Sitting of 21 July 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders
  760
  which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz:—

  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill [Lords],

  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill [Lords],

  Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time tomorrow.

  NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [LORDS].
  Verbal Amendments made (King's consent signified); Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  CONSETT WATER BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; a Clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  FELIXSTOWE AND WALTON IMPROVE MENT BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL [LORDS] [NOT AMENDED].
  Considered; to be read the third time.
  RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL TRAMWAYS BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL [LORDS] [NOT AMENDED].
  Considered; to be read the third time.
  WEARDALE AND SHILDON DISTRICT WATER BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  PORT PATRICK AND WIGTOWNSHIRE JOINT RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMA TION BILL.
  Considered; to be read the third time upon Wednesday.
PETITIONS.
  BURIAL FEES IN THE LAMBETH PARISH CEMETERY AT TOOTING.
  Petition from Lambeth, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Kettering; Darwen; and Truro; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Bolney; Bristol (two); Dolbenmaen; Darwen; Wellington; Bury St. Edmunds; Birstall; East Hull; Newport (Isle of Wight); Bourton; Bradford; and Gresford; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON WATER BILL.
  Petition from Woolwich, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAM BRIDGE ACT, 1877.
  Paper [presented 18th July] to be printed. [No. 283.]
  APPLICATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL CHARTERS.
  Return [presented 18th July] to be printed. [No. 284.]
  SALMON FISHERIES (ROYAL COM MISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Commissioners on Salmon Fisheries (Part I., Report and Maps) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Principal Chemist upon the work of the Government Laboratory for the year ended 31st March, 1902, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 14th April; Mr. Joseph A. Pease]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 285.]
  COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
  Annual Account presented, of Receipts and Disbursements for the year ended '31st December, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 24th June, Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 286.]
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION ACTS, 1881 AND 1892.
  Copy presented, of Thirty-eighth Annual Report on Alkali, etc., Works, by the Chief Inspector, being for 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 287.]
  CENSUS OF IRELAND, 1901.
  Copy presented, of Census of Ireland, Part II., General Report, with Illustrative Maps and Diagrams, Tables, and Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVAL WORKS.
  Copy presented, of Statement showing the total estimated cost of each Work, the estimated expenditure thereon to 31st March, 1902, and the amount available to meet expenditure in 1902–3, together with the expected date of completion [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 357 (Northern Territories of the Gold Coast, Annual Report for 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2857 to 2859 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAINING COLLEGES (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the names of Training colleges in Ireland, whether under the management of the National Board or under local management, on behalf of which application was made to the Commissioners of National Education within the last three years to sanction an increase in the number of students (King's scholars) which each such college was authorised to admit to training; (2) the number ef students (King's scholars) which each such college was authorised to admit when the above application was made in each case; (3) the increased number of students (King's scholars) asked to be authorised for admission in each case, and the result of each application; and (4) the names of the Training Colleges that applied for equipment grants within the last three years, the sums asked for, and the result of the application in each case."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  India—Agricultural Shows.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the success which has attended the holding of horse shows in India, will the Government consider the expediency of holding annual agricultural shows in suitable centres with a view to encourage agriculture and educate the people in improved methods of farming.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.)The utility of agricultural shows for the purposes mentioned by the hon. Member is already recognised by the Indian Governments; they are held in the districts whenever the support and co-operation of the public can be counted on, and there is a reasonable chance of results commensurate with the labour and expense of organising them.

  Indian Irrigation Commission.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will consider the expediency of laying upon the Table of the House the Report of the Irrigation Commission which visited India last year.
  764
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.)The Irrigation Commission has not yet completed its inquiry. When the Report is submitted the expediency of laying it on the Table of the House will be considered.

  Exports and Imports.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the fact that the excess of the imports of foreign goods over the exports of British goods amounted in the six months ending 30th June, 1902, to £92,545,000, will he state what steps His Majesty's Government has taken or has in contemplation to remedy this state of matters.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am not prepared to admit that the excess of the imports of foreign goods over the exports of British goods, which has continued for many years, is in itself an evil calling for the application of a remedy by His Majesty's Government.

  Pauper Domicile—Halifax-Glasgow Dispute.
  MR. WHITLEY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the action of the Inspector of the Poor of the Glasgow Parish in removing from Glasgow to Halifax a family of eight paupers named Collins, in view of the fact that the statement of Charles Collins that fee was born in Halifax was shown by the Halifax Guardians to be incorrect; if he can take any steps to prevent ratepayers of Halifax from being compelled to maintain those eight paupers in the absence of evidence of the man's birth in that parish; if he can say why the paupers were removed before the Scotch Local Government Board had replied to the protest of the Halifax Guardians, and why the appeal of the latter body was not allowed; and if, in case the guardians send the family back to Glasgow (as the man desires), he will give instructions that no prosecution of the man shall be ordered.
  (Answered by Mr. Graham Murray.) The pauper was removed in terms of Section 2 of the Poor Removal Act, 1862, and the Local Government Board for Scotland have no

  765
  power under the Act of 1898, as the Secretary for Scotland is advised, to review the question of fact on which the Court proceeded in granting the warrant of removal. Assuming the fact to be correct, there were no grounds whatever which would have justified the Local Government Board in sustaining an appeal.

  Bedwellty Workhouse Chaplain.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the neglect of the Bedwellty Board of Guardians to appoint a chaplain to the union workhouse, as required by the Poor Law Consolidated Order, Art. 153; and, whether, seeing that the spiritual interests of the inmates are left in the hands of the Ebbw Vale Ministers' Union, who appear to hold only occasional services, he proposes to take any steps to enforce the law, so that the inmates of the workhouse shall enjoy ministrations of religion as required by the Order.
  (Answered by Mr. Long.) I am aware of the circumstances referred to in the first paragraph of the Question. I am informed that the Vicar of Tredegar or one of his curates holds a service in the workhouse once a week, and that the Nonconformist ministers of Tredegar and Ebbw Vale have made arrangements for the holding of services at the workhouse every Sunday afternoon, for which purpose a rota of ministers has been drawn up. The arrangement, I am told, is that if the minister appointed to attend cannot do so he shall find a substitute, but I understand that on a recent occasion a substitute did not attend. I understand also that some of the inmates are allowed to go out on Sundays to attend church or chapel. It does not seem to me to be necessary that I should interfere in the matter.

  Postal Dispute at Carrickaleese, Cavan
  MR. M'GOVERN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, is he aware that on the 27th March, 1902, a letter addressed Miss M. O'Reilly, Carrickaleese, Ballyconnell, was delivered to Margaret Reilly, Carrickaleese, by a rural postman of Ballyconnell Post Office, and that when Margaret Reilly opened the letter she found it contained a money
  766
  order for £12 payable to Mary Reilly, of Carrickaleese; that Margaret Reilly thereupon handed back to the rural postman the letter and order and told him it was for Mary Reilly, and that when the postman arrived at Mary Reilly's residence, in Carrickaleese, she had died about an hour previously, and that he refused to give the letter to any of her friends; and will he state whether this postman has been asked for any explanation as to what he has done with this letter; and will the postal authorities make inquiry as to whether this money order for £12 has been paid, and, if so, to whom.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)A letter addressed, "Miss M. Reilly, Carrickaleese," was, as indicated in the hon. Member's Question, delivered to a Miss Margaret Reilly, who, finding it was not for her, returned it to the postman. The letter, which was not for Mary Reilly, and did not contain a money order payable to her, was subsequently delivered to the person for whom it was intended.

  China—British Consular Service.
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has received a Report from Mr. Tower upon the British Consular Service in China; and, if so, will he state the substance of this Report, and say whether it is the intention of the Government to act upon its suggestions.
  (Answered by Viscount Cranborne.)A Report has been received from Mr. Tower on the Consular Service in China. The Report is a valuable one and the suggestions contained in it will be very useful to the Secretary of State, but it is not intended to publish its contents at present.

  Trawling in Clyde Estuary.
  MR. WORSLEY-TAYLOR: To ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that under the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1899. British trawlers are excluded from a fishing ground of about 600 square miles in the estuary of the Clyde, and from other grounds on the coast of

  767
  Scotland; that these grounds are open to, and fished by, foreign trawlers, who sell their catch in English ports; and that, in order to escape from the provisions of this Act, British trawlers have been transferred to foreign flags, and now fish the said grounds under those flags; and whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps to place British trawlers on the same footing as foreign trawlers.
  (Answered by Mr. Graham Murray.)The Secretary for Scotland is aware of the provisions of the Act referred to, and of the difficulty occasioned by the exclusion of British vessels from areas open to foreign trawlers; he is also aware of the allegation that British trawlers have been transferred to foreign flags in order to escape from the provisions of the Act, but he is not aware that this applies to the area in the Clyde specially referred to in the Question. Any action in the matter is subject to international considerations; but the position of the Clyde area will be steadily kept in view as well as that of the other protected waters.

  Norfolk Evening School Grant.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the grants for several evening schools in the County of Norfolk for the last evening school session have not yet been paid; whether there is any special reason for this delay; and whether, having regard to the necessity of securing the equipment of the schools for the forthcoming session, he will expedite payment.
  (Answered; by Sir John Gorst.)There are ninety-three evening schools in the County of Norfolk; applications for payment have been received on account of eighty-four schools; payment, of the grant has been made by the Board of Education in respect of eighty-two schools and two applications are under consideration.

  South African War—Conveyance Home of Invalid Soldiers.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBER-LAYNE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he
  768
  will arrange that invalid soldiers and others arriving at Southampton from South Africa shall be conveyed to their destinations by the shortest route from that port, seeing that the present route, via Andover and Cheltenham, involves many hours extra travelling to those whose homes are in Ireland, Scotland, or the East of England.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Longer routes, when used, are employed for the purpose of avoiding transfer in London and to utilise through carriages, whereby change of trains and waiting at junctions is avoided. The particular route mentioned is generally used for the conveyance of parties to the North of Ireland, midland counties, and Scotland, and the railway company invariably gives a special train or through carriage for parties of twenty and upwards.

  Colonial Troops at Alexandra Park—Case of Assault.
  MR. COHEN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the assault committed on a black soldier by some of the Colonial troops stationed at the Alexandra Palace, on the 10th instant; and will he say whether steps have been taken to punish the offenders, and to compensate the victim for an assault which necessitated his being taken to the hospital tent.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.)This case is still under investigation.

  Imperial Yeomanry—Furlough.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the Secretary of State for War if lie will state why the Imperial Yeomanry employed in 1899 were not given a furlough of thirty days, as was the case with the Yeomanry employed in 1900 and 1901.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) My hon. friend has been misinformed. All Imperial Yeomen on the higher rate of pay have been treated alike as regards furlough; none of them have been given thirty days.

  Volunteers—CompanyTraining.
  MR. HARRY SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in the greater number of Volunteer regiments the new regulations have been disregarded as regards company training, and that the majority of regiments are still carrying on company drills in drill halls as formerly; and will he see that some marked differentiation is made between the corps which have thoroughly carried out the new regulations and those which have not done so.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) No information to this effect has reached me.

  South Africa—Military Officers and Political Controversies.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the military commandant at Cradock, Cape Colony, Captain H. Wilson, appeared at a public meeting which was held there on 20th June last for the delivery of an address by Mr. Douglass (one of the Cape Ministers) against the suggested suspension of the Cape Constitution, and towards the close of the meeting made a speech in which he accused Mr. Douglass of deliberate untruth; and whether care will be taken that commandants and other military officers do not take part in public meetings of a political nature or in any way mix in the discussion of political questions.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have no information on this matter, but will make inquiry.

  Martial Law.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state when martial law and the rules and regulations based upon it will come to an end in the self-governing Colonies of the Cape and Natal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Martial law is being held in abeyance in Cape Colony, and is only to be employed at the instigation of the Cape Government. As regards Natal the principal restrictions have been already removed. The subject of the total abolition of
  770
  martial law is being carefully considered by the authorities concerned.

  Breaking up of Refugee Camps.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether persons who have been confined in the camps established by the military authorities in South Africa on grounds which may be regarded as political have now permission to leave and rejoin their families and homes; whether there is now free communication between those still in the camps and the outside world by letter and otherwise; and is the breaking up of such camps progressing as fast as circumstances permit.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodride.) The camps are being reduced as rapidly as possible, and all persons able to maintain themselves have been allowed to leave. The camps are being used as bases of supply and starting points for the repatriation of the burghers. As far as I am aware there is free communication with persons outside the camps.

  Volunteers and the Coronation.
  CAPTAIN BOWLES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether those Volunteer regiments in the London Brigades who have been ordered to train at Salisbury Plain on the 2nd August will be allowed to return on the 8th, instead of the 9th, should the Coronation take place on that day.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) If these Volunteers go into camp on Saturday, 2nd August, as proposed, they will finish the period of 144 hours required on Friday, 8th August, and can return to London on Friday night. The case of any Volunteer who does not complete the full period of 144 hours can be considered under Paragraph 577A of the Volunteer Regulations.

  Education Act, 1901—Proposed Renewal.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps the Government propose to take to re-enact the Education Act of 1901 for a further twelve months to ensure the continuance of the evening schools, science and art classes, and pupil teacher centres after the expiration of the Act of 1901; and whether its scope can be enlarged to

  771
  permit of the establishment of new classes for the coining winter.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) A Bill is now before Parliament which will enable schools or classes dealt with by the legislation of last year to be continued.

  Communications between Imperial Government and Transvaal and Orange Free State Governments.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, during the war in South Africa, the Government received any communication whatever from either the Governments of the Transvaal and Orange Free State which have not yet been laid on the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I understand that the following appears to be the only correspondence which has not been laid before Parliament:—
  State Secretary, South African Republic, Pretoria, to Lord Salisbury.
  (Received, Foreign Office, 7.30 a.m., 5th November, 1899.)
  Telegram.
  (Translation.)
  As there are now many English troops here prisoners of war, and your Government prevents the importation of food stuffs into this Republic, I ask you to give instructions for provisions to be allowed to reach the prisoners; the blame will be on you if we, to our shame, should be driven to feed the prisoners, the number of whom is greater than had been anticipated, on mealie porridge, which has not yet been done.
  Mr. Chamberlain to the State Secretary, Pretoria.
  (Sent 4.15p.m., 16th November, 1899.) Telegram.
  Three days before the receipt of your telegram respecting food supplies Her Majesty's Government had given instructions for the removal of the restrictions on the importation of food stuffs into the South African Republic which had been imposed by the British authorities in South Africa.
  State Secretary, Pretoria, to Lord Salisbury, Minister of Foreign Affairs, London.
  (Received, 11.50 p.m., 20th November, 1899.
  (Translation.)
  Pretoria, 11.25a.m.,
  20th November, 1899.
  Telegram.
  †I have the honour to inform your Excellency that I have received the following telegram, signed, "Chamberlain ":—
  † No answer was sent to this telegram.
  Begins: 16th November. Three days before the receipt of your telegram respecting food supplies, Her Majesty's Government had given instructions for the removal of the restrictions on the importation of food stuffs into the South African Republic, which had been imposed by the British authorities in South Africa. Ends.
  I presume that this is an answer to my telegram of the 2nd instant to your Excellency.
  This Government would be glad to learn from your Excellency whether the declaration in the telegram is true.

  (2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    South African War—General Inquiry.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whet her he is now in a position to state when the Royal Commission to inquire into the late war in South Africa will be appointed, also the composition of the Committee and the scope of its investigations.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The answer to the hon. and gallant Member's Question is in the negative; but effort is being made to complete the necessary arrangements.

    Remount Inquiry—Studdert Case Papers.
    MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, on the appointment of a Court of Inquiry to inquire into the action of any Department of the War Office, the practice exists to refer to the Court the papers relating to a case which primâ facie should be the subject of inquiry; and, if so, whether he will refer the papers in the Studdert case, now that is no longer sub judice to the Court of Inquiry on the action of the Remount Department.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): It is not the practice to refer War-Office official papers to such a Court of Inquiry. The Court itself decides what papers to ask for. The Studdert case has nothing whatever to do with the Court of Inquiry on General Truman and his Department, who were not concerned in it.

    Sandhurst College—Incendiary Fires and Disturbances — Indiscriminate Punishment of Cadets.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state when the investigation undertaken by the Commander-in-Chief into the rustication of Sandhurst cadets will be over; and when he will be in a position to communicate its results to this House.
    MR. BRODRICK: I cannot at present state as to when I shall be in a position to give further information on this subject. No time is being lost.

    India Office Reception—Cost to India.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Auditor of the India Office was; consulted as to the legality and propriety of charging India with the whole cost of the reception at the India Office on the 4th instant; and whether the question of the fair apportionment of this charge between the Indian and the Imperial Treasuries will be submitted for the arbitration of the Lord Chief Justice.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): As to the legality of the charges to which the Question refers, there can be no doubt whatever; as to its propriety, it is no part of the duty of the Auditor of the Accounts of the Secretary of State in Council to give an opinion. The arbitration of the Lord Chief Justice is to be resorted to only in cases where there is a difference of opinion between the Treasury and the India Office as to the proper incidence of a charge; and in this case there is no such difference of opinion.

