education in order that a pupil teachers' centre might be established.
  (10.38.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 151; Noes, 46. (Division List No. 647.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Lundon, W.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Govern, T.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B.(Hornsey)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Flower, Ernest

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Forster, Henry William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Bignold, Arthur

  Gardner, Ernest

  Murray Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Bigwood, James

  Garfit, William

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bond, Edward

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

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

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'lets

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth South)

  Brassey, Albert

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

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Brodrick, Rt Hon. St John

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Groves, James Grimble

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Doherty, William

  Cavendish, V. CW.(Derbyshire

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  O'Dowd, John

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A.(Worc.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Chapman, Edward

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H.(Somers't, E

  O'Mara, James

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

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hoult, Joseph

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N R.)

  Percy, Earl

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Keswick, William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cullinan, J.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

  Purvis, Robert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Doughty, George

  Lockie, John

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Douglas Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rutherford, John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Seely. Maj. J. E. B.(lsleof Wight

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Tomlinson, Sir. Wm. Edw. M.

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Tully, Jasper

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Sullivan, Donal

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Brigg, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Lloyd-George, David

  Toulmin, George

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Caldwell, James

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Weir, James Galloway

  Cremer, William Randal

  Norman, Henry

  Whitley, J. H. (Hallifax)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nussey, Thomas William

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk Mid.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Rea, Russell

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Mr. Causton and Mr.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Robert Spencer.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Lords' Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 22, line 39, agreed to.
  Lords' Amendment—
  "In page22, line39, leave out 'to the,' and insert 'or in any provision of a scheme made under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894, or the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869 to 1889, or the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, to any.'"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)
  MR. BRYCEsaid this Amendment was one of very considerable importance. The House would remember that they had not been able to discuss the Schedule, and he thought that the mischief in the latter part of it was very much increased by the Amendment. Under the Endowed Schools Acts and the Charitable Trusts Acts schools had been declared to be undenominational, which under the Bill would be open to a certain amount of sectarianism. The effect of the Amendment would be, as far as he understood it, to undo the unsectarian provisions contained in those schemes, and to subject them to the new provision of the Bill. Clearly that would be an enormous change; and he hoped that the Board of Education would be able to give some
  1598
  assurance that it could not be done. If the change could be carried out, it ought not to have been made without the fullest discussion.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he wished to ask whether the Amendment would in the slightest degree affect schemes under the Welsh Intermediate Act. At present they were working very harmoniously, but if they were to be reconstructed he did not know what might happen.
  SIR RORERT FINLAYsaid the effect of the Amendment was to substitute, for a reference to the Technical Instruction Acts, Part II. of this Bill. If hon. Members would look at the Section they would see that it provided that—
  "References in any enactment to the provisions of Technical Instruction Acts, 1889 and 1891, relating to the powers of supplying or aiding the supply of technical or manual instruction, shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to the provisions of Part II. of this Act, and the provisions of this Act shall apply with respect to any school, college, or hostel established, and to any obligation incurred under the Technical Instruction Acts, 1889 and 1891, as if the school, college, or hostel had been established or the obligation incurred under Part II. of this Act."
  It was perfectly obvious that there must be references in schemes under the Charitable Trusts Acts, the Endowed Schools Acts, and the Technical Instruction Acts; and it was also