    The Latin League and the Mediterranean— Russia and Morocco
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have any information relative to communications between the Governments of Italy, France, and Spain, involving overtures for the establishment between those three Powers of a so-called Latin League
    774
    for regulating or acting upon the political situation in the Mediterranean; if so, whether that information shows that the suggested league proposes to include within its action the future of Morocco; and whether he can say if the communications between the three Powers in question have been submitted to the Government of Russia.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any such communications.

    Waima Arbitration.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to inform the House of the nature of the award of the arbitrator in the Waima case.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: The arbitrator in the Waima case awarded His Majesty's Government the sum of £9,000.

    Metropolitan Police Uniform.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, with a view to saving expense to the public, as well as increasing the comfort to the men, he will consider the advisability of issuing from time to time one pair of serge trousers to correspond with the serge jackets of the Metropolitan Police in lieu of a pair of cloth trousers.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): The trousers supplied to the police for summer wear are made of thin cloth, and I am not aware of any general desire that serge should be substituted. Nor do I think it desirable that this should be done, having regard to the exigencies of police service, and to the fact that the men are exposed to all weathers and frequently to rapid and considerable changes of temperature.

    Metropolitan Police Pensioners— Coronation Service.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state what arrangements have been made with reference to the pensioners of the Metropolitan Police who undertook to do duty for a period of twenty-eight days during the Coronation festivities.
    *MR. RITCHIE: The fixed period for which pensioners volunteered for service having expired, they have all left the force.

    Auchnashellach Deer Forest.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can explain why the acreage of the deer forest of Auchnashellach, Ross-shire, is stated in the last Return issued by the Crown Agent for Scotland as not known, whereas in the Parliamentary Return issued in 1891 the acreage is given as 33,250 acres; and will he have some inquiry made with a view to ascertain the present approximate acreage.
    *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on Thursday last, †
    MR. WEIR: But I am now asking a definite Question as to a specific deer forest. The right hon. Gentleman will not reply. Will you, Mr. Speaker, tell me what steps I may take in order to induce him to answer.
    *MR, SPEAKER: The hon. Member must be aware that he has already received a general answer which applies to this Question.
    MR. WEIR: But my Question is as to a deer forest of 30,000 acres or more which has apparently vanished.

    Scottish Royal Proclamation.
    MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a memorial from the Convention of Royal Burghs asking that the ancient
    † See page 521.
    776
    rights and privileges of the Royal Burghs in regard to Royal Proclamations be continued to thorn; and if it is the intention of the Department to take any steps in the matter with the view of conserving the rights of the burghs.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: A memorial was received on the 7th instant and will be duly considered, but it is not possible to make any further statement in regard to it.

    Education in Wales.
    MR. KENYON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of alterations which may become necessary if the Education Bill passes into law, he will lay upon the Table of the House a précis of the schemes which have received the sanction of the Department under the Intermediate Education Act for Wales, showing the composition of the county governing bodies and the county school Committees in the different counties in Wales.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,): Yes, the Return will be given if moved for.

    Ireland and the Equivalent Grant.
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any determination has been arrived at as to the equivalent grant to be made to Ireland to balance the additional grant to be given in aid of public education in England.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): It was decided by Parliament in the legislation of 1897 that the expenditure from the Exchequer on education in the three kingdoms should depend on their educational requirements, and not on any system of equivalent grants. If the Irish Government should have any proposals to make with regard to further expenditure on education in Ireland, of course the Government would be disposed to act justly by Ireland in the matter. But I may add that it does not follow that because a fresh grant from the Exchequer is made for a

    777
    particular object in one of the three kingdoms, that a grant should be made for the same object in the others. For example, we have proposed this session to impose a considerable liability on the Exchequer for the purchase of congested estates and for marine works in Ireland, without making any similar proposals for Great Britain.

    Gun Licences in Ireland.
    MR. LEAMY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that at Naas Petty Sessions on the 7th of July, Mr. James Behan, of Blackball, County Kildare, was prosecuted by the Supervisor of Inland Revenues for carrying a gun on his lands, for the purpose of shooting rabbits, without a licence and fined £'2 10s., although he had a 10s. gun licence from the Excise, and was an occupier of the land, at Blackball within the meaning of the Ground Game Act, 1880; will he explain why the presiding magistrate stated that the 10s. licence only allowed a man to carry a gun for the purpose of killing vermin; and will he take steps for the fine to be returned to this man.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): It is not the fact that Mr. Behan had an Excise gun licence in force on the 1st May, the occasion to which the prosecution related. At the hearing Mr. Behan admitted the offence, but the fine of pound;2 10s. imposed by the magistrates was subsequently, on their recommendation, reduced by the Board of Inland Revenue to £1. The Board see no reason for any further mitigation.
    MR. LEAMY: The right hon. Gentleman has not said why the presiding Magistrate stated that the 10s. licences only allowed a man to carry a gun to kill vermin, and not to shoot rabbits.
    MR. ATKINSON: That was merely an abstract opinion. I do not concur with it, but I do not think it a matter of importance.
    MR. LEAMY: Well, I think it is.

    School Teachers and the Irish Language.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the rules
    778
    for the examination of teachers in the Irish language under the Board of National Education in Ireland could be assimilated to the rules for the examination of teachers in the Welsh language under the Board of Education in England, so as to have three separate programmes of examination, one on entrance to the training colleges, one at the end of the first year of training, and one at the end of the second year.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Commissioners of National Education have had before them the question of prescribing programmes for examination in Irish, but they have not yet come to a final decision on the matter. The suggestion in the Question has not been lost sight of.

    Newtownhamilton Head Constable.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Head Constable Adderley, of Newtownhamilton, County Armagh, is in the habit of collecting numbers of Protestants every Sunday in the Police Barracks for religious demonstrations; and will he say whether such a practice is in accordance with the police regulations, and, if not, will he direct its discontinuance.
    MR. WYNDHAM: On Sunday, the; 13th instant a few friends spent the evening in social intercourse with the head constable and his wife on the eve of her departure for a holiday. It is to be regretted that a public question so inquisitorial and so inaccurate in its suggestion should have been founded on an occurrence of so private and unimpeachable a character.

    Warrenpoint Demonstration.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in answer to a requisition from the magistrates of Warren-point and Rostrevor for 100 extra police for duty on the 12th July last, 600 police and 200 soldiers were sent to Warrenpoint; and whether he will state the grounds upon which a force, so largely exceeding that considered sufficient by the local magistrates to keep the peace, was employed.
    MR. MACVEAGH: With whom, in the event of a serious disturbance, would the responsibility have rested — the local magistrates or the Chief Secretary?
    MR WYNDHAM: That is a hypothetical question. In reply to the Question on the Paper I have to say that the magistrates at Warrenpoint and Rostrevor recommended a force of 150 police. An officer from headquarters was sent down to inquire on the spot as to the arrangements necessary for the maintenance of good order on the occasion. He received information which made it clear that the extra force suggested by the magistrates would be totally inadequate, and the Inspector General decided that at least 400 police and 400 military for Rostrevor, and 100 police for Warrenpoint, would be necessary. Those forces were accordingly, with the approval of the Government, ordered, and the meeting at Rostrevor having been proclaimed, the Inspector General was of opinion that this force was still requisite for the purpose of enforcing the Proclamation in respect to Rostrevor, and maintaining the peace both there and at Warrenpoint, where a meeting was permitted. He is still satisfied that the course adopted was necessary.

    Local Taxation (Ireland) Account.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he intends to take any steps to have the balance on the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, now close on £100,000, distributed in relief of rates.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. Section 58 (5) of the Local Government Act, 1898, provides that any credit balances on the Local Taxation Account shall be accumulated and applied to meet any future deficiency, and subject thereto, to be applied in such manner as Parliament directs.

    Newry Troubles.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the local magistrates have refused informations in the case of the Orangeman who
    780
    was prosecuted at Newry on Monday on a charge of firing with intent to maim; and, seeing that the accused was identified by four policemen and that no evidence was called for the defence, whether the Government intends to take further steps in this case.
    MR. WYNDHAM: None of the witnesses examined could prove that the accused fired with intent to maim. Such a charge is not proved by mere evidence of identification. The question of instituting further proceedings in the case is at present under consideration.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received any official reports from the police as to an attack upon a Presbyterian clergyman in Newry by a Nationalist mob on Saturday last; and whether he will make inquiry into this case.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. No such attack was made.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Did not the publication of this story in the Belfast newspapers result in a serious disturbance in the district?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Irish Congested Districts Board Report.
    MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state when the Report of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland for the year ending 31st March, 1902, will be published.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Report, I hope, will be laid on the Table this week.
    MR. POWER: Will the Report be in the hands of hon. Members before we are asked to discuss the Vote?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I do not know when the Vote is to be taken, but the Report will be circulated in the course of the next few days.

    Clifden Harbour Accommodation.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been drawn to the resolution of the Clifden District Council declaring the necessity for a good harbour at Dough-beg, Clifden; if he will take care when the Marine Works (Ireland) Bill becomes Law that the claims of Clifden will have consideration; will he say if the claim of Clifden to harbour accommodation has been considered by the Government since Clifden was connected with the Irish Railway system; and if these claims were pressed on him when he visited that town.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. But until the Bill becomes law the allocation of the money provided by it cannot profitably be discussed. The reasonable claims of Clifden will be considered with due regard to the claims from other localities and to the amount of money to be made available.

    Labourers' Cottages in the Nenagh Union
    MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief (Secretary to the _ Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been directed to a resolution of the Nenagh District Council with reference to the report received from Mr. Coffey, Local Government Inspector, dealing with four applications for cottages and plots from labourers in the Castletown Division of Nenagh Union; whether he is aware that the Council by their resolution disagree with the grounds on which the inspector based his report, and whether having regard to the fact that they are at present living in hovels, and the special circumstances of the case of John M'Carthy, he will request the inspector to reconsider these cases.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution assumes that the applications were rejected because the applicants worked in the slate quarries. But this is not so. Two cases were rejected on the ground that no evidence was produced, as required by the Act, to prove that the existing houses of the applicants were unfit for habitation. A third was disallowed because there is already a cottage
    782
    in the locality occupied by a woman who is reputedly wealthy. And in the fourth case, it was found that the additional half-acre plot proposed would interfere with an entrance to the land of the occupier.

    Lord Lieutenant's Allowance.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in addition to the statutory annual salary of £20,000 a year, any allowance or gratuity to an incoming Lord Lieutenant is made; and, if so, will he state its amount, and whether it is payable under any, and, it so, what statutory provision, and out of what public fund is it provided; if not secured by statute, will he undertake that it will be discontinued.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Lord Lieutenant receives on appointment an allowance of the mysterious sum of £2,769 4s. 8d., which, I understand, is equivalent to £3,000 in Irish money. It is paid out of the Civil Contingency Fund. The payment is customary, and not statutory. Parliament votes the sum, and the amount paid for civil contingencies is recouped by a Vote in the next session.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: If the Lord Lieutenant be a gentleman of large wealth, does this allowance go to him? Will it be included in a Supplementary Estimate?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will come on next session.

    Irish University Commission.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state when the final Report of the Irish University Commission will be presented.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry I have not been able to obtain an answer to the Question, but if the hon. Gentleman will put it on a later day I hope to be able to give him the information.
    MR. DILLON: I will repeat it this day week.

    Cork Court House and the Irish United League.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the meeting of the North Irish League Convention, held the other day in County Cork in the County Council chamber, immediately after the meeting had assembled the High Sheriff of the County appeared and stated that he had received within the preceding quarter of an hour a telegraphic order of the authorities to prevent the holding of the meeting. He wished to ask whether those orders came from the right hon. Gentleman and had his authority.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I had, as the hon. Member admits, no notice of the Question and the official report of the proceedings reached me only this morning. I should be sorry, without further examination, to pronounce an opinion which may reflect on any remissness in the discharge of his duty by any person. But in my opinion a grave scandal occurred at Cork from the fact that such a meeting was attempted at all in the Court House. I may say now that the law is that the Court House is in the custody of the Sheriff, and that it can only be lent by him to the County Council.
    MR. REDDY: They belong to the people.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Court House can only be given to the County Council when such transfer does not interfere with the administration of justice, and it can only be given to the County Council for the performance of the proper duties of the County Council, and not for any political gathering of any kind.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman for any expression of opinion. I asked, as a matter of fact—if the right hon. Gentleman tells me he requires notice, I will give it to him formally—but I ask him whether the instructions the Sheriff received by telegram a quarter of an hour before we met were sent by him and with his authority.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The first communication reached me officially this morning. I have therefore answered the Question, and I felt it my duty to add my opinion of what occurred.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: But that is not a definite answer to a definite question.
    MR. WYNDHAM: If the first official information only reached me this morning, how could I have sent instructions?

    Limerick and Tralee Mails.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that since the 1st June last the despatch night mail leaves Rathkeale and other towns on the route between Limerick and Tralee about an hour earlier than formerly; and seeing that this causes inconvenience to the public, will he state whether he intends to take any steps to prevent it.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): It is the case that the night mail despatch from Rathkeale and other towns on the Limerick and Tralee line is now made earlier than formerly. As explained to the hon. Member in answer to previous questions, the Postmaster General was not able to come to terms with the railway company, and the mail service now afforded is the best practicable under the circumstances.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: As I am of opinion that the Postmaster General is to blame in this matter, I shall raise the question on the Estimates.

    Fiscal Policy with the Colonies.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the approaching resignation of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is the intention of the Government to adhere to his fiscal policy as to the Colonies.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that there is any ground for believing that any policy, such as has

    785
    been suggested by the Government of which my right lion, friend is a Member,; will be departed from when he has left it.

    Women and Intermediate Education.
    MR. KEXYON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, seeing that in most of the schemes framed for the administration of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, it is provided that a proportion of women shall be appointed on the county governing bodies, he will see that, in the event of the County Councils availing them selves of the option reserved to them in Clause 12, subsection (6), of the Education Bill, of submitting a fresh scheme in lieu of continuing the county governing bodies, similar provision shall be possible.
    MR A. J. BALFOUR: I think the Bill, as already drawn, will meet my hon. friend's view. There is nothing in it to prevent the solution he desires.

    Education Act, 1901—Proposed Renewal.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether his attention has been called to the Education Act (1901) (Renewal) Bill, read the first time last Thursday, and standing for Second Reading tonight. And whether, in order to obviate the difficulty created by the expiration on 31st July of the operations of The Education Act, 1901, the Government will take steps to ensure its passing into law before 31st July
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am aware that this Bill has been introduced by the hon. Member, and I should be glad to see it passed without controversy or difficulty.

    Ministers and Questions.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the delay of the business of the House of Commons on Wednesday and Thursday last by the failure of Ministers of the Crown in punctual attendance to answer Questions, with reference to matters relating their Departments, in the time allotted to the delivery of oral answers
    786
    to Questions, whether he will endeavour to ensure for the future the punctual attendance of Ministers at Question time.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am aware that it is extremely desirable that both those who ask and those who answer questions should be punctual, and I trust that no serious inconvenience has ensued from any lapse which may have occurred from the high standard which has been maintained.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The Question I put on the Paper has been altered. I want to know what explanation the right hon. Gentleman has to offer of the delay.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I presume, Sir, the explanation in each case is different.

    Expiring School Boards
    MR. LODER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether any means exist by which the necessity for holding school board elections this autumn may be obviated; and, if not, whether the Government propose to bring in a Bill or take any other steps to postpone these elections pending the passing of the Education Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to my hon. friend, I have to say that there would be no objection to introducing into the Education Bill an amendment or a new clause rendering School Board elections unnecessary; but I doubt whether that clause would be of any practical import, or would be in time to deal with cases which may arise, indeed, must arise, next November. As regards these cases, I think they can only be dealt with in the manner suggested in a letter issued by the Department to School Boards which have communicated with them on the subject. That letter states that the Board of Education are not prepared to withdraw their usual order for triennial elections of School Boards; but if in existing circumstances-triennial election is deemed to be unnecessary or undesirable, it shall be open to those interested to abstain from

    787
    making nominations for such elections, and if in consequence no members are elected those already in office can continue to serve.

    Business of the Session.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should like to ask what the business will be for this week, and as we are within reasonable reach of the Adjournment perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give us some idea of the possibilities for the remaining part of the present sittings.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Education Bill will be taken today and tomorrow (Tuesday), Wednesday, and Thursday will be devoted to Irish Supply, and Friday to the Irish financial relations. As to the remainder of the sittings, the House is aware that the chief business before it is the completion of Supply, and the continuation of its work on the Education and the London Water Bills.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate giving another day for the Navy Estimates?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say at present.
    MR. BROADHURST: Will the Education Bill be taken at the evening sitting tomorrow, in view of the fact that there is Private Bill Business?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the time occupied by Private Bill Business will not eat seriously into the evening sitting. The Education Bill will be the first business after the Private Bill Business.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: How many days will be given to regular Supply, and will there be a day for Supplementary Estimates or not? Also, can the right hon. Gentleman fix a day for the Colonial Office Vote?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am anxious to take the Colonial Vote as soon as it is possible to do so, but the House is aware that the Colonial Secretary has not been fit for serious labour lately, and I should like to consult with him before I fix a day. As regards the remainder of Supply,
    788
    I propose tomorrow to make a Motion giving three days additional to Supply. My impression is that there is one Vote, at all events, of the nature of a new service, which does not come within the twenty-three days. Of course, I shall have to find an opportunity for discussing that. Roughly, five more days must be taken for Supply. This part of the session will end, I presume, on August 8, and the greater part of the time not occupied by Supply will be taken up either by the Education Bill or the Water Bill. I propose to finish the business of the year's Supply in this part of the session, and not to leave any hanging over until the autumn.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the Irish Local Government Act come on before the Adjournment?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, there is some Irish legislative business which will have to be taken before the conclusion of this part of the session, and that is part of it.

CASE OF SIR REDVERS BULLER— PERSONAL EXPLANATION, MR. BRODRICK.
*MR. BRODRICK: I wish, Sir, to ask for the indulgence of the House for one moment in order to make a personal explanation on a point of difference on a matter of fact which occurred between the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick and myself on Thursday last. In speaking in the debate with regard to Sir Redvers Buller, I had occasion to read a telegram, which I lay today on the Table of the House, in which there occurred an expression of opinion from Sir George White with regard to the time for which he could hold out in Ladysmith. With regard to that telegram the right hon. Baronet rose immediately after I sat down and said he wanted to refer to two things which I had said—
"To one," he said, "I wish to give a categorical denial on Sir Redvers Buller's behalf, and the other I wish to correct. The thing I wish to deny is that Sir Redvers Buller had knowledge as to the length of time the supplies in Ladysmith would last at the time when he wrote the dispatches after Colenso."
Now, Sir, I think it right to read both the original telegram, which I now lay, and Sir Redvers Buller's acknowledgment of it—

789
"Telegram from Sir George White, No. 20 P, 30th November, 1800. Flashing signals clouds seen last night for first time. Following portion only read begin—' I do not yet know which Way I will come. How much longer could yon hold out? From Maritzburg, from Buller. Ends.' Commencement of message and date not read. Situation here unchanged, but enemy still mounting additional guns against some of our essential positions. I have provisions for seventy days and believe I can defend Lady-smith while they last. Hay or grazing in a. difficulty, I have thirty-live days supply of this at reduced ration. Small arms ammunition 5,500,00 rounds. Fifteen pounder guns, '250 rounds per gun, 4 7 naval guns, 170 rounds per gun, twelve pounder naval guns. 270 rounds per gun. 6 3 howitzers, 430 rounds per gun. Enemy learns every plan of operations I form, and cannot discover source. I have locked up or banished every supect, but still have undoubted evidence of betriyal. Native deserters from enemy and our native scouts report enemy much disheartened by news of advance on Free Suite, victory on Moon river, and consequent retirement north of Tugela river. With regard to road of advance towards Ladysmith I could give most help to a force coining via Underbrook Hotel or Springfield, hut enemy is making his positions on that side stronger daily. If force south of Tugela can effect junction with me, I believe effect will be immediate and decisive. At present cannot go large as I am completely invested and must reserve myself for one or two big efforts to co operate with relief force-It will be greate-t help to Lady-smith if relief force maintains closest possible touch with enemy. Hospital return—wounded 225, dysentery 71, enteric 15, other fevers 12, other diseases 109. Additional portion of message deciphered begins—' If you hear me attacking join in if you can. Ends.' Please repeat entire message. I will keep a good look-out and do all I can."
In reply to that message—
"From General Buller, Maritzburg, to General White, Ladysmith. No. 58, December 4th, 1899. Your number 20 p, of 30th November received. I shall have concentrated four brigades of infantry, five batteries artillery, one regiment of cavalry, 1,000 mounted Volunteers, by the 6th December and shall attack. I cannot yet say which route hut, will (? communicate) with you in several cipher messages before I advance. I shall also send by searchlight messages in clear, but they will be false ones sent in order to deceive enemy."
As I had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman made his statement in all good faith, I communicated this information to him, and informed him that I should toll the House of Commons that there was no question that the message had been received.
SIR EDWARD GREY: Perhaps the House will be good enough to give me indulgence
790
while I also speak in explanation. I trust they will allow me to do so in my own behalf as well as on Sir Redvers Buller's behalf. The right hon. Gentleman, to whom I am much obliged for having told me that Sir Redvers Buller had received and acknowledged this despatch, was also good enough to say that I might like to be the first to correct the mistake. Sir Redvers Buller has also given me a written explanation, and I thought it desirable to give his explanation, leaving the right hon. Gentleman to make his statement first. The right hon. Gentleman did not quote quite fully my words of the other day. I went on to add—
"He denies that in these words—' I did not know what supplies there were. I thought at that time I had officially in writing that the garrison could not be fed beyond the end of the year.' The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the despatch, which he said was in Sir Redvers Buller's possession. I think it is a faer surmise that it could not have been the only information in his possession, or information on which he thought he could rely."
That is the full text, of the words I used the other day. Sir Redvers Buller informs me that his words "I did not know what supplies there were "were not intended to mean that he had never received this message from Sir George White. I need hardly say I did not know of this message, nor would Sir Redvers Buller, I think, have been entitled to give it to me in advance; but, of course, I am sorry I should have used his words to imply that he might not have received this message, though I ask the House to notice that I put that only as a surmise. He informs me that he did receive the message, but that it differed in essential particulars from the messages he had previously received, and that he considered that he had special reasons at the time for not relying on this particular information. I hope the House will accept this statement as being made in good faith. I think that the good faith is proved by that despatch of December 16 to Sir George White, asking him if he could hold out for as long as a month. General Buller has always admitted that he was mistaken about the supplies. I only put that to the House as evidence of the good faith which he bus observed.

NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the Borough of Leeds (North Division), in the room of the right hon. William Lawies Jackson, now Baron Allerton, called up to the House of Peers. —(Sir William Walrond.)
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors (Licences) (Ireland) Bill Shop Clubs Bill, with Amendments.
NEW BILLS.
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  "To continue various expiring laws," presented by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, under Standing Order No. 31; to be read a second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 281.]
  PACIFIC CABLE BILL.
  "To substitute the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia for the Governments of the States of New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria in The Pacific Cable Act, 1901," presented by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, under Standing Order No. 31; to be read a second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 282.]

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  [MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 7:—
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the situation had materially altered since the House was last in Committee on the Bill. There was then an idea that the Amendment of the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman had promised to lay on the Table of the HOUSE would be satisfactory to hon. Members on that side of the House who took an interest in the question. That illusion, he was sorry to say, must be dispelled. The Amendment had not given a shred of satisfaction. Besides that, the subject-matter of Clause 8 would be imported by the Government Amendments into Clause 7, which would become a new Clause rather than an amended one. It would become the
  792
  earliest step in the settlement of the most vital part of the Bill relating to the management of the denominational schools. They had been very anxious to come to some understanding that the interruption of Committee on the Bill should come at the end of Clause 7 in order that they might not approach that important question at a time when they would not have full opportunity for discussing it, but now the Clause had assumed new importance, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether, in the interests of the proper discussion of the Bill, and, of the temper in which it was to be discussed, the Clause should not be postponed. The proposed Amendment did not even profess to remove the impediment that stood in the way of agreement, and he asked him in all sincerity, and not from a desire to obstruct in anyway, whether, considering the short time intervening between now and August 8, and the other work to be done, the discussion on this, perhaps the most important point in the Bill, should not stand over. He held that that was a most reasonable proposal to make, and he therefore moved that the Clause be postponed.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot put the question that the Clause be postponed, because the Committee has already entered upon the discussion of, and disposed of, two Amendments to it. I will put it as a Motion to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have listened with great attention to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, and I really am unable to understand that there is any reason for putting off the discussion of this Clause till the other Clauses have been disposed of. Even if it had been possible to postpone the Clause, the reason falls to the ground after the ruling from the Chair. I cannot deny that the Clause as I propose to amend it, the Clause, in fact, as unamended, is one on which there has been, perhaps, more acrimonious discussion in the country than on any other. I can only express the hope—it may be a faint hope—that

  793
  these discussions in the House will be of a somewhat more friendly character. I would remind the House that I have never said a single word about the Clause which could mislead any one. I was at great pains the last time we were discussing the Bill, and I was adumbrating the general policy of the Government, to make it clear that we did not propose to alter the proportions of the management in voluntary schools. It is, I suppose, that provision of the Bill which is so unsatisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman and to which he feels bound to offer strenuous opposition. I greatly regret this, but do not see that it is a reason for giving it up. I would suggest that whether the policy of the Government be right or wrong, whether the proportion of elected managers to denominational managers is the correct proportion or the incorrect proportion, no adequate ground has been shown why the debate should be postponed until the autumn. The autumn session was a burden to Members, which he was anxious to reduce as much as possible, and with that object the Committee should get on with the Bill. It would be a great misfortune if the House had to sit over Christmas and even to January—["Oh, oh,"]—as had happened before and might happen again. The interruptions from the other side of the House supplied the answer to the right hon. Gentleman, and seemed to indicate that his followers did not favour the prospect of discussing the Bill in January or February next year. That was good reason for making the best use of the opportunity for discussion now presented.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that objections and rulings from the Chair had hitherto prevented discussion of matters dealt with in a clause subsequent to that under the notice of the Committee, but now, to suit the convenience of the Government, it was proposed to throw that principle aside. The reason assigned for this was to get rid of the question at the present sitting of the House, because it was said if it were postponed until the autumn sitting the discussion would take until Christmas. It was evident, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman contemplated a prolonged discussion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not listened to him, or he had not clearly expressed himself. He referred to the whole Bill as likely to require a long discussion, and that was reason for the Committee proceeding with all diligence.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that this was really the fighting part of the Bill. The First Lord of the Treasury had made some suggestions to them in order that the autumn session might be short.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Shorter.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that that was the point which he had put to the Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not my point.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he was not desirous of misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman, so he would let that be his own point. If it were true that they were only to have today and tomorrow and no other days this week for this discussion, how many days would then remain? This was an important part of the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman was anxious that it should be rapidly proceeded with in order that the autumn sitting might be shorter. The Committee did not know how many days were to be devoted to the Bill before the adjournment. How many days were going to be appropriated to Supply? He understood that there was to be a new form of Supply. They ought to know how many days were going to be given to water, and how many to the discussion of this Clause, which everybody admitted was the most material part of the Bill to be decided before the adjournment. The opportunities which remained at the fag end of a session was not the proper time when a question of this kind ought to be dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of acrimonious discussions in the country, but did the Committee think those discussions would be any the less acrimonious when the people knew that this Clause had been

  795
  smuggled through the House at the fag end of the session? Was that likely to reconcile- the people who were dissatis fled with, this arrangement? Therefore if the Government desired this question to be discussed, and he assumed that the right hon. Gentleman desired this, then they ought to be told how many days they meant to allow for the discussion of this Clause. That was a thing which they had a right to ask, and if they did not obtain this information, the proposal of his right hon. friend was a reasonable one, and quite in accordance with the usual practice in this House.
  MR. McKENNAsaid he did not know whether he should be in order in raising the point to which he desired to draw the attention of the Chairman, or whether he ought to wait until the First Lord of the Treasury's Amendment was reached. He wished to ask whether the Amendments placed upon the Paper by the First Lord of the Treasury were in order if moved as Amendments to Clause 7? The only part of Clause 7 which would stand if this Amendment were adopted would be—
  "All public elementary schoo's shall be manage in the case of schools provided by the local authority."
  The rest of the Clause would be left out, and the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to introduce an alternative system. On many occasions the Chairman had ruled that when an alternative system was proposed to a clause, the proper proceeding would be to move to leave out the words to be struck out and submit the alternative system as a new clause. He held that there could not be a clearer case of an alternative proposal than this Amendment. Practically the whole of Clause 7 was swept away, and an entirely new proposal was submitted by the right hon. Gentleman. He argued that the words might come in as an Amendment to Clause 8, but he contended that this Amendment could not be in order on Clause 7.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I must defer my decision until we reach the Amendment.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that it was around this Clause that the struggles' in the country would arise, He had had no opportunity of consulting his own constituents in regard to this new proposal, which was practically a new clause, and it ought to be postponed until they had had an opportunity of consulting their friends in the country and their constituents. It was wrong and unjust to force this through the Committee by sheer weight of numbers without any opportunity of listening to reason. Upon these grounds he thought it was reasonable to ask that this Clause should be postponed.
  MR. TPEVELYANsaid he did not know whether 1 the Committee realised the number of days which were available. They were going to have two days discussion on the Education Bill this week. On Tuesday evening it was probable that private Bills would be allowed to cut into the evening sitting. This was a part of the Education Bill which he thought everybody was anxious should not be curtailed, for it would not tell in favour of the smooth working of the Bill or tend to its quick passage into law if there was any sense of injustice felt on the part of the people who were opposed to it. There were eight whole Parliamentary days and two half-days before the adjournment. Of those days five were definitely given up to Supply. He wished to know if the Government intended to go on with the Water Bill. If so, it might be assumed that two half-days would be given to the London Water Bill, and that the remaining three Parliamentary days would be given to the Supplementary Estimates before the House. Of course it would be necessary to have some discussion on the resolution to adjourn. For the discussion of this absolutely vital point of the whole Bill, which was being brought up in a much more detailed form than originally proposed, they were going to have at the very outside three days discussion. He thought it was very doubtful whether a full Parliamentary discussion could be given in three days. The alternative was that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would have to have all night sittings, or else he would have to

  797
  closure the representatives of Nonconformity, which, he thought, was a prospect even he would not entertain.
  *MR. CHAININGsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury took up the cheers from certain quarters of the House as a sufficient argument for rejecting the proposal of his right hon. friend. He thought the right hon. Gentleman misinterpreted the cheers. The cheersindicated pretty clearly that in the face of the Amendment put on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman, and in the face of the situation foreshadowed in the country, it would be inevitable that this Bill should be debated at great length during the autumn session as well as on the present occasion if the First Lord of the Treasury persisted in rejecting this Motion today. There had been the strongest expression of opinion with regard to the Amendments by leading Nonconformists already. They had foreshadowed almost interneeine war on this question, He had road with deep interest a letter in the press from the Rev. F. B. Meyer, in which he said that the Amendments proposed by the right hon. Gentleman filled him with despair, and that if he stood by them there was nothing before Free Churchmen but a long and bitter struggle. Another leading Nonconformist had described these Amendments as a studied insult to the Free Churches. They were at the very crisis of this Bill, where the strongest animosities were aroused. It was clear that the suggestion. of the First Lord of the Treasury would not bring them within view of a peaceful solution of these questions. They rather opened the door to more acrimonious discussion. Upon the proper and wise solution of these questions would depend the educational progress of the country for months and years, and he asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would not be well advised to postpone this Clause until it had received fuller discussion in the country.
  MR. BRYCEsaid there was really not time left to consider the Clause properly before the adjournment. If the right hon. Gentleman deducted the days which were to be devoted
  798
  to Estimates, and Supplementary Estimates, the time to be given to the Irish Local Government Bill, the time he probably wished to give to the London Water Bill, and the time which must be given to the Appropriation Bill, how could he expect to be able to dispose of this Clause? If they were to do justice to the numerous points of importance raised by the, Clause, they could not dispose of it in four days except by use of the closure. He was perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to employ the closure in a matter of this kind. If the Clause could not be rarried before the adjournment, the eight hon. Gentleman would be obliged to drop the discussion in the middle of the Clause. Surely no time would be saved by pressing it now, for if the right hon. Gentleman had to leave the Clause half finished. Besides the controversial questions which would arise on the Amendments, there were other points raised by other Amendments. There was a most important Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Somerset, in regard to the grouping of schools so that managers might be appointed for each group. That would require a great deal of consideration. He must say he thought that matter would be better dealt with as a new Clause, than by an Amendment which was practically a new Clause. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would shorten the autumn session or diminish the strain upon the House by refusing to postpone the Clause now. The difference of one or two days which the right hon. Gentleman thought would be gained now would not be felt when he came to the autumn session. It would be better to get the Clause through in the autumn session without acrimony, than to press it through now.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEexpressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would listen to the appeal which had been addressed to him. The right hon. Gentleman had practically taken out of Clause 8 a most controversial sub-section, and put it into Clause 7 alter elaborating it. He now proposed to press the Clause through before the adjournment, He could not do that unless he meant to put pressure

  799
  on the House, and that would be exceedingly unfair and disastrous in the present state of the controversy. If they were going to have a late autumn sitting he thought they ought to rise early at this stage. This, after all, was the crux of the Bill. Upon the way this Clause issued from the Committee would depend the whole attitude of the great Nonconformist bodies of this country towards the Bill, and after all they were not to be ignored. They were in a minority in this House because it was a House which was not elected upon this issue. This had never been a fair and square issue before the electorate. He felt perfectly certain, if the issue now raised in Clause 7 had been put to the country at the last election, the complexion of the House of Commons, which had an overwhelming majority supporting the right hon. Gentleman, was not the one it would have borne at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman was using the majority obtained on another issue to force the Bill upon the nation. The people of the country had hardly had time to consider the Bill. Why did the right hon. Gentleman take out the obnoxious subsection in Clause 8 and put it into Clause 7? It was not because it was better drafting. There was only one reason. He wanted this thing settled before the recess, because he thought it would influence the agitation which was now going on against the Bill. The hon. Member did not think that was fair. He believed it would have exactly the opposite result from that anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman. He had a letter from a man who had not taken a prominent part in agitation on the platform, but he was one of the most powerful in the Nonconformist ranks, and he had come to the conclusion that the Government had made up its mind not to meet the reasonable objections of Nonconformists. That man wanted to make it clear at the outset that, whether the Bill of the Government got through or not, they were simply at the beginning of the controversy so far as the free churches were concerned. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to carry this through now in order to make it clear to the free churches of the country that this was his ultimatum? If so,
  800
  he thought it was a pretty serious state of things. It would mean two or three months of the bitterest agitation which the right hon. Gentleman had ever had to face. He believed that thousands of electors who voted for hon. Members opposite would not do it again. As one who was anxious that some sort of Bill should be evolved out of the present chaos, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be better in the interest of education to arrive at some compromise by which they could obtain a fair workable measure. That was the alternative. The right hon. Gentleman would force on an agitation of which he did not see the end. He did not know the power and determination of the Nonconformists in regard to this matter. They might call it fanaticism if they liked, but fanaticism was a very dangerous thing to arouse, and no real friend of education would like to see it roused in connection with this or any other Bill. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better to avoid all this agitation, and give the two or three months of the recess to the purpose of thrashing this matter out. What would the right hon. Gentleman gain? He might gain an extra day next week, but the only result would be that he would force this section through Committee under circumstances which would exasperate bitterness, because there would be a feeling in the country that there was no freedom of debate, and, what was worse, the right hon. Gentleman would only get half the section through, and the whole controversy would be renewed when the other half came to be considered. There were some departmental Bills that might, in the meantime, be got out of the way, and even some other Clauses in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was stirring up, without real knowledge, the forces at work in this business. They had discussed this matter with considerable equanimity in the Committee hitherto. The discussions did not represent a tithe of the real animosity outside. What surprised Nonconformist ministers who visited the Chamber was the spirit in which the Bill was discussed, and these said that hon. Members had not got the earnestness of the men who sent them there.