  1599
  obvious that where references were provided they should be construed with reference to Part II. of the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he believed that the Amendment would be found to be purely formal. The Technical Instruction Committee was abolished, and they must substitute a new authority. The schedule was intended to carry out that object. The right hon. Gentleman might take it from him that that was the intention, and he believed it would also be the effect, of the Amendment.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the difficulty was that the Amendment gave the power of altering schemes from an unsectarian to a sectarian character. That might not be the intention, but he feared it would be the effect.
  Lords' Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 22, line 46, agreed to.
  Lords' Amendment—
  "In page 22, line 46, after 'Act,' insert as a new paragraph: 'The Local Government Board may, after consultation with the Board of Education, by order make such adaptations in the provisions of any local Act (including any Act to confirm a Provisional Order and any scheme under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, as amended by any subsequent Act) as may seem to them to be necessary to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act, and may also in like manner, on the application of any Council who have powers as to education under this Act, and have also powers as to education under any local Act, make such modifications in the local Act as will enable the powers under that Act to be exercised as if they were powers under this Act. Any order made under this provision shall operate as if enacted in this Act."
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Anson.)
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid the Amendment was a very serious one to be introduced at this stage of the Bill. It appeared to give the Local Government Board the power of over-riding existing Acts of Parliament. No opportunity had been given to them of
  1600
  consulting their constituents as to whether those local Acts contained valuable provisions; and it seemed to him that the House ought not to give legislative power to a Government Department. The Amendment enabled the change to be carried out practically without application to the local authority; and he doubted whether Parliament had ever before given such power to a Government Department. He hoped an explanation would be given before the Amendment was accepted.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that he could assure the hon. Gentleman that his fears were absolutely groundless. This was one of the commonest provisions inserted in Acts of Parliament. In this particular case, there were a great many local Acts which governed the action of the local authorities in regard to technical education; and it would be impossible to include necessary alterations in those Acts within the compass of an ordinary Act of Parliament. The Amendment gave the Local Government Board power to amend the Statutes in order to bring them into conformity with the present Bill.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that although the right hon. Gentleman stated it was one of the commonest provisions, he nevertheless gave no precedent. It was very doubtful, however, whether it was advisable to give this power to the Local Government Board, as the House had no power to supervise what the Board did.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: Certainly, through the Provisional Order.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid there was nothing about a Provisional Order in the Section. The Local Government Board would have the final word in the matter; and he considered that if Acts of Parliament were to be repealed, it ought to be by Provisional Order or by an Order of the Board, which would have to lie on the Table for forty days. Under the Section, whether that was the intention or not, the Local Government Board would merely have to make a Departmental Order, even without a capital "O." Under these circumstances, unless the right hon. Gentleman was

  1601
  prepared to amend the Section in order to make it compulsory on the Local Government Board to lay any Order on the Table, he thought it would be difficult for the House to accept the Amendment.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the hon. Gentleman complained that there was not a capital "O" to the word order, but the order would deal with a great many matters of detail.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid it was not a Provisional Order.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he did not say it was.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: But the right hon. Gentleman said it was.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he was dealing with what the hon. Gentleman had said. A great many local authorities had expressed a desire that schemes under local Acts should be worked under this Act, and in order to give effect to those aspirations the Amendment was absolutely necessary.
  MR. BRYCEasked why in the case of a County Council application was necessary, whereas in the case of a municipality no provision was made for its concurrence. Surely there should be a provision enabling Municipal Councils as well as County Councils to express their agreement?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the Amendment would apply to Municipal as well as County Councils.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid it was evidently in the mind of the President of the Local Government Board that the Councils should be consulted in this matter, and
  that also appeared to be the wish of the Attorney General. But he wanted to know if it was the intention of the Government to bring the words of the Bill into conformity with that wish; and would the House be assured that all Councils—County as well as Borough— would be consulted, and that their wishes would not be overruled.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Amendment was really a very important constitutional departure. It was not the only constitutional departure they had had in connection with the Bill. Even the President of the Local Government Board considered it was an important departure; and the right hon. Gentleman assumed, and he was right in assuming, that if the Government proceeded regularly, they would proceed by Provisional Order, if they wished to modify Acts of Parliament. Then the House would be modifying Acts it had previously passed. But the principle which was now introduced gave, as far as he could discover, power to a Government Department to abrogate Acts of Parliament without any Provisional Order at all. That was a very important constitutional principle and this was not the only time that the privileges of this House were treated with contempt by the Government. The very last Amendment to the Education Bill which would be put in the House showed the extent to which the Government was gradually whittling away the privileges of this House, and distributing them among the House of Lords, the Bishops, and Government Departments.
  (11.13.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 152; Noes, 42. (Division List No. 648.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bigwood, James

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Anson. Sir William Reynell

  Bond, Edward

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Brassey, Albert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  Cullinan, J.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.