  801
  If the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to this appeal, he would do the Bill no good and do education no good.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he supported the appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman on practical grounds. The first was time. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had accurately estimated the shortness of the time before him to deal with this gigantic task in Clause 7. Assuming that the Adjournment took place on the Friday before the Coronation, there were only available ten Parliamentary days. Now, of those ten days eight were practically appropriated outside this Bill, and outside legislation altogether. There were three days taken next week for Supply and three days this week for the Irish Estimates and financial relations. Then they should not approach the Appropriation Bill in a temper of resentment. That was a Bill, which could not reasonably be closured, and the debate upon it might extend over two days. Last year the Second Reading occupied one day and the Third Reading one day. Putting aside all other questions that might arise, he was sure that after this week the right hon. Gentleman could not get more than two available days for the Education Bill. The next point was that urged with great force and eloquence by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there were a great number of people in this country and on both sides of the House who, although disappointed with the proposals in the Bill, were anxious for a reasonable compromise. He was satisfied that if the right hon. Gentleman would only mark time, moderate men on both sides might put their heads together, and a solution would be found which would obviate the destruction of that popular control which should accompany the expenditure of public money and at the same time protect the legitimate claims of the denominational schools. But he was convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman forced this question on to a decision in the next two or three days, he would sweep away all possibility of a compromise. It would amount to a declaration of war, and he did not think that that would be wise in
  802
  the interests of the contending parties in the country or of education. That was a step which should not be taken until every other means had been exhausted. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to go on with Clause 7 so far as it dealt with School Board schools and the schools to be provided by the new education authority. The right hon. Gentleman should leave the fighting question over altogether till the autumn. There would be a good deal to say on both sides of the House on questions, of considerable difficulty in this Clause, which were evidently not present to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. He could not see how this Clause was to be worked in large towns like Wolverhampton, where he was Chairman of the School Board, so far as the School Board Schools were concerned. There was plenty of debatable matter in Clause 7 without approaching this contentious question. For these reasons, and in the interests of peace and a wise settlement of the question, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to arrive at some modus vivendi by which consideration of Clause 7 might be postponed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that before he came to the larger question of subsidies which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, he might say with regard to the actual time at their disposal, that even on the right hon. Gentleman's own calculation it appeared that four days were left, during the present session for the discussion of the Education Bill, and that was the exact time which it was suggested by the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen might appropriately be taken up by the discussion on this question.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there were the new Estimates.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he himself anticipated with some confidence that they would not have less than four days for the discussion in connection with this clause.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the fact that he had

  803
  definitely promised a day for discussing the question connected with the shipping combination.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not anticipate there would be a whole day I required for the discussion of that subject. Coming to the larger question raised by the right hon. Gentlemen, to listen to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, one might really suppose that the Government were acting in a harsh and tyrannical manner, and that they and those outside for whom they spoke had real reason to complain of the procedure the Government had adopted He must absolutely repudiate any such view. If there was any grievance, it was on the part of the Government, and not on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was told that he had put down an entirely new clause on the Paper. It was not a new clause as touching the real matter at issue between those for whom the hon. Member for Carnarvon spoke and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side. The Bill as originally introduced, as it was defended, as it originally passed the Second Heading and was discussed in this House, always contained, and was intended to contain, a provision by which a majority of managers should be given denominational control under the new system. As he had said, that might be a good plan or a bad plan, but it was the plan of the Bill from the beginning, and it was absolutely unmodified by the expansion which the clause had undergone during the last few days. He admitted that the expansion left untouched the question of the relative numbers of managers of denominational schools, and in every other respect it was a concession. [Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, "No."] It would tax the ingenuity even of hon. Gentlemen opposite to prove that it was not a concession in regard to the character and number of the elected members. Then they were told that the Government ought to have left the matter as it originally was in Clause 8, and not to have dealt with it in Clause 7. He might have been very well content to take that course if it had not been the obvious intention of the Committee to raise it on Clause 7. They had only to look through the Amendments standing in the name of the right hon. Member for South
  804
  Aberdeen and other hon. Members opposite to see that they had intended to deal with Clause 7 exactly as the Government now proposed to do. These hon. Gentleman had taken Clause 7 as the text and canvas on which they were going to embody their own particular scheme. It was obviously quite impossible to have avoided this discussion on Clause 7. Hon. Members opposite talked as if some tremendous attempt were going to be made to unduly curtail debate on this clause; but he thought the Committee would admit that they had shown a large measure of toleration in discussion. He was always having hopes dangled before him of a. compromise being arrived at on the Bill by reasonable men on both sides. There had been plenty of time for these wise men to come together, as there was absolutely no change in the essence of the clause since the Bill was introduced before Easter. He presumed all these peacemakers had been at work since that time. He said with the profoundest regret, if it were any satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman opposite, that, with a, full consciousness of all the difficulties which were likely to befall them in the matter, it was perfectly clear that the militant Nonconformists, whom the hon. Gentleman so efficiently spoke for, would be content with nothing except what was called popular control and management of denominational schools. For the Government to give that up, would be not merely to violate all their principles and pledges, and to betray those who sent them to this House, but would be to do something which seemed to him monstrously and utterly unjust. Being monstrously and utterly unjust, so far from bringing that peace to the community which was promised by hon. Gentlemen opposite, he confessed that, evil as might be the present condition of affairs, much though they might have to endure from sharp divisions of opinion among themselves, he earnestly and firmly believed that that evil was as nothing to the evil they I would have to endure if they wore to recede from what had always been a central principle of the Bill. He regretted that, in such circumstances, the Government were not met with greater generosity by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon. Gentlemen differed from the

  805
  Government conscientiously, and, so far as that particular clause was concerned at all events, strenuously and vehemently; but that was no reason why they should not proceed with all the good humour, temper, moderation, and wisdom they could command; continue the discussion during the days still remaining in the course of the present portion of the session—which, after all, would not be a very lengthened period—with all these excellent Parliamentary gifts and virtues; and, if possible, complete the discussion on a clause which he quite admitted was one of the most difficult portions of the Bill.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to him to be most unfortunate. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the view of his hon. friend was monstrously and utterly unjust; but they were just as much inclined to describe the position of the right hon. Gentleman as monstrously and utterly unjust. Surely, in the circumstances, the Government were unwise in not taking a broader view of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Amendment as a concession to the views of the Opposition; but they regarded the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman as an aggravation rather than a concession; and that being the case, they were surely entitled to ask that the matter should not be decided at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman would not deny that, as far as they were concerned, the discussion had been carried on in perfect good temper; and, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, it would be a great
  pity to aggravate the feeling which had obtained up to the present. That view was not confined to members of the Opposition. A short time ago there was a letter in The Times from the Rev. Mr. Diggle, who was the denomination-alist Chairman of the London School Board, in which he stated that they were in danger of legislating in haste before the subject matter for legislation was ripe. That was precisely the opinion of his hon. friends; and therefore it would be wise to postpone Clause 7 until it could be seen whether there was any means by which they could arrive at an agreement regarding it.
  *MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid that no doubt the object of the right hon. Gentleman in putting the Amendment down was that the clause might be passed before the House adjourned, but if hon. Gentlemen would look at the Amendment they would see that there were two pages of Amendments before the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, many of which would be discussed, although they might be ultimately superseded by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. To proceed would, in the circumstances, be waste of time. Then there were five pages of Amendments after the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. Therefore it would be practically impossible to dispose of the Clause before the adjournment, and its postponement would be an advantage to the Bill generally.
  (3.58.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 93; Noes, 213. (Division List No. 307.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Allen, Charles P (Gloue., Stroud

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Sealae-

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Dawar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Havter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Douglas, Choles M. (Lanark)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Holland, Sir Wm. Henry

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Dunn, Sir William

  Humphrey-Owen, Arthur C.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Edwards, Frank

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Caine, William Sproston

  Emmott, Alfred

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Caldwell, James

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Cameron, Robert

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Labouchere, Henry

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Langley, Batty

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Grant, Corrie

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Cremer, William Randal

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

  Levy, Maurice

  Crombie, John William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon Sir William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Lough, Thomas

  Rigg, Richard

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Russell, T. W.

  White, Luke (York E. R.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Norton, ('apt. Cecil Wiham

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Tennan, Harold John

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Price Robert John

  Tomkinson, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Rea, Russell

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  and Mr. John Sinclair.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Acland- Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Dillon. John

  Lee, ArthurH (Hants, Fareham

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Doogan, P. C.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Doughty, George

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Ambrose, Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balcarres, Lord

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lundon, W.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Flower, Ernest

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Garfit, William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bartley, George C. T.

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Bathurst, Hon. Alien Benjamin

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Core, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Manners Lord Cecil

  Bignold, Arthur

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

  Middlemore, J no. Tnrogmorton

  Bill, Charles

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Milvain, Thomas

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Boland, John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mooney, John J.

  Bond, Edward

  Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (M'nm'thsh.

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Hain, Edward

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Mount, William Arthur

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Murphy, John

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Harrington, Timothy

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Nicol, Donal Ninian

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Homer, Frederick William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hoult, Joseph

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry cecil

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  O'Mara, James

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Joyce, Michael

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Percy, Earl

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Delany, William

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawson, John Grant

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  808

  809

  Purvis, Robert

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Welby, SirCharles G. E. (Notts.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Whiteley, H (Ashtonund. Lyne

  Rasea, Major Frederic Carne

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

  William's, Rt Hn J Pow'll-(Birm.

  Reddy, M.

  Spear. John Ward

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Redmond, John E (Waterford)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Sullivan. Donal

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)

  Worsley-Taylor, Herry Wilson

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wortley. Rt Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Rutherford, John

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Samuel, Harry S. Limehouse)

  Valentia, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

  Sassoen, Sir Edward Albert

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Sir William Walrond and

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

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Mr. Austruther.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHURsaid the Amendment he proposed to move involved an important principle, first of all as to whether the managers' appointments were to be permissive or compulsory, and whether the managers were to be delegates of the local authority, or whether they were to have an independent position. It was perfectly clear, from the Act of 1870, that the appointment of managers was to be permissive; it was quite clear that the School Boards under that Act were to have absolute power over the managers. They could appoint and remove them, and lay down rules for the guidance of their policy, and if they did not carry out those rules the School Board could remove them. Those were the lines on which the School Boards had hitherto proceeded; they had not in all cases appointed managers to manage the schools, because in some cases they had managed the schools direct; but wherever they had appointed managers, they had reserved to themselves the right to dismiss their managers if they did not conform to the rules laid down, and in some cases they had lost no time in exercising their powers. The Bill as it at present stood made the appointment compulsory, but he thought the discretion which was possessed by the School Boards should be given also to the new local education authority. As the clause stood, it would take away from the new education authority the control they ought to have, and set up another authority. If this great trust was to be imposed upon the local education authorities, entire confidence ought to be placed in their
  810
  discretion. The principle of the Amendment, if adopted, could easily be worked, either with the clause as it now stood or with the alterations proposed by the Government. In any case, the rating authority ought to be the governing authority. As regarded the denominational schools, the Amendment had no application whatever, as they stood on a different footing; but in common fairness the local authorities ought to have full control over their own schools, and therefore he moved the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 38, to leave out from the beginning to the word 'under,' in line 40, and to insert the words 'The local educational authority may appoint managers.' "— (Mr. Charles M'Arthur.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURentirely concurred in his hon. friend's desire that the new authority should be, and remain, supreme in its control over education in all classes of elementary schools, and he would be sorry to think that anything in the Bill as at present drafted militated against that view. It seemed to be supposed that the managers would stand in a position of permanent opposition, to the authority by whom they were appointed. That, however, was not his anticipation. He agreed that they should hold office during the pleasure of the education authority, and that no collision should be possible or permissible; but at the

  811
  same time he did not think the Amendment or the principle laid down by the hon Member could be accepted. He would be sorry to see it left open to any education authority, especially that of a great county area, to have no local representatives or managers at all in connection with the schools. Therefore, while sympathising with the object of his hon. friend, he suggested it would be adequately met by the Bill as framed.
  DR. MACNAMARAwas sorry to hear the First Lord's reply) because experience had shown that many School Boards had managed their schools admirably without the intervention of managers. That was almost universally the case with regard to the School Boards of the smaller areas, such as those with 10,000 inhabitants, which, under this Bill, would be autonomous for purposes of elementary education. The Vice-President would doubtless tell the First Lord that the School Boards of such urban districts were quite able, and found it more expeditious and economical, to manage their schools directly. He believed that, oven in such places as Liverpool, Leeds, and Sheffield, the School Boards had managed the schools directly, with most excellent results, and he sincerely hoped the power would be given to the now authorities to appoint managers or not, as they thought host. London, with its 1,500 school departments and half a million children, was on an entirely different footing. Obviously, the School Board could not manage each school, and had had to appoint managers. But even then they had insisted on the managers being directly under the School Board, and prepared a code of regulations outside of which the managers could not go. He hoped a similar policy would be pursued under the Bill. He admitted there was a difficulty with regard to county areas, and that schools in the remote districts could not be fairly managed from the county centre. In such cases local managers were necessary, but in the urban districts the authority should have the right either to appoint managers or to manage schools directly, as they thought best.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYfeared that the First Lord hardly realised
  812
  all that was covered by the Amendment. He had dealt with the matter only from the point of view of the county areas, whereas the supporters of the Amendment had in view the urban districts, and particularly the non-county boroughs with small populations, in which it would be absurd to require the appointment of managers. The practice of School Boards was not to appoint managers. It was only in London and two or three of the larger places that that course had been adopted. The practice of the School Board was to appoint a School Management Committee, by which all details affecting the individual schools were dealt with. He quite agreed that in the county areas it was desirable to have managers, but in the small urban districts it was not only undesirable from the point of view of ordinary administration, but it was also placing another buffer between the ratepayers and the schools. The absurdity of the proposal was perhaps the best argument that could be brought against it. In a town of 12,000 inhabitants, about one-sixth of the population would be in the public elementary schools, and those 2,000 children would, as a rule, be accommodated in three schools. Was it necessary to compel the local authority to appoint eighteen managers for those schools? It would be really absurd to have three sets of six managers, plus the urban local authority, plus the County Council for secondary education — all exercising control over those unfortunate, schools. He earnestly hoped this question would be reconsidered as it affected the urban districts. In the county areas, where the central management was remote from the school, it was necessary to have somebody on the spot to see that the regulations were carried into effect. The present Amendment was possibly not the best that could be devised, and he suggested that the object could be secured by the substitution of "may" for "shall" in the first line of the Amendment to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman himself.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to appreciate the importance of the Amendment. The only answer he had given was that it was but reasonable that in the county local managers should be appointed, and that the County Council or its Committee should not undertake the whole

  813
  work. That was quite obvious, but surely the right hon. Gentleman remembered that Clause 1 provided that the Council of a borough with 10,000 inhabitants, or of an urban district with 20,000, should be the local education authority for the purposes of Clause 3. Could any reason be suggested for the appointment of local managers in a borough of 10,000 inhabitants? No gain could possibly result from the adoption of such a course, as it would be perfectly easy for the local education authority itself to control and supervise the whole of the elementary education in the area. The case was all the stronger when he considered the existing law. By Clause 6, the powers and duties of the School Board were transferred to the new authority, and under the existing law, the School Board had power to appoint managers if it thought fit to do so. Why should this power, which the School Board had hitherto had, be withdrawn from the new authority? It was very desirable to have unity of management in these smaller areas; and why—to take the case instanced by the hon. Member for North West Ham—should it be necessary to have three different sets of managers when it would be much better and simpler for the local authority to manage the schools directly? The management would be more efficient. This point appeared in a stronger light when they considered economy, for one of the greatest difficulties would arise from the uneconomical management of the school. It was pointed out in a letter in The Times by Mr. Edward Buxton, who was at one time the Chairman of the Essex School Board, that one of the greatest difficulties would be: when a board of managers incurred expenses they would have no motive in keeping them down. Surely, as far as they could they ought not only to keep the managers in close touch with the local authorities, but they should also group the schools. In the case of counties they would have to group the schools, but in the boroughs and the smaller urban districts they had the grouping power already, and they were going wilfully to depart from it by imposing the obligation to appoint managers where there was no necessity for it. As
  814
  was said by the hon. Member for West Ham, they wanted to distinguish large areas from small areas. He understood the hon. Member forth Exchange Division said that that plan worked well at Liverpool and Wolverhampton, and what reason was there to depart from it? He contended that in the case of the smaller boroughs and urban districts the power ought not to be withdrawn. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should introduce an Amendment which would distinguish between the cases in which managers ought to be appointed from amongst themselves, and cases where it was to be left to the local authority to appoint managers or not, as they thought fit.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he wished to make two observations, one on the form and the other on the substance of this Amendment. This proposal would make it absolutely impossible to go on with the Amendment which the Government had put down on the Paper. The thing was inadmissible in its present shape. As regarded the substance, no doubt an Amendment could be introduced embodying the view of the hon. Member at a later stage in conformity with the general framework of the Clause as the Government now proposed to adopt it. He would respectfully point out to his hon. friend the Member for West Ham that he thought his Amendment was unnecessary. In any case, it ought not to be discussed now.
  MR. YOXALLsaid the general rule had been not to appoint these Committees. Moreover, where these local Committees had been appointed in boroughs they had not been appointed for single schools, but for a group of three or four schools, and their powers had been so reduced that they had become merely visitors of the schools; so that practically, with regard to the School Boards in boroughs, they had been adverse to what was proposed in the Bill. The local authority, in the case of a borough discovering that it had too much work to do could, under Clause 15 of the Education Act, delegate its powers to a Committee. He hoped the First

  815
  Lord of the Treasury would make it clear that he was willing to accept this as an optional and not as a compulsory power.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid that the addition of a very few words would leave it optional in the case of boroughs and urban districts where the authority was the only elected authority, and would leave, it still compulsory in the case of counties. He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would insist upon keeping in the Clause the compulsory appointment of managers in the case of counties. The right hon. Gentleman said that no collision was possible or permissible between the local authority and the managers, but considering the composition of the bodies of the managers of voluntary schools, he failed to see the force of that argument.
  *MR. CHANNINGthought the First Lord of the Treasury had not fully considered the differences between one place and another. His method might be applicable to the relation of the County Council to a large number of the areas under the County Council, but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, from the construction of his own Bill, that the ultimate form in which this question of management would present itself would not only be limited to those urban districts over 20,000, but they would probably have to contemplate a state of things in which a very large number of authorities for small areas would become the local authority for elementary education. Therefore, this question was not limited in the form put by the First Lord of the Treasury, and the plan suggested was a wholly inadequate way of dealing with it. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to put before the Committee a more complete and elastic solution of the immediate difficulty they had to face.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid his hon. friend had raised a very important issue by the Amendment. He thought the right hon. Gentleman did not meet the point put to him from this side of the House. That point was that when they came to his own Amendment they would have to consider a proposal that the education authority "shall have a body of managers." What those who were supporting the present Amendment
  816
  wanted the right hon. Gentleman to tell them was whether he would substitute "may" for "shall." The real difficulty would be in the small districts, and especially in the case of small School Boards where there was no need for managers at all. He instanced the case of Chiswick, where there were four schools and a School Board of nine members. They did not want managers there to see after the schools, at all. If in such a case there were managers for each school, there would be no end of friction and a large amount of trouble. In the case of a county, it would be necessary to have some sort of management over the schools.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR,without giving a pledge, undertook to consider whether in small boroughs the appointment of managers should not be compulsory.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether, in a district having, say, 12,000 inhabitants and four schools, the town council would be compelled to appoint six managers for each, making twenty-four in all. Would a County Council for a whole county be bound to appoint managers for each school throughout the county, or could they group town, villages, or districts? It appeared to him the words of the Clause meant that each school should have managers of its own. He further asked the Attorney General to state whether the object the Government had in view would not be met by such words as "where the local authority think necessary."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said it would certainly not be necessary to have four distinct sets of managers; the authority would appoint six members as a managing body, and these would manage the four schools. With regard to the second question put by the hon. Member, he said there was a Clause touching it standing in the name of his right hon. friend, and he thought it better that he should refrain from discussing it at the present time.
  * MR. GEORGE WHITEwas satisfied that School Boards would not, as a rule, if they had to recommence their work,

  817
  appoint managers; they would effect their object by the appointment of inspectors. Experience had shown that the local inspector came into collision with the school managers, who were far too apt to look to their own single school rather than to the whole of the schools under the Board. An expenditure desired by the managers of one school might be small for one school, but it became a large expenditure for the whole of the schools. In that way local managers did not promote economy. If they were to have separate sets of managers for each school, it would mean in the County of Norfolk that they would require 3,000 managers. He did not think that number could be found who would be willing to give the time necessary for management.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEthought that it would be desirable to give the local authority discretion by such words as "may, if they think fit, and shall, if required to do so by the Board of Education, appoint a Board of managers."
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHURexpressed himself satisfied with the promise given by the First Lord of the Treasury, and desired to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONfelt that something more definite should be said before the Amendment was withdrawn. It seemed to him that the proposal of the Bill was an extraordinary clumsy way of doing what was done now, without difficulty of friction, to the satisfaction of the Education Department and of the schools themselves. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that obviously the borough or urban local authority would have the power to appoint a Board of managers, and that it might consist of members of the local education authority. The First Lord did not seem to see the point raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. What happened at the present moment was that where a School Board did not appoint a Board of managers to a school, the School Board was practically its own managers. Surely it was a very clumsy way of dealing with this question—both from the point of view of the local authority
  818
  and the schools themselves?—that the local education authority should pick out six members of their own body, each six members to be managers of, say, six different schools in the area. The right hon. Gentleman should give a more satisfactory explanation of his own proposal.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not divide on this Amendment, as it would prejudge the whole question, and would not be in the interest of the hon. Gentleman's own case. He was clearly of opinion that this was not the proper place to deal with the question at all.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he quite saw that it would be disadvantageous to negative this Amendment, because afterwards nothing could be done upon it. But the point they wished to put before the right hon. Gentleman was that there were many cases where no managers would be appointed—where it was not desirable that managers should be appointed; but that the local education authority should do as the School Boards now did, and be the managers themselves. The right hon. Gentleman should give an undertaking to meet that point.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could not agree to that, because it would be inconsistent with his own Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the question was whether the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that, when he came to his Amendment, he would deal with this point. His own supporters told him that there were cases where it was very undesirable that there should be a compulsory appointment of managers. On all hands it was admitted that there ought to be this liberty.
  MR. DILLONsaid his difficulty in regard to this Amendment was that it would not read with the Clause at all, and that it raised the whole question at the wrong time. He must say—having listened to the debate, and being prepared to support the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment at the right time—

  819
  that, from a purely educational point of view, it would be inadvisable to force the issue now to a decision, and so prevent the raising of the question in another shape at the proper time. The best course would be to close the discussion now, and raise the question on the First Lord's Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that the proposal of the Amendment would shorten the debate, otherwise the question would have to be raised over again.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he wished to ask the First Lord whether his objection to the Amendment was a purely technical one?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that surely he had gone as far as any reasonable man could expect the Government to go. It was not an easy thing to draft his Amendment off-hand. He had heard all the arguments, and he admitted that there was a good deal to be said in favour of making a distinction between some kinds of education areas and other kinds. But this was not the time to discuss that. Could anything be more reasonable than what he had said?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid the issue raised by his next Amendment was a very clear one. It was inevitable that it should be raised when they came to discuss the question of management. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and in the interests of educational efficiency, was it not best that all those schools should be managed under the same conditions of management? If this Bill passed, the position would be that in the case of every public elementary school there would be equal power of rating and aid, equal Imperial grants from the Treasury; and the whole secular instruction in these schools would be under the control of the same education authority. There was a distinction between the two classes of schools, which arose from the fact that the denominational schools were built and owned, not
  820
  by the local education authority, but by the denomination which had provided the funds for building the schools. As a Nonconformist, he desired to meet that position frankly and fairly; and in his judgment that difference between the two classes of schools should be reasonably and justly made in some other way than that proposed by the Bill. What he and those who agreed with him wanted was to do away with any sense of injustice in regard to a system of education which should be national. If the Clause was passed in its present form, it would be the means of stirring up very serious strife and discord throughout the country for months and years to come. Feeling most deeply that the question of elementary education was vital to the progress of the country, he deplored that an opportunity of this kind was to be allowed to pass away without doing something to meet the difficulty, and ensuring unanimity in regard to the justice of the Nonconformist demands. He might be asked how he was prepared, if he did not accept the plan of the Government for the irresponsible management of denominational schools, to meet the difficulty of compensating those who had spent so much money in erecting these schools, and have done it under the stimulus of what they considered to be the best interests of the country. In the first place, he would give an adequate money payment in the shape of rent for the school buildings; and in the second place, he would agree that the definite religious instruction in all these schools should he ensured by the Bill. He ventured to say that if that were done, the justice of the case would be met, and there would not be created in the country any feeling of injustice. If all the managers of every public elementary school were to be nominated in every case by the local education authority, he ventured to submit that the local education authority would be a thoroughly representative body, and representative not of any one class or section of the community, but of the whole area in which the public elementary schools were established. For these reasons, it was most important that we should do justice when we closed these schools, and adequately compensate those who had spent large sums of

  821
  money on them. It was most important that this management principle should be so arranged as to insure equal treatment in every school.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 38, after the word 'schools,' to insert the words 'within the area of any local education authority.' "—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, is he understood it, was to have an identic system of management whether they were dealing with a school provided by the education authority or with a denominational school. But that would cut away the very principle of the Bill, and the basis of compromise which was intended. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have in his mind some expedient by which the denomination of a school could be retained while having precisely the same kind of management as that provided by the education authority; he had never heard of any such scheme and he doubted whether any scheme of the kind was practicable. Under these circumstances, he could not accept the Amendment, which seemed to him to cut the very root of the compromise the Bill was intended to effect.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the Amendment raised the question of what kind of control the educational authority was to have over 140,000 voluntary schools. The Committee ought to have some more information on this question. I Was there to be any control over these managers, or were they to be absolutely independent of, and superior to, the local authority? That was the real issue on which this matter was to be judged.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They are absolutely under their control as far as I secular instruction is concerned.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, so they had been told, but he had read the Bill, and, so far as he understood it, if the local education authority came to one decision and the school managers to
  822
  another, it was to be left to the Board of Education to determine between them. In Clause 8 there was a sub-section which read—
  "The managers of the school shall carry out any directions of the local education authority as to the secular instruction to be given in the school."
  In Section 2 of the same Clause, however, they read—
  "If any question arises under this section between the local education authority and the managers of a school, that question shall be determined by the Board of Education."
  Really, the right hon. Gentleman should not contradict in such a manner, when there was such a Clause as that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he apologised if he had been guilty of any rudeness. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that the control of the education authority was absolute over secular education. If the Education Department was brought in under the section read, it could only be to determine whether a question in dispute related to secular education or not"
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that might be the right hon. Gentleman's idea but it certainly was not in the Bill. The words used were "if any question arises." Therefore, this great education authority was practically to be a subordinate authority, for the managers were to be independent of it, and might submit a question in dispute to the arbitrament of the Education Department. Another point was that they could not enforce compliance—there was no power in them to refuse a rate. Clause 8 said—
  "Compliance with this section shall be one of the conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain a Parliamentary grant."
  So that it was the Parliamentary grant in the hands of the Board of Education which was the power to enforce compliance. There was no power to withhold the rate—they were bound to maintain efficiency, and bound to pay the rate, and withholding the Parliamentary grant was the only method by which they could enforce compliance. The consequence was that the managers were absolutely independent of the local education authority. The local education authority first of all, must have its directions disobeyed,

  823
  and when they were disobeyed the method to enforce compliance was to withhold not the fund at their disposal, which they themselves raised out of the rates, and which they were bound to give in order to maintain efficiency, but the Parliamentary grant. The whole question was whether the managers of these voluntary schools were, or were not, under the control at all of the local education authorities. So far as he read the Bill, they were not. It was all very well to say the local education authorities were supreme in secular education, but they were not supreme. As the Bill was framed, with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 8, there was no control over the managers of the schools whatever.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that, as the Bill stood, the education authority was supreme. The sixth Clause provided that the control of all secular instruction in public elementary schools should be given to the local education authority; in the sub-section of the eighth clause read by the right hon. Gentleman this provision as to secular instruction was carried further If any question came before the Board of Education under that sub-section, they must decide it according to law, and the law was that the directions given by the local education authority as to secular instruction were to be carried out.
  *DR. MACNAMARAsaid no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly right, but he would point out that Clause 6 laid it down that the local education authority was to be the supreme authority with regard to secular schools. How was that policy carried out? The Government had a very difficult problem to solve. They were endeavouring to preserve denominational education with public control. How the First Lord of the Treasury could imagine he was giving supreme control over secular education to the local education authority when only two of the six managers appointed would represent the public, he did not know. The difficulty would arise mostly under the sub-section which said these authorities must keep up to a certain standard the fabric of theses schools. The
  824
  Government had this impossible task before it, and what the ultimate result would be, he could not say; but directly the schools were put upon the rates, only one inevitable result would be arrived at, which no amount of gerrymandering would put off. This Amendment proposed to set up, so far as it could be set up at the present stage, one form of management for all classes of schools, whether denominational or not. That was impossible and he thought the Committee ought to endeavour to settle the question of the management of the public authority schools first, and afterwards come to the question of the denominational schools. They could agree without much difficulty as to the form of management of the public authority schools, therefore let them get a good and effective management of those schools, and get that out of the way first, and, then they could come to this, as he believed, insoluble question of the management of the denominational schools.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid the First Lord appeared to object to this Amendment because it gave uniformity to the management in both forms of schools. It was perfectly obvious if by this Amendment they adopted a method applicable to both classes of schools, subsequent Amendments would be required to guard in detail some of the rights of the voluntary schools, and that, he understood, his hon. friend would assent to. The First Lord had stated that he had never heard any suggestion for protecting denominational teaching, yet suggestions had repeatedly been made from the moment the Act of 1870 had passed. Many educational experts, and notably Dr. Crosskey, so long the Chairman of the Birmingham School Board, have again and again recommended the voluntary schools should be granted a rate and be placed under the control of the School Board, and should, in spite of that, have a right to retain their school buildings for denominational teaching, outside the distinctive hours of the ordinary secular curriculum of the school. That plan had been referred to again and again in the debates in this House. Assuming, therefore, that his hon. friend

  825
  would consent to Amendments which would cover some sort of provision for denominational teaching, of a distinctive type, in these schools granted to the religious bodies, the Amendment before the House would be essentially a businesslike Amendment, and a proper one for them to support. He did not see. any suggestion from the point of view of the First Lord's Amendment which would tend to educational efficiency. The supporters of voluntary schools in country districts must wish their schools brought; into the organisation of the higher education of the whole area; they did not wish to be treated on an isolated and distinct basis, and that being so, it seemed to him that the more they assimilated the form of the administration of these schools, rendering uniform the character of their management, the better the machinery they were creating for securing the real efficiency of each school. He had always held that under the scheme to which he had referred it was perfectly possible to reconcile the efficiency of the school with the retention of distinctive religious teaching, and he would welcome any proposal which would guard the rights of those interested in denominational teaching in the voluntary schools, and would, at the same time, bring those schools into that one uniform scheme which was essential for secular education in the counties.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid in regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Camberwell that this discussion should be postponed in order to deal with one class of school before coming to the other, his contention was that this Bill, from the point of view of finance at all events, placed both classes in exactly the same position from the public point of view, and that from that point of view the relationship of the schools to the public authority should be exactly the same. What reason was there for Parliament to treat these two classes of schools differently? None; yet Parliament was now asked to make a great distinction between those schools, whoso chief end was to provide denominational teaching and those who did not provide such teaching. He did not think Parliament ought to be invited to make any such distinction in the treatment of these
  826
  schools. He was aware that a difference had been recognised previously, because the right hon. Gentleman had said "why object to pay rates for these denominational schools when you do not object to pay taxes for them." The answer was simple. The taxes had been paid for the maintenance of these schools under the arrangement come to in 1870. In 1870 they arrived at a compromise which recognised the denominational schools, and undertook to grant a certain limited amount to them, while they on their part found an equal sum in voluntary subscriptions. That had now gone, and both classes of schools were put on the same footing so far as finance was concerned, and the time was rapidly approaching when these schools, so far as management was concerned, would have to be put on exactly the same basis as the public authority schools. The right hon. Gentleman had said the money for the denominational schools would not be paid out of the Exchequer, but out of voluntary subscriptions, but he did not think the Government believed that a single penny for the maintenance of the voluntary schools would be provided by means of voluntary subscriptions; the whole of it would come out of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had said far harder things than had been said on the Liberal side of the House. He had said it was an outrage to try and prevent the children of denominationalists being educated out of the rates. Nobody wished to shut them out. The outrage was that denominational schools should be maintained out of the rates. The right hon. Gentleman spoke upon this matter as if the Committee were making proposals to re enact the Conventicles Act, not as regarded Nonconformity, but as regarded secondary schools. There was no such intention on the part of anybody. The intention was not to prevent the denominational schools having these rights, not to limit the religious teaching, but to insure that such religious teaching should not be given by the public authority; that it should only be given with the consent of the public authority, and at times provided by them. That was the rule which had been laid down for many years, and that proposition, if accepted, would end in the freedom of education