  Dimsdale. Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Chapman, Edward

  Doogan, P. C.

  Bignold, Arthur

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

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Doughty, George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Leamy, Edmund

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Percy, Earl

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Lockie, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  Purvis, Robert

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lundon, W.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Flower, Ernest

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Forster, Henry William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rutherford, John

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederiek

  M'Govern, T.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

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

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

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  More. Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Sullivan, Donal

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Higginbottom. S. W.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H.(Somers't, E

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

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Tully, Jasper

  Hoult, Joseph

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

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

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

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Doherty, William

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Dowd. John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Keswick, William

  O'Mara, James

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc. Stroud

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Brigg, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C, R.(Northants

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Toulmin, George

  Caldwell, James

  Norman, Henry

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Cremer, William Randal

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Reckitt, Harold James

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eilion)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Mr. Whitley and Mr.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Samuel Evans.

  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill.
  Committee nominated of Sir William Anson, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Mr. Lloyd-George, and Mr. Long.
  Committee to withdraw immediately.
  Three to be the Quorum.—(Sir William Anson.)

  LONDON WATER BILL
  Lords' Amendments considered and agreed to.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords' Amendments, reported, and agreed to.
  To be communicated to the Lords.
  Mr. SPEAKERin pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1869.
  Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for the year 1901.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 375. Gold Coast (Report for 1901.)
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the nine months ended 30th September, 1902, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871), 34th and 35th Victoria, chap. 78; together with reports of the inspecting officers and sub-inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into.

  PRESS TELEGRAMS.
  Agreement between the United Kingdom and Sweden for the exchange of Press telegrams at reduced rates.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  I. Part I. Orders under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board, of the following County and County Borough Councils:
  (1.) Bournemouth (County Borough). For uniting the parishes of Bournemouth, Pokesdown, Southbourne, and Winton to form the parish of Bournemouth.
  (2.) Chester. For adding the rural parish of Brinnington to the parish of Bredbury, and the Bredbury and Romiley Urban District.
  (3.) Glamorgan. For uniting the parishes of Cogon, Llandough, and Penarth, to form the parish of Penarth.
  (4.) Kent. For altering the boundary between the urban district and parish of Beckenham, and the urban district and parish of Bromley.
  (5.) Kent. For adding the parish of East Wickham to the parish of Bexley and the Bexley Urban District.
  (6.) Leicester. For uniting the parishes of Loughborough and Knightthorpe to form the parish of Loughborough.
  (7.) Middlesex. For altering the boundaries between the urban district and parish of Harrow-on-the-Hill and the urban district and parish of Wealdstone.
  (8.) Norfolk. For transferring a portion of the parish of Felbrigg from the Erpingham Rural District to the parish of Cromer and the Cromer Urban District.
  (9.) Norfolk. For abolishing the Guiltcross Rural District, and for transferring the parishes comprised therein to be Depwade, Thetford, and Wayland Rural Districts.
  (10.) Southampton. For transferring a part of the parish of Hound to the parish of Hamble, in the South Stone-ham Union.
  (11.) Southampton. For adding a part of the parish and rural district of Warblington to the parish and urban district of Havant.
  (12.) Southampton. For transferring an area from the Havant Urban District to the Havant Rural District, and for constituting the transferred area the parish of North Havant.
  (13.) Southampton. For dividing the parish of Headley, in the Alton Union, into the parishes of Grayshott and Headley.
  (14.) Surrey. For defining the boundary between the parishes of Chobham and Windlesham, in the Chertsey Union.
  (15.) Worcester. For defining the boundary between the parish of Alvechurch, in the Bromsgrove Rural District, and the parish of Beoley, in the King's Norton and North field Urban District.
  Part II. Order under Section 59 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board, of the following County Council:—
  (1.) Dorset. For amending the County of Dorset (Wimborne Minster) Confirmation Order, 1892, the County of Dorset (Wimborne Minster) Confirmation Order, 1891, and the County of Dorset (Colehill and Holt) Confirmation Order, 1896.
  II. Rule, under the Act, dated 28th November, 1902.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Order, dated 9th December, 1902, relative to the landing in Great Britain of animals from the steamship "Fremona."

  INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Return of all loans raised in India under the provisions of any Acts of Parliament chargeable on the revenues of India outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended on the 30th September, 1902, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, etc.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  QUEENSLAND AND THE REPATRIATION OF THE SOUTH SEA ISLANDERS.
  LORD STANMORE: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Lamington, he has requested me to ask the Question which stands in his name, although, as it appears on the Paper, it is perhaps rather vague—"To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question with reference to the reply sent to the Petition forwarded by the South Sea Islanders in Queensland." The noble Earl the Under Secretary of State will remember that last August, when Lord Lamington asked him a Question with regard to the repatriation of certain Kanakas who were going to be removed from Queensland, the noble Earl then promised that he would bring the case under the notice of the Common wealth Government†; and I understand the purpose of my noble friend today was to ask whether that had been done, and what response has been received from the Common wealth Government.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I must take a little exception to the form that this notice assumes. It is "To ask.… a Question with reference to the reply sent to the Petition forwarded by the South Sea Islanders in Queensland." By the courtesy of the noble Lord in whose name the Question stood, I received an intimation from him of what the nature of the Question was to be, but it was something very different from what the noble Lord has just stated to your Lord ships. It was to ask whether the interests which were involved in this measure were not Imperial rather than local; but I understand now that what he really wants to know is, what reply we have received from the Commonwealth
  † See (4) Debates, exii., 1081.
  1460
  Government. I hope that this may not be a precedent as to the manner in which Questions are to be put down 'on the Paper of your Lordships' House, because if so we shall presently get to something like this, "To ask the Under Secretary of State a Question with reference to the British Empire!" I will endeavour to answer the noble Lord as far as I can, but if I had known what was the exact nature of the Question I would have been better prepared.
  I may point out that these Kanakas, who are to be repatriated to their own country are not British subjects at all unless, of course, they have been born in, and resident in Queensland. We have been in communication with the Government of the Commonwealth, and they assure us that they will take every possible precaution to see that these people, when the time comes (it has not yet come) for them to be repatriated, will be treated with every possible consideration, and that they will not be sent back to any place where they are not likely to thrive and be happy. It has been said that some of these islanders have lost all connection with their homes, and that they have now become practically Queenslanders, accustomed to a settled form of government, and accustomed to regular work. His Majesty's representatives in the New Hebrides and in other places have been instructed, and are taking the necessary steps, to provide for any of these Kanakas in whose case it may be dangerous or disagreeable that they should return to their native homes. The Government of the Common wealth have given us the most complete assurance that, when the closing scenes of Kanaka employment in the plantations of Queensland arrive, they shall be accompanied by none of those cruelties and barbarities with which it was initiated. These islanders will obtain special and anxious attention, and it is hoped that whenever deportation is found to be necessary the Government will at the same time ensure the safety, and as far as possible the future welfare, of those towards whom Queensland has undertaken obligations which the Australian Commonwealth is bound to fulfil.
  LORD STANMOREexplained that in putting this Question he had been almost as much in the dark as the noble Earl

  1461
  himself as to the exact purport of Lord Lamington's Question.

  UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons and read 1a.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. suspended.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  *EARL SPENCER: This is a fresh example of the difficulties your Lordships are placed in when Bills are brought up in this exceeding hurry from another place, and at the latest possible period of the session. We have not only not had this Bill in any way on our Votes before today, but we have not even seen the Bill; we have heard of it in another place; but it is certainly contrary to the dignity and efficiency of your Lordships' House if this practice continues. I have protested before on the same subject, and I protest again.
  Of course, my Lords, we are going on with the Bill; there is no doubt of that. I do not propose to stand in its way at all; indeed, that would obviously be impossible, looking to the way in which these Benches are occupied at this moment; but I want to ask the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill one or two questions. This is a Bill for the working of a railway called the Uganda Railway, though I am told it is not in Uganda, and the railway is under the management and control of the Foreign Office. I am not going into the policy of the railroad; I believe both sides are equally, or nearly equally, responsible for it; but I want the noble Marquess to explain to the House how the Foreign Office conduct their business in regard to these matters. This railway has cost a very large sum indeed; I rather think now something like five and a half millions of money. Originally, when I first remember this being discussed, it was a very much smaller sum. The late Government, who were originally responsible to a great extent for this, may have had the first contract; of that I am not quite sure; but I would ask, has this work been open to contract, and, if so, what were the offers made? I think at first the estimate was for three millions, now, as I said, it has got up to five and a half millions. That seems to me a very strange way to conduct business, and there must have
  1462
  been something wrong with regard to the estimate. In this House on one occasion we had a debate, and I think the late prime Minister spoke upon it, and he alluded to the great difficulties there were with regard to the labour part of the business, and he particularly mentioned one difficulty which we are not accustomed to in dealing with railways—that some of the men were sometimes cut off by lions. I should like to hear the explanation of the Foreign Office as to the enormous excess of expenditure on the estimate, and why this has arisen. I noticed in the papers this morning that a very distinguished traveller, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, has gone up the railway, and has expressed himself very strongly, not only as to the richness of the country but as to the amount of game. He does not allude to lions—I hope he did not encounter any on his journey. I should like to be told by the noble Marquess whether there is any possibility of saying what chances there are of this railway eventually being a financial success; is there any real prospect that it will have any considerable amount of traffic of any sort, in order to give anything like a return for the outlay made upon it.
  I think, my Lords, these are two important matters upon which we may ask for information. As to the administration by the Foreign Office of matters of this sort, if we are going to have more railways made under their jurisdiction, I hope they will be more successful than it would appear this has been.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I share the noble Earl's regret that this important Bill should have come before your Lordships at so late a stage of the session. But I am afraid it was inevitable; and as the Bill is a Money Bill, the details of which could not be discussed here, the delay perhaps signifies less than it would do in other circumstances.
  *EARL SPENCER: If we could not alter it, we might have thrown it out.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think what the noble Earl said in the course of his speech fell short of any desire to throw out the Bill; indeed, he and his friends would appear to regard the measure with a certain amount of sympathy. My Lords, it is perfectly true

  1463
  that the estimates which have been olaced before the country as to the cost df this line have been largely exceeded; but though that may be to some extent due to preventable causes, it is also due to reasons which can be satisfactorily explained. In the first place, as the noble Earl is aware, the country traversed by the line is one the configuration of which presents very great difficulty. It rises from sea level to an altitude of over 7,000 feet; it then descends 1,700 or 1,800 feet into what is known as the Rift Valley; it then rises again to the top of a range over 8,000 feet in height, and then again descends to the level of the lake, which is 3,700 feet above the sea. It is obvious that a line constructed in a difficult and unexplored country like this is one the cost of which cannot be estimated beforehand with precision. We have had also to contend with the difficulty arising from the employment of large numbers of coolies imported from India; and then there has been a great rise in the price of coal, which disturbed many of our calculations. Expense has been involved, too, by the scarcity of water in certain sections of the line, so that it has been necessary to carry water by rail from the sources of supply to the points at which it was necessary for consumption. Then again, if there has been too little water at some points, here has been too much at others. The line has suffered great injury from floods, and of this supplementary sum of £600,000 a very considerable amount will be required to make good damage of this kind. But what really has rendered the finance of this enterprise so difficult of explanation is, I am afraid I must admit, the untrustworthiness of the original estimates. The sum first mentioned in 1896 was £3,000,000. But when that sum was named by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was careful to explain that it was not a final estimate, but was merely a sum named provisionally as that which would be required for the purpose of proceeding with the construction of the line. In 1900 a revised estimate was put forward, and that reached the sum of £4,950,000. But even at that time there were no surveys available of a kind to make it possible to put in thoroughly trustworthy and well-considered estimates. That, I
  1464
  admit, sounds unbusinesslike; but your Lordships can scarcely realise the difficulty and expense which attend the execution of an elaborate survey in remote and unexplored regions like those which the line traverses. If we had waited to begin until we were in possession of thoroughly well-worked out surveys of the whole, I am afraid that we should be waiting still, and instead of having a finished line we should have no line at all. We ought not to leave out of consideration the fact that the construction—and I may say, the immediate and rapid construction—of this line was very earnestly desired by the public in this country; and for that reason it was determined to proceed with it without waiting for those more elaborate surveys which in ordinary cases would have been desirable. Allowing for all this, I think there is some consolation to be found in the fact that we have a good line, for it has been inspected and approved by such high authorities as Colonel Gracey, Sir Francis O'Callaghan, and Sir Guilford Molesworth. Nor do I think that we have a dear line, as such lines go. The cost works out at £9,500 per mile, as compared with the £10,000 per mile of the Cape Railway, and the £11,000 per mile of the Natal Railway. Besides, we have to take into consideration the undoubted value of the line for administrative purposes. As to its financial results, while I should be sorry to indulge in any sanguine forecasts, I may say that those who are good judges—amongst others Sir Harry Johnston, who knows the country probably better than any living man—believe that before long the line will earn a considerable revenue. This is certain; that at the present moment it enables us to save a very considerable sum of money owing to the facilities it affords us for cheap transport. I may mention to your Lordships that the carriage of goods by caravan used to cost 7s. 6d. per ton per mile. The same goods carried by the new line of railway cost at the rate of 2 ½d. per ton per mile. I am told that on Government stores alone we have already saved by this cheapness of transport half-a-million of money, so that is, at all events, an asset to which we can point with some satisfaction.