  827
  from the bitterness of religious controversy. With regard to its being immoral to levy rates for this purpose, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that surely was putting it rather high.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not say so. What I said was that to resist the legal obligation to pay rates would be immoral.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONthought that was a distinction without a difference. He did not think that these things should be considered from a moral standpoint. There was no justification for denominational schools to claim to have supreme control of these schools, and if the right hon. Gentleman recognised that fact some arrangement might be come to.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid there was no part of the Education Bill now before the House which had caused greater disappointment than the want of appreciation on the part of the Government with regard to this matter of public control This Bill aggravated rather than relieved the difficulty. Everybody hoped that when the question of education was reopened, the question of public control, where public funds were concerned, would be recognised in a different way to which it was by this Bill. Where schools were maintained entirely out of public funds they should be governed, so far as secondary and secular education was concerned, by those who contributed to the fund, and if an arrangement could be come to with hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to religious teaching, he was sure it would be met by those who sat with him. The whole contention of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House in favour of their maintaining their control was in consequence of their having supplied the buildings. The present management of those schools, which had been, and which would continue to be, maintained by public funds, was largely in irresponsible hands, and often in the hands of one man, but if it passed from the hands of that one man to the denomination, there would still be a grievance. He contended that taxation and representation should go together. What was the present position of the
  828
  teaching profession in the denominational schools? No one who had taken any active part in the education question could be without abundant illustrations of the tyranny that was practised over the teachers by the managers. One teacher had told him he was only able to obtain and retain his present position by becoming organist and choirmaster; that for twelve and a half years he had not had a holiday.
  *THE CHAIRMANcalled attention to the fact that the hon. Member was straying far away from the question.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid he desired to point out the injustice which was perpetrated under the present system of management. This Bill would not remove that injustice, and he was confident that until they got a larger local control into the management of the schools they would never get the teachers fairly treated.
  *THE CHAIRMANinvited the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Amendment before the House.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid he understood the Amendment opened up the whole field of control; if that was not so he apologised. With regard to the Amendment, it seemed to him there could be little said beyond the principle he had already laid down: that schools which were supported entirely out of the public funds should be wholly governed, so far as secular educaton was concerned, by those who contributed the money.
  *MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the Prime Minister and the Attorney General had given an extremely important assurance, namely, that Sub-section 2 of Clause 8 related merely to what was or was not secular education, but such an assurance would not affect any judicial decision. Would the right hon. Gentleman assent, therefore, to the insertion of certain words, such words for instance as—
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Gentleman was now proceeding to amend Clause 8. They had better dispose of Clause 7 first.
  *MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid he was only asking the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance in that respect, because such an assurance might greatly affect their attitude on this Amendment. He would like to draw attention to one or two anomalies which would exist unless the uniform control which it was the object of this Amendment to secure was adopted. There were schools which not only received their maintenance, but interest on the cost of buildings paid by way of rent from public funds. Would not those schools be placed under the same kind of control as schools provided by the educational authority?
  MR. BROADHURSTexpressed surprise that the First Lord of the Treasury should not have accepted this Amendment. He should have thought it would have commended itself to the right hon. Gentleman, whoso whole argument had been that the Bill was to promote uniformity, and to have one central system of education throughout the country. This Amendment sought to maintain and provide for the effective and efficient control of all schools throughout the country, whether denominational or otherwise. The fact was, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Nonconformist had been a willing contributor through taxation to the funds of voluntary schools, and had acquiesced without protest in being deprived of any share in their management. An assertion of that kind was entirely misleading. Ever since 1870 there had been unceasing protest. He had with him a Church organ—perhaps he should say an organ of the Church—the Church Gazette, in which it was stated that one of the dangers of the present time was the attitude adopted by the Church towards education. The Prime Minister had said that he did not read newspapers. He wished that the right hon. Gentleman did read newspapers, and that he had seen the letters which appeared last week from leading Nonconformists of this country. He would there have discovered a determination that they would not be taxed against their consciences for the teaching of a religion which they did not subscribe to, while in their own case they had themselves
  830
  to pay for the religious teaching they desired. This Amendment was a preliminary skirmish. The real great contest would come when they arrived at the Amendment of which the First Lord had given notice, but every opportunity must be seized of warning the Government against the mighty wave of passion that they would have to face unless the Bill was modified, and Amendments of this kind accepted. The Government were doing a great disservice to the parish clergy. Some hon. Members opposite did not understand the intense mistrust, he might almost say the hatred, of the clergymen of the Established Church in some parts of the country. [Cries of "No."] Then they did not know their countrymen, and they were legislating for a class they did not understand. They had not yet realised the strength of the religious sentiment of the working-class portion of the Dissenters in the country. It was proposed to give to the clergy practical control of schools which the people paid for out of their rates and taxes. The representatives of the people were to have no effective control whatever in the management of these schools. That was the case against the proposal. The Nonconformists were to be rated in order that the clergy might have sole control and management of national schools. This was the view of the case put forth moderately. [Laughter.] They would find it was put forth with moderation when they compared it with what they had to meet in the country. He hoped the Government would yet see their way to accept the modification proposed in the Amendment, though he did not expect they would. They were rushing forward towards a great national crisis in ecclesiastical affairs. He was not concerned in small matters of detail; he was only concerned in the great central principle that they had no right to rate him for religious purposes. If what was now proposed became law there would be such a feeling of national resentment that no Government would be able to maintain themselves in office who did not modify, if not repeal, the Bill which was designed and supported by Church influence, and drawn as though for the purpose of insulting

  831
  Nonconformists. This Bill was a challenge to the manhood of the dissenting working men, and they would not be slow to accept it if by brute force the measure was placed upon the Statute-book.
  MR. LLOYD - GEORGEsaid the Amendment really raised the question of uniformity of management — whether there should be the same management for Board schools and voluntary schools. It was the one Amendment that raised the question of the Scottish system. The First Lord of the Treasury had commended the Scottish system as thoroughly logical, and, therefore, he ought to commend his hon. friend's Amendment to the House. He did not think it necessarily destroyed the denominational character of the schools. Two safeguards
  would still remain for the sectarian part of education. The first was the buildings, which were the property of the denominations to which they belonged. A denomination would be able to say "If you don't permit us to give the religious education that suits our denomination we can withdraw these buildings, and put you to the expense of providing others." The second safeguard was that the managers would be elected by the parents who sent their children to the school. That was the Scottish system, and they might depend upon it that the religious teaching was dogmatic enough.
  (6.28.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 120, Noes, 273. (Division List No. 308.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Rickett, J. Comp'on

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Rigg, Richard

  Ashton, Thomas Gar

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee

  Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert H'nry

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. CharlesSeale-

  Russell, T. W.

  Atherley-Jones L.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir ArthurD.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hemphil, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bell, Richard

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Tennane, Harold John

  Caine, William Sproston

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William(Carnarv'nshire

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Campbell-Bunnerman, Sir H.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Langley, Batty

  Thomas, J.A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Cawley, Frederick

  Layland- Barratt, Francis

  Tomkinson, James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Levy, Maurice

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ure. Alexander

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lloyd-George, David

  Wallace, Robert

  Crombie, John William

  Lough, Thomas

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarahen)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lauark)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd Carmarthen

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Whitley, J.H. (Halifax)

  Edwards, Frank

  Newnes, Sir George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne

  Normon, Henry

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Fitzmaurce, Lord Edmond

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hudderst'd

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Phillips, John Wynford

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. H'rb't John

  Price, Robert John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Priestley, Arthur

  Mr. Herbert Roberts and

  Grant, Corrie

  Rea, Russell

  Mr. Alfred Hatton.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick

  Reid, Sir R Threshie (Dumfries

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lawrence, William F. (Liv'pool

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Dillon, John

  Lawson, John Grant

  Agg Gardner, James Tynte

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareh'm

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

  Doogan, P. C.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ambrose, Robert

  Doughty, George

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt, hon. A, Akers-

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A.R.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Loder, Gerald Waller Erskine

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

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

  Bailey, James (Walworsh)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lowe, Francis William

  Baird, John George Alexander

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale

  Balcarres, Lord

  Field, William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkmah

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

  Finch, George H.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lundon, W.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Flower, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bathurst, Hon Allen Benjamin

  Gardne, Ernest

  MacDounell, Dr. Mark A.

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Garfit, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elg n&Nairn

  M'Cann, James

  Bigwood, James

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

  M'Kean, John

  Bill, Charles

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  M-Iville, Beresford Valentine

  Boland, John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Middlemore, John Throgmort n

  Bond, Edward

  Gray, Erness (West Ham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Milvain, Thomas

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Molesworch, Sir Lewis

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Greene, W. Raymond - (Cambs.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Brookfield, Colonel Monoagu

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shrepsh.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mooney, John J.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  More, Robert Jasper (Shropshire

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Morgan, David. J. Walthamstow

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Morgan, Hn, Fred. (M'n'm'thsh.

  Butcher, John George

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mi'd'x

  Mount, William Arthur

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nde'ry

  Murphy, John

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hammond, John

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hanbury, Rt Hon. Robert Wm.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Ceed, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Haten, Ernest Frederick Geo.

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

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

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Horner, Frederick William

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  O'Mahey, William

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hoult, Joseph

  O'Mara, James

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Parmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred

  Peel. Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Percy, Earl

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Joyce, Michael

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Crossley, Sir Saville

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

  Keswick, William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Delany, William

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Purvis, Robert

  834

  835

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashtonund, Lyne

  Reddy, M.

  Smith, AbelH.(Hertford, East.

  Whitmore. Charles Algernon

  Redmond, Jno. E. (Waterford)

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Williams, Colonel R (Dorset)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Spear, John Ward

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

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

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybr'dge

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Wilson-Jodd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thom.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Royds, Clement Molyneaux

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wylie, Alexander

  Rutherford, John

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Sir William Walrond and

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mr. Anstruther.

  MR. TREVELYANsaid he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he did not think that the simplest way of accomplishing the end of making a difference between the County Councils and the Councils of boroughs and urban districts distinct, would be to insert the words which he proposed in his Amendment. The Clause would run as follows:—" (a) Where the local education authority is the County Council, it shall have a body of managers consisting of." Then the next line as to the number of managers would be omitted, and, when they came to (b) it would read, "where the local education authority is the council of a borough or urban district that authority may appoint a number of managers." He begged to move that Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he understood that the intention of the hon. Gentleman was to draw a distinction between the borough and urban district schools and the County Council schools. He had drafted an Amendment to carry out that object, but it would come on in the big Amendment after the word "shall." That would be a more convenient place for it. The sub-section of his Amendment would run thus, with the inserted Amendment which he proposed:—" All public elementary schools provided by the local education authority shall, where the local education authority is a council of the county, appoint a number of managers, etc," down to "minor local authority." Then it would run, "where the local education authority is the council of a borough or urban
  836
  district, they may, if they think fit, appoint a body of managers of such numbers as they may determine." That, he thought, would meet the object of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was satisfied that that was compatible with the words the Committee had already passed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that perhaps they might start with his Amendment now. He did not desire to make any long speech—
  MR. M'KENNAsaid that on a point of order he wished to ask the ruling of the Chairman as to whether the Amendment was in order. He submitted that though the substance of the Amendment might be germane to the Clause, still the form of it was such as to be an alternative to Clause 7. The proper course would be to move it as a new Clause.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEcontended that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was an Amendment to sub-Section (e) of Clause 8, and ought to be moved to that sub-Section and not to Clause 7. Whenever an Amendment was germane to something in a subsequent Clause the Chairman had invariably ruled it out of order in regard to the Clause under

  837
  discussion at the time. This Amendment dealt with the number and proportion of managers, and the result of this Amendment, if carried, would be that sub-Section (e) would have to be left out of Clause 8.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: This Clause deals with the management of schools, and clearly all matters that are relevant to the management of schools can be dealt with on this Clause. It is quite true that sub-Section (e) of Clause 8 seems also to deal with the management of schools. I do not profess to bean expert draftsman, but I should have thought that sub-Section (e) of Clause 8 ought to have come under Clause 7, because the whole question of management is dealt with in Clause 7. The hon. Member for North Monmouthshire suggests that this proposal is an alternative, and therefore cannot be raised here. I should say that the Amendment of the First Lord of the Treasury is an elaboration, but not a destruction of, Clause 7, and I do not think it is of so different a character as to justify me in ruling it out of order. It is a mere elaborating proposal, and we often have elaborating Clauses.
  MR. M'KENNApointed out that Clause 7 provided that all public elementary schools should be managed by managers appointed under Section 15 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and in the case of schools not so provided by the persons who were the managers for the purposes of the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900. In the amended Clause now proposed by the First Lord of the Treasury, these two proposals were dropped, and an entirely different proposal was raised. Under these circumstances he submitted that this Amendment was not a mere elaboration but a wholly distinct proposal, and the whole purpose of Clause 7 was altered. Therefore, he submitted that there could not be a clearer case of this proposal being an alternative one, which ought to be moved as a new Clause.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot take the view of the hon. Member upon this point. I grant that it is a considerable change, but it seems to be fairly relevant to the Clause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought the Committee would feel that the ruling which had just been delivered from the Chair was at all events in accordance with the views of a very large number of hon. Members who wished to endeavour I to amend this Clause, and had put I down Amendments on the Paper. Although he admitted that his Amendment greatly expanded the Clause, yet I his proposal was quite in harmony with the original Clause. He noticed an Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen which not only provided, ashis Amendment provided, an elaborate scheme of management, but it was an absolute contradiction of the Clause to which his proposal was an Amendment. Therefore he had not gone so far as the right hon. Gentleman in endeavouring to carry out this change. He did not think it would be necessary to say much in moving his Amendment, but he would like to preface what he had to say by reminding the Committee, as he thought he should have to remind them again and again, that they were not now dealing with the control of secular education in these schools nor with the authority that had the control of, or was responsible for, these schools. He had heard the speech of the hon. I Gentleman the Member for Leicester, in which he had denounced this Bill as withdrawing all management from the parents and giving it all over to the clergymen of the parish. He was not going to discuss that point. Controversial as this Clause was, or had been made, it did not deal with the fundamental, supreme local authority dealing with education. That authority was the local education authority; and the managers, whether of voluntary schools, or of schools provided by the local education authority, possessed, and could only possess, a very subordinate position indeed as regarded anything connected with the secular education of the schools.
  What were the plans that had been pressed upon them for providing this management? There was not much controversy between them, he thought, as regarded the schools provided by the education authority. He had already intimated his intention of accepting an

  839
  Amendment modifying the proposal of the Government in the direction desired on both sides of the Committee, and he did not think there ought to be much dispute as to the management of provided schools. Except possibly that he might be asked, both with regard to provided schools and voluntary schools, what was the object of introducing the parents? It might seem a fanciful arrangement, and it certainly was not in accordance with any educational precedent that he was aware of; but, on the whole, he was disposed to say, though he should not think of making it an important Government question, that it was a gain where they had the parent of the child on the management body. The parents of the children, he thought, had means of information as to what went on in the schools from the children's point of view—which was worth remembering—that other managers were not likely to have. He thought there was something to be said for the scheme he had suggested. At all events, it carried out that object, if it were a good object, without attempting the impossible, or nearly impossible, task of having a separate register of parents, and all the elaborate machinery which an individual register required.
  He passed to the voluntary schools, and he asked whether any of the plans that had been suggested were really so good as the one the Government had proposed. It had been suggested that half the management should be appointed by the popularly-elected bodies, and it had been suggested that a majority should be given to the popularly-elected bodies. Both those schemes, whatever else could be said of them, were open to the objection, which was really vital from their point of view, that they would absolutely undenominationalise the schools. [Opposition cries of "No."] That never was part of their original scheme; it was not part of it now; and he did not think the Committee ought to adopt either of them. Another plan which had been suggested was that there should be six managers, as proposed by him in his Amendment, but that only two of those should be members of the denominational bodies, two should represent the parents, and two the authority, but that all that concerned
  840
  the denominational and religious education should be in the hands of the two members who represented the denomination. It was true that that, in form, and, possibly, in a majority of cases in substance, would make and keep the schools denominational schools; but he thought it would be to introduce a wholly unworkable instead of a workable system. It would have another grave defect, of which he would say something presently. But the first objection was almost enough. They were going to have the teacher selected by the two managers representing the denomination, but, when he was selected, the teacher was to be subject to the supervision of the whole body, which would be very differently composed from the fraction which elected it, and they would inevitably have an amount of local difficulty and friction, in many cases, in their body of management which, he thought, would be absolutely ruinous to the smooth working of the system. That was a practical objection.
  But there was another objection which he felt very strongly, and which, he was quite sure, neither the Committee nor the country should lose sight of. He had been charged—and the Government had been charged—wilh doing his best to throw the whole religious teaching into the hands of the parsons; to make it as denominational as possible; as absolutely outside any popular element as possible; and as wholly confined to the narrow circle of what, in some cases, was described as religious bigotry. That was what the plan he was criticising would do, and that was what the, plan of the Government would not do. By the plan he was criticising the selection of the teacher, and the whole of the regulations of the denominational teaching in the schools would depend on two; men out of the whole body of six managers. Under the plan of the Government the whole of the six managers were equally concerned in the selection of the teacher, and in the regulations of the religious curriculum. There were those who had said that there would be an undue influence of the clerical element in these schools. That element, obviously, was diluted under the plan of the Government, but it would be concentrated

  841
  under the plan he had criticised. In the Litter shape it appeared to him in its most virulent form, if he might use an uncomplimentary adjective, and in the former in its most diluted form. The majority of the six managers of these schools would obviously he laymen. [''Oh!"] At all events, the number of cases in which there were four of the clergy available to be managers of the schools must be very few; and he was quite sure that it would be as repulsive to the great body of Churchmen, of Wesleyans, or of Roman Catholics, to see four managers out of the six so chosen as it would be to any hon. Gentleman opposite. From this paint of view, the Bill had, in his judgment, received an avalanche of unjust criticism. The plan he proposed seemed to him incomparably better than the plan which had been contrasted with it. That plan, he objected, was in some respects more denominational than that which he recommended, but it was unworkable, and, above all, it would make the clerical element in the management unduly prominent. In these circumstances he thought the Committee would do well to accept this modification, if it was indeed a modification, of the original proposal. Much was gained by raising the number from three to six, and keeping the proportion the same. It not only avoided the criticism, which was very prominent in some of their earlier debates, that undue clerical influence was to be feared, but it avoided the total or possible exclusion of the locality from any management or interest in its own school. There were to be two representatives of popularly - elected bodies; one of them must be, and the other often would be, somebody locally interested in the school; one of them must be a parent, and therefore, in close touch with the needs of the children and the sentiments of the parents. This amended form of their original proposal was intended to be an honest endeavour, while keeping the denominational character of the school, to admit a local and an elective element. He believed the system would work to the satisfaction of the parents and those interested in the schools in ninety-nine hundredths of the country; and he was perfectly sure that, whatever other
  842
  reproach it might be open to, it was not open to that class of reproach which he most often heard levelled against their proposals.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, lines 38 and 39, to leave out the words 'shall be managed in the case of schools' "—(Mr. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid the Amendment raised two issues. viz., the amount of representation which the locality was to have on the managing body of schools described in the Bill, as provided by the local education authority, and the popular claim to representation on the managing body of voluntary schools. As to the, first and less controversial question, the decision as to the amount of representation to be given to the urban districts and village councils was a matter of great importance, as regarded the effective working of the Bill. In the counties, the managing bodies for the urban districts and villages would be very far removed from the local education authority. There ought to be on the managing committees, people who knew the district, and care should be taken that no friction was caused by people being imposed on a district against the wishes of the inhabitants. Above all, there ought to be on that body persons chosen by the people of the locality, in order that the latter might be given a sense of proprietorship in the schools. The local Education Committee, chosen by the County Council, was a long way from the villages and the urban districts, the schools of which it would manage, and yet these places had, hitherto, through their School Boards, managed their schools themselves. In Yorkshire and Lancashire there were districts which for thirty years had had the whole of the management of the schools in their own hands, and had conducted it to the satisfaction of the people, and yet under this Bill they were in future to be dependent upon the judgment and the charity of the County Council in the selection of the majority of the managers of their schools. That would inevitably lead to friction in many

  843
  Urban districts and industrial centres. Under the Bill, one-third only of the managers were to be appointed by the locality. What would happen? He had in mind a village in Warwickshire, where for a long time they had had a School Board. To that Board they had elected the local grocer and doctor, and two or three artisans, but they had refused to choose the clergyman, not from any religious prejudice, but because they did not think him a competent man. Now, however, the County Council would appoint two-thirds of the Committee, and they were almost certain to lay down the principle that on this Committee the clergyman of the district should have a seat. ["Why?"] In most of the southern counties, where the squires were predominant, it was the opinion of the squires that the person who should manage the education of the district was the clergyman— ["No"]—and it was not unnatural, having so little local knowledge, that they should lay down some general rule such as that the clergyman must be on the managing body. At any rate, it would be very difficult for the County Council to select anything like the sort of men who would be chosen by the people of the district, as only the latter could know the character of the more humble members of the community. Yet these were the very people who, in many cases, had done more to improve education in the villages than those in the higher walks of life; and it would be a serious loss if the inhabitants of the locality were no longer to be able to choose the managers of their schools.
  Passing to the larger question of the management of the voluntary schools, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman pretended that there was any very serious concession in his new proposals. Many on that side of the House were thoroughly sick of the religious bickering on this question, and in looking around for a remedy, even before the introduction of the present Bill, had come to the conclusion that a system of universal School Boards could not be acceptable to the whole community, or offer a final solution of the question. But he desired to explain why he thought the proposals
  844
  of the Government were hopeless as a final solution, and to indicate a possible policy upon which the Committee might agree as a tendency of the final solution. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman aimed at striking a balance between two different claims. There was the claim that when public money provided for almost the whole of education, the public should have the predominant voice in its managment; and there was the equally valid claim that an opportunity should be provided for those who desired it to give special religious and dogmatic teaching to their children. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to meet the difficulty by a feeble compromise, which certainly those who cured for public control could not for a moment accept. But in some parts of Australia, and especially in New South Wales, a very successful attempt had been made to deal with the question in a different way. The claims on both sides had been admitted to the full. The principle was definitely laid down that the public, in virtue of the fact that it provided almost all the money, was to have absolute control, and, at the same time, every one had a right to claim for his children the special teaching he desired, and in New South Wales the denomina-tionalists were permitted to go into the schools and give that special teaching. That system was accepted by the Church of England in Australia as a thorough and complete success; and to such an extent were the facilities availed of, that in 1897 there were no fewer than 28,000 children in the diocese of Sydney being taught in this special manner. He suggested that some such system was the only possible solution of the question in England. It was true that it would fail to meet one serious difficulty of the situation, viz., the demand of a certain number, though he believed not the majority, of Churchmen and of Roman Catholics to have the schools completely in their own hands, and with the religious tone they desired. No doubt it was unsatisfactory that in Australia the Roman Catholics stood outside the national system. Nobody would propose that such should be the case here, but there was a way in which the difficulty could be met. If the voluntary schools were to have full power of

  845
  going to the rates, of receiving these immensely increased grants from the central Government, and no longer to have to maintain the schools out of voluntary subscriptions, there would have to be some such system as he had described, unless they were to have perpetual and violent friction. To Roman Catholic schools and a certain number of Church of England schools, which would not fall in with such a system, he suggested a smaller grant should be given from central funds, and no assistance from the local rates. The bulk of the people of this country would not consent permanently to accept a system under which they provided practically the whole of the cost of the maintenance of the schools, and yet were in a minority on the managing body. He deeply regretted that the Government had not taken the opportunity of endeavouring to find some method by which both sides on this question would be satisfied.
  *MR. WHITLEYsupposed this proposal was intended to illustrate the regard the Government had for the sacred right of parents to have their children brought up in the way they desired. The result was that out of six managers one was to be a parent, and he was to be chosen, not by the other parents, but by some other body. If that was the attitude of the Government towards that sacred right of which they had heard so much, it was an irony on all that had been said by the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters in the course of these debates. Those who opposed this proposal admitted the right of the parents, but contended that it should form part of the denominational, not of the public, control; and that what the right hon. Gentleman should have done was to have given the parents some representation, which representation should have come out of the majority, and not the minority, of the managing body. Public control was to be represented by two managers out of six, and now one of those two was to be given to the denominational party. If the right hon. Gentleman had said that out of the four managers appointed by the denomination two should be parents, he would have gone far to meet the Opposition on this point; but the Amendment, instead of giving anything, took away from the
  846
  little they had before. The right hon. Gentleman had been asked for bread, and had given a stone. The public voice on the Committee would be practically non-existent, as the person appointed by the County Council would probably be a busy man, unable to attend all the meetings; so that at many meetings important business would be transacted without any real representative of the public being present, as the one parent would really be the representative of a private interest.
  It being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.)
  Clause 7:—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, lines 38 and 39, to leave out the words 'shall be managed in the case of schools.' "—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. WHITLEY,continuing his speech, said he thought the situation might be fairly summed up by saying that, whereas under the Bill the item of public control was to be 2 in 6, under the concession it was to be 1 in 6. The percentage of popular control was to be reduced under the clause. He had been sceptical for a long time about the real value of the "sacred right of parents," but now the Government had themselves put that value at one-sixth of the control in the management of the schools. That was not at all satisfactory, and he thought they would feel justified in taking the Amendment of the First Lord as a direct challenge on the items of popular control and the representation of parents. The

  847
  first Government Amendment was really no concession to the principles for which they were fighting, and intended to continue to fight until the Bill was passed.
  *MR. SOARESsaid he bad been a careful listener to the debates throughout, and he fully realised the difficulties of the situation: indeed, he believed that if an archangel from Heaven came down with a Bill on this subject he would create more enemies than friends. That being so it seemed to him that this was essentially a matter for compromise. To a considerable extent that had been done with regard to earlier clauses, and he thought, having regard to the enormous majority of the Government, it would be admitted it had not been used in a harsh and unconstitutional manner up to the present. But they now came to the crux of the Bill, to its very pith and marrow, to that portion which had raised the anger of the community in a way he had not seen since he had been connected with politics. When he heard last week that the Prime Minister-proposed to make a concession, he experienced a great feeling of relief. He hoped for the end of religious warfare going on in the constituencies—warfare which did infinite harm to religion, and was particularly painful to men who objected to make party capital out of religious convictions. Unfortunately, he had been disappointed. The concession was no concession at all, and the Government had gone on the principle that if the Opposition declined to walk into a trap they would strengthen its jaws and push them into it. To his mind, the expenditure of public money without efficient public control was most serious. The point had been urged over and over again during the debates, but had never been met with any efficient counter-argument. In fact, it appeared to him that the Government had been unwilling to bind themselves to this principle, because they recognised how it would open the door to all kinds of jobbery and injustice. But if the principle was true, surely the corollary that the proportion of public money should be proportionate to the amount of public control was equally true. It was to establish the truth of this principle they were fighting that night. They recognised that the voluntary schools had done good work in the
  848
  past. They recognised that the denominationalists had made great sacrifices for their denominations and for education. He did not think there was any desire to deprive them of anything to which they were justly and equitably entitled. They all recognised that the voluntary schools required more money, that they ought to have it, and that they rightly appealed to the public purse to help them. But surely the public ought to have control over these schools according to the amount of public money they contributed to their support. That seemed to be an absolutely fair and equitable solution, and if either side asked more than that it was surely making an improper and unconstitutional demand. On that basis he calculated that the public were entitled to representation to the extent of two-thirds of the managing bodies. At any rate he thought their position on the Opposition side of the House was perfectly clear. They ought to assert the principles which they had always held, and promise the country that when they obtained a majority they would give effect to those principles by legislation. He would give a word of warning to those who thought that by passing the Bill in its present form they were doing a good service to the Church of England. That was a mistake. He did not think any denomination could prosper which took an unfair advantage of its position in the House of Commons. The Church of England could not, any more than its humblest adherents in this House, serve both God and Mammon. And if an undue share of the loaves and fishes was to be taken for the Church of England they would do incalculable injury to the spiritual side of the Church of which he was a member. He thought also its powers for good would thereby be crippled in a serious and wanton manner.
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid he desired to lay before the Committee resolutions which had been passed by the County Council of Chester, and the Borough Council of Crewe. The inhabitants of Crewe numbered 40,000. The Borough Council, by twenty-two against one, passed a resolution stating that it was strongly of opinion the Bill now

  849
  before the House was a retrograde and not a progressive measure, and that it was unjust, inasmuch as it threw the whole cost of education in denominational schools on the rates and taxes of the whole community while giving the management and control of such schools to the denominations to which they were attached. Crewe was a place without a School Board. Throughout the whole of the county of Chester there were extremely few School Boards. The County Council of Chester, on which there was a considerable majority of Conservative members, passed a resolution by a majority of two to one stating that the number of managers of public elementary schools to be appointed by the local education authority was insufficient, and should be a majority. That was no catch vote. It was passed at a full meeting, of which sufficient notice had been given. These two expressions of opinions were typical of thousands throughout the country. The great principle embodied in these expressions had become household words in this country—namely, that representation should go with taxation. That was one of the strongest arguments against the Bill, and he was sure it would be used effectively against it.
  MR. FREDERICK WILSONsaid the clergy would become very much better managers if they had to undergo some sort of popular election. Did they think that under this Bill a Primitive Methodist would ever be selected? The ministers of that denomination, changed every two or three years, and it was almost a matter of certainty that they would not be appointed managers. Nonconformist ministers would feel greatly aggrieved towards an Act of Parliament which practically ousted them from their fair share in the management of the schools.
  MR. EDWARDSsaid he, would infinitely prefer that the Government should give a Parish Council power to appoint four instead of two managers. The Bill provided that the County Council should be the supreme authority in matters of education, and that the locality must be subordinate to the central body. It
  850
  was not necessary to the power of the central authority that the central authority should appoint a majority of the local managers. The power would be just the same even if the central authority appointed none of the managers. It was obvious, therefore, that it the central authority appointed only two local managers it would carry out the intention of the Government, that was to say the central authority would be in touch with the local authority. The First Lord of the Treasury seemed to think that the central authority would be more in touch with the locality if it appointed a majority of the local managers. He was bound to say that that was not the fact. He understood that the object of putting the locality in touch with the central authority was that the local education authority might have the benefit of the special knowledge possessed by persons living in the locality. The advantage of allowing the locality to choose the majority of the local managers was that they secured that persons should be appointed who were fully cognisant with the needs and requirements of the neighbourhood. Surely nobody was more competent to choose such persons than the locality itself. The County Council was chosen over a wide area. The individuals composing the County Council were not necessarily best judges of those who were in their own locality the fit and proper persons to be local managers. There was an element of uncertainty in the matter. If, however, the locality were left to decide it would know who the best persons were. Under the plan of the First Lord the four managers to be appointed by the central authority might all be local men. They ought to he local men, or they would not be fit and proper persons to do their work. But if they were all local men what could be the objection to allowing the locality to choose the majority of local managers? Hon. Members opposite were often claiming that the wishes of the parents should be regarded in the matter of the religious instruction given to the children. If it were a matter of principle that the parents should decide as to the religious instruction

  851
  of the children, he failed to see why they should not have the deciding voice in the matter of secular instruction. He could not see that they had any great advantage in the Amendment brought in by the First Lord, and he expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to allow the locality more power in the choosing of local managers than it had new.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the new clause introduced by the First Lord of the Treasury opened up questions which concerned the whole of the United Kingdom, and it brought them face to face for the first time with the realities of the Question before them. The Committee had been asked to deal with schools not provided by the local authority in accordance with the conditions of the trusts. In the first place, they would require a definition of the expression "trust managers."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that phrase was entirely unknown to the law and upon the meaning of it the successful working of this Act would depend. That phrase introduced them to the real elements of this question. As a Scotch Member, having no interest in local disputes in this country, he submitted that they were bound to recognise this distinction. There were voluntary schools and voluntary schools. They were not all of the same order. He recognised a complete distinction, as to the rights to which they were entitled, between voluntary or denominational schools which were connected with a voluntary sect and those which were connected with a State Church. The law of the Church of England was part of the law of the land, and the law was what Parliament made it. He refused to recognise the Church of England as a sect at all. It was a great State institution unlike any other Church which had no connection with the State. Therefore, he suggested two points of distinction between purely voluntary schools which ought to have complete freedom, and those which came under the conditions of trust deeds which were bound to teach according to
  852
  the law of the land. He held that they ought to know that the doctrine which was taught in schools said to be Church of England schools was really the doctrine of the Church of England. When endowments were given for the purpose of promoting the teaching of the doctrines of the Church of England the House had a right to insist that the doctrinal instruction in those schools should be really instruction in the doctrines of the Church of England.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken had introduced a new element into the discussion, but it was one which he did not think would advance the businesslike consideration of this clause. The hon. Member had mentioned the fact that certain schools were managed under trust deeds, but that fact had been very well known for a great many years, and it had not been disclosed to them for the first time by the proposals made by the First Lord of the Treasury. The hon. Member opposite had laid down the principle that they should treat voluntary schools connected with the Church of England on a totally different principle to other denominations. That might be the hon. Member's notion of what was just, but when it came to be threshed out he did not think it would be found that many hon. Members would agree with that principle. He desired to thank the First Lord of the Treasury for having adopted a most valuable principle, which he himself had embodied in an Amendment he had placed on the Notice Paper— namely, that there should be combined representation of the county authority and the locality. He had the greatest confidence that the county authority would select representatives of local opinion on the management of the schools; but, in addition to that, the locality would desire to have some proportion of the representative body appointed directly by its own voice. He had suggested in his Amendment half and half; but so long as these two elements were combined in the managing body, he did not attach much importance to the proportion of the representation. The control had been given to the county authority, and the managers would have

  853
  to carry out their directions. The county representatives would be on the Board to see that the requirements of the county authority were properly carried out. Even an active minority, or one or two really efficient public representatives, would be quite sufficient to prevent abuses, and to see that the directions of the county authorities were carried out. He thought they would all recognise that the First Lord of the Treasury had made valuable improvements in this Bill by the proposals he had put forward.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was glad the Government had adopted the principle of throwing the maintenance of voluntary schools upon the public funds, and had given up all idea of trying to maintain them by voluntary contributions. He was glad they had now put these schools on the local rates, for that would render it impossible for parsimony any longer to appeal to piety for the money for those schools. But there were swift and certain consequences of that course of action which the Government were endeavouring to avoid —and that was, public control to the full of the public funds voted for those schools. He was at least glad that they had got a Government bold enough to take this matter by the horns, and throw over the voluntary contributor, and give them education entirely out of the public funds. But a most interesting matter arose in consequence of the position taken up by the Church of England. Up to a few years ago the Church of England was against rate aid, and all for State aid. The -Roman Catholics believed in rate aid. They were willing to make a contract in regard to secular education if the Government would leave them their religious education. The Roman Catholics contended that the Government did not pay them sufficiently fo secular education, for which they did not receive a fair return. That was a perfectly logical position to take up. Until within three or four years ago the Church of England was violently against rate aid, and all in favour of getting further aid from the State. Some years ago Dr. Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, said he was in favour of grants from the Exchequer,
  854
  because aid from the rates implied interference by the ratepayers with the management of the schools. They might gerrymander this as much as they liked, but if the voluntary schools were to receive aid from the rates, they must eventually be brought under public control. The position of the First Lord of the Treasury was a pathetic one in this controversy. He was beset by hard taskmasters, but he must know, as a student of English history, that if the voluntary schools came upon the rates, in the long run, which in this case would be a short run, the ratepayers must have a hand in the control of the schools. The Government were trying an impossible task in endeavouring to avoid the consequence of rate aid. In a short time he believed, these schools would lose their distinctive character and become national schools in the best sense of the word. The voluntary subscriptions were paid by many people in order to avoid the School Board rate, and the amount of subscriptions would fall off as the rate became leviable. Estimating that only an eleventh of the cost of maintenance would come from voluntary sources, he said it seemed to him to be quite an untenable position to take that this entitled voluntary subscribers to two-thirds of the representation on the management. There was the capital value of the school premises, but he did not understand that because fifty years ago somebody built a school largely from public money, that for all time gave the managers a lien on the consciences of the children of the district; that did not give the right to keep popular representation for perpetuity in a minority. The consequence of coming on the rates could not be avoided; and the swift and inevitable result must be that schools would lose their denominational character and pass into the control of those who found the money for their maintenance.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYthought that his hon. friend had lost sight of the control which would be exercised over these schools by the new education authority. In the discussions of the Bill, exaggerated importance had been attached to the duties and powers of the managers. One

  855
  would think, from what had been said, that the managers of a voluntary school at the present time had an entirely free hand to do what they liked with regard to the education of the children, and to do exactly what they liked with the money granted by Parliament for the maintenance of the school. No one knew better than the hon. Member for Camberwell that that was not the case. At present the managers of a voluntary school, whether Anglican or Catholic, were bound hand and foot. They must carry out the whole of the instructions of the day school code, and there were the inspectors of the Board of Education to see that these instructions were observed. That was their position now. Their accounts must be audited, though not in as public a manner, perhaps, as was proposed. The changes that were made in this Bill on the present system were so vast that he wondered the opposition did not come from the Church party, from those who were supposed to have this intense desire to maintain their separate control in these schools. Surely those who talked of the necessity of public control, who followed the changes that the Bill made, were not the people who should adversely criticise the proposal of the Government. By paying the whole of the Government grants direct to the new education authority instead of to the managers of the schools, they secured complete control of the secular instruction. The curriculum was laid out for them centrally and locally, and they could not vary the secular instruction by one iota. In the appointment of teachers there was the veto of the Board of Education and of the local authority. The local authority could ensure that any man appointed, either as a head or as an assistant master, must hold the qualifications necessary for that post, and could prevent any jobbery in the appointment of the teachers. Moreover, there was to be a veto on the dismissal of the teachers. The teaching staff and the money both being in the hands of the new authority, what really had local managers to do? They would have the control of the religious teaching in their hands, but even there their powers were not quite unlimited. It was the duty of the education authority to report to the Board of Education any breach of the conscience clause, and therefore the managers were
  856
  not quite free in the matter of religious instruction. If they were going to take from the managers of the schools their control of the religious instruction given therein, let them say so at once. The proposal to appoint one-half, or more than one-half, of the managerial body really contemplated, disguise it however much they might, the entire destruction of denominational instruction in the schools. [Hon. MEMBERS on the Opposition Benches: No, no.] There was a possibility that a change might be made by which religious instruction might he removed from the schools altogether. [Renewed cries of "No, no."] He repudiated the assumption running through the debate that there was a large amount of malpractice going on at the present time in the voluntary schools. There were some 14,000 voluntary schools, and in not more than two or three cases in the course of a year did any malpractice occur worthy of a Question in this House. Where there was trouble the parents of the children in the district could prevent it. The hands of the parents would be materially strengthened under the Amendment now before the Committee. It was said that one person nominated as manager by the education authority and two trust managers was exactly the same thing as four trust managers and two nominated by the education authority. That was not the case. The proportion was the same, but the strength of the two would outweigh the strength of the one. The two managers who were representatives of the local authority could report any appearance of mismanagement or malpractice and the local authorities could always stop that by curtailing the funds of the schools. It seemed to him that they were obtaining, under this Amendment, an improvement on the Bill as originally drafted. He must say that the control of these voluntary schools, which, he agreed, was inevitable when they gave them rate aid, would become as perfect as it could be made, short of excluding denominational teaching from the schools altogether. What were the trustees which the Committee were talking so much about? Some thousands of them consisted, in each parish, of the vicar, the licensed curates, and the churchwardens, one of whom was popularly

  857
  elected every Easter. He had more than once taken part in such elections of the churchwarden in order to secure a representation of the locality on the Board of Management. He knew that the parents, by means of that representative, had considerable control. The elective representative could report all that passed in camera, and effectually put a stop to anything like the suspicion of malpractices. He had no hope, certainly no expectation, when this Bill was introduced that the power of the present managers would be reduced to the small limits they now found in the Bill. Did the Committee realise that in many cases more than half of the managerial body would now have to stand aside, and leave the whole control of the school, such as it was, to four of their colleagues nominated by the local educational authority? If the managers appreciated what was wanted by this Bill, if they realised and accepted the position frankly, and tried to work it in the spirit intended, then he believed the Amendment would go far indeed to secure peace in the village schools and communities. Having observed the working of the voluntary system for twenty-five years, he could say honestly and fearlessly that there was not the mismanagement in their ranks which many imagined, and that they had not used these schools as proselytising establishments. Here and there a case might occur, but as a rule the spirit of the Education Act was carried out fairly and fully by the managers of these schools. They were accepting now a very large measure of control, and he believed that when this Bill was in working operation, both in town and country, the stray cases of malpractice which had occurred would become impossible. The ratepayers would find that they had a real control over these schools, and that their suspicion of the parson and the squire had been very largely unfounded. The parson took a real interest in education, and the squire had drawn his cheque to make good deficiencies. They would be very largely relieved of that duty. [Opposition cries of "Oh, oh!" and ironical laughter.] Why should hon. Gentlemen opposite protest against that? This Amendment, therefore, ought to give a very large
  858
  measure of satisfaction. Many of the voluntary schools had been doing the same work, both secular and religious, as the Board schools, and they had been worked with the same free spirit. Where the management was now restricted to the vicar of the parish and the squire, they would have joined to them others in the district to share the burden. The fact was that in many cases hitherto they could not get parents to join the Board of Management because of their fear of financial responsibility. He was very glad that those who had borne the burden so well in the past would now get relief, and that the ratepayers would obtain direct representation on the managerial body.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that they might all agree with the hon. Gentleman in two things—first, that this Bill would very largely indeed relieve the parson and the squire from their liabilities; and, second, that this Amendment marked a very critical part of the Bill. The First Lord of the Treasury had admitted that this was the part of the Bill which caused the greatest difficulty, and excited the greatest controversy. It threw, for the first time, the burden of maintaining denominational teaching on local taxation. That was the novelty of the Bill. It had always been hitherto held that local rating must be followed by local control; and it was because the Bill denied that that it had received so much opposition. This Amendment did not raise the religious difficulty directly, but it was closely connected with it, because, great as were the objections which many hon. Members entertained to having denominational schools at all, or to supporting denominational schools out of public money, these objections might be largely alleviated, if not altogether removed, if sufficient public control were provided, and if they knew that the abuses of the old managers complained of could always be removed by the presence of competent representatives of the local authority to see fair play. There were many points in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment which required a great deal of discussion. For instance, that part which dealt with the alteration in the

  859
  management of the ex-Board schools and the grouping of voluntary schools in the same area with the ex-Board schools. There was no denying that this Clause had been received with great disappointment. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman for having caused that disappointment. It was quite true that some hon. Members, on both sides of the House, sprang rather hastily from the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman's words to the conclusion that he was going to give that majority on the Board of Management which they all desired. There had been almost a fervid expression of satisfaction at the words used by the right hon. Gentleman which would not have been shown if they had read the words of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman evidently conveyed to the mind of some hon. Members a meaning which he did not intend to convey. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman, but there was this disappointment. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the term "concession." He objected altogether to the use of that word "concession." They were not in an Oriental country, to be satisfied with words of grace being dropped upon them. If the right hon. Gentleman made an alteration in this Bill, they presumed that he did so because he thought it would bring his Bill into accord with the sentiments of the people. They must look at all these alterations which the right hon. Gentleman made, only from one point of view, viz., whether they were likely to meet the wishes of the people and to make the Bill a better Bill. He did not care whether they met their wishes or not; he only wanted to know whether they would meet the popular sentiment. He might be allowed to say that the right hon. Gentleman had been entirely misled in regard to the wishes of the people, and he ought to know that there had been the deepest dissatisfaction, not merely amongst the Liberal Party and the Nonconformist bodies, but amongst a large proportion of the members of the Church of England. [Ministerial cries of "No, no."] Hon. Members might not think so, but that was the impression he had received from conversing with many people who did not share his political opinions, and from reading the reports of the meetings of
  860
  the County Councils. That Conservative body the County Council of Essex desired that all these schools should be under boards of managers created by the local authority, and the same opinion had been expressed by the County Council of Cheshire. The Association of County Councils had also passed a similar resolution, insisting upon the element of popular control as represented in the nominees of the local education authority. How could, under these circumstances, hon. Members opposite represent that this was a demand made by the supporters of Board schools? He believed that the overwhelming majority of the County Councils desired popular control; and if the right hon. Gentleman postponed the Bill for two months, he, for one, would wait for the decision of the County Councils upon it with perfect unconcern. What was the position at present? The House should remember that the dissatisfaction of which he spoke, and which had re-appeared on this new Clause becoming known, had existed for a long time past. It was due to the fact that in about 8,000 rural parishes the only school was one which was under the control of the clergy of the Church of England and their nominees.
  *MR. TALBOTsaid that this was an entire misconception. In many of these schools there was a large admixture of managers quite free from clerical control.
  MR. BRYGEsaid that, in point of fact, where there was a trust deed it usually provided that all the managers should be members of the Church of England—the vicar, the curates, and the churchwardens. It was a matter of common knowledge that, these bodies were, in point of fact, under the control of the clergyman, who was a most active member of the Board of Managers, all from a perfectly good motive, no doubt, and everybody knew that they had done a. good work for education. At any rats, there was no question that in these 8,000 parishes the school was held to belong to the Church of England, and that its management ought to be confined to the Church of

  861
  England. It was the only school available, with rare exceptions, no matter what the population might be. The grievance took three forms. In the first place, the clergyman and his friends were practically omnipotent, and the local people had no voice in the management. That system might work very well where the clergyman possessed the confidence of the people, but where the clergyman was not popular, and where he introduced forms of service in the church which the bulk of the people disapproved of, they could not expect the people to be satisfied with the administration of the schools by such a clergyman. In a second place, although by common consent and agreement the Nonconformists, as a rule, desired to have religious instruction, Bible instruction, moral instruction based upon the Bible, they were obliged to do one of two things — either to consent to their children, receiving Bible instruction mixed up with the Catechism or to forego religious instruction altogether. The third grievance was the grievance of tins teachers. He had read a letter which impressed him very much, which appeared in The Times, by Cardinal Vaughan, in which his Eminence compared our position with that of Germany. It was evident that the Cardinal thought it would improve our position if we adopted the German system. But when the contrast was made between them, the position of the Protestants in Germany was as unlike as anything could be with the position of those who objected to the denominational system in the English rural parishes. The Protestants in Germany practically all belonged to the denomination which called itself Evangelical. There were practically no Dissenters amongst the German Protestants, and the Protestant dogmatic instruction amounted to very little. If hon. Members thought that they were going to secure a religious atmosphere by the system which prevailed in the Protestant schools in Germany, and that they were going to have the children brought up with a profound respect for dogma, they were very much mistaken. What Cardinal Vaughan had probably in his mind was not the case of the Protestants in
  862
  Germany, who worked very well with the Gorman Catholics where the population was almost entirely Catholic, but that of the Catholics. The case of the Catholics differed from the case of the Protestant schools in two points. In the first place, among the Roman Catholics the priest was responsible for the people, and it was the duty of the people to follow the priest. The Roman Catholic layman took his faith from the Church, and the priest was the authorised exponent of his faith in the serise in which the Protestant minister was not the authorised exponent of the Protestant faith. There was no question on the part of the Catholics of dissatisfaction with, or dissidence from, the Catholic faith as it was taught or in the management of the Catholic schools as administered by the priests. There they had a fundamental difference between the position of the Catholic laity towards their priesthood and the position of the Protestant laity towards their minister. He was not speaking on behalf of the small dissenting laity, but on behalf of the large section of the Church of England laity who did not consider the new schools of the Church of England as being exponents of the faith as they received and believed it. The other part of the Catholic case was that the Catholic schools were, with few exceptions, situated in places where there was also a Protestant school, therefore they were entitled to treat the Catholic school on a different basis from that of the Protestant episcopal school in the rural parish. How did the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment meet this position? He did not think it removed this grievance in the least. The right hon Gentleman said on Saturday† that his Amendment would make the position of the Dissenters better.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not refer to this Amendment on Saturday.
  MR. BRYGEsaid the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Bill, and his case was that it did not make the position of the Nonconformists one whit better than it was before. In one sense he made it perpetual and made the grievance worse than it was before, because he removed the check they had Under the
  †Speech of Mr. Balfour at Fulham.

  863
  old system, in that the subscribers were obliged to support the school, whereas its support was now placed on the rates: He did not think the minority of two-sixths of the representation and management of the schools worth having. One of these two managers would be appointed by the County Council, which was distant, and probably the person appointed by it would be a person of, same class and in sympathy with, the four managers who constituted the majority. The parent representative would be no guarantee that the minority would represent the people. If the right hon. Gentleman had given direct representation of the parents, it would be a different thing. The parent was always represented by the First Lord as a man exceedingly anxious that his children should receive dogmatic instruction. If that was the case, why not trust the parents and leave the nomination of the majority of the managers to them? He could not see why they should not secure the denominational teaching in some other manner than by having a majority of denominational managers. He should have thought that might have been done, and it would have been quite compatible with the denominational character of the school.
  The one argument upon which the First Lord appeared to rely, was that the schools must be denominational, and that the only securities for the preservation of denominational teaching was to have a majority of denominational managers. With the best possible wish to understand the right hon. Gentleman's logic, he confessed that he could not understand the two positions. He could not see why they should not secure denominational teaching by some other method. Surely they could put provisions in this Act to require the managers