  1465
  The noble Earl asked me whether at any moment the question of giving this line to contractors had been taken into consideration. I am only aware of one offer having been received, from a well-known firm of contractors, but I believe the offer was one of which the conditions relating to such questions as gradients and curves were such as to render it impossible of acceptance.
  Then the noble Earl dwelt upon objections to entrusting the management of such an enterprise as this to the Foreign Office. I think the noble Earl, like many other people, imagines that the whole control of the affairs of the line is in the hands of Foreign Office officials. But the fact is that the Board which is superintending the arrangements of the railway is a Board on which there are only two Foreign Office representatives. It includes a representative of the Treasury, and it includes Sir John Kirk, whose name is well known to the noble Earl, Colonel Gracey, a railway engineer of great Indian experience, and Sir Francis O'Callaghan, also a well-known and distinguished Indian railway engineer; and they have the assistance of such a high authority as Sir Alexander Rendel as consultative engineer. I venture to say that these gentlemen, with the assistance of the two Foreign Office representatives whom I have referred to, form a strong, businesslike Board, and there is no reason for doubting their fitness for the task committed to them. I think I have answered the noble Earl's questions. I must express my regret that the estimates of cost have been so considerably exceeded, but I do venture to think that there are, to some extent at all events, extenuating circumstances to be urged.
  *EARL SPENCER: I do not wish to reply to the noble Earl, but I devoutly hope that in the future the Foreign Office will not be put to the enormous difficulties they are now under by having to make a railroad under similar circumstances.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to; several others agreed to with Amendments, and with a consequent Amendment to the Bill; and one disagreed to, with reason for such disagreement.
  The said Amendments and reason considered (on Motion), and agreed to.
  On the Amendment to which the Commons disagreed—
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE)explained that the Amendment in question was that made by their Lordships in sub-Section (4) of Clause 18, after "council," to insert "otherwise than under Part III. of this Act." The effect of this Amendment was that teachers in elementary schools would not be members of the education committee. The Commons disagreement replaced the teachers in elementary schools in the same position as teachers in other schools.
  *EARL SPENCER: It is, of course, no use my taking objection to that now, but I confess that I regret the change that has been made. I know that there is considerable feeling in various parts of the country on this subject, and I think it is rather unfortunate that this change has been made.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I entirely agree with the Amendment made by your Lordships in this House; but I am afraid that at this stage it is too late to prolong the controversy.
  On Question, "That their Lordships do not insist on the said Amendment,"
  Agreed to.

  LONDON WATER BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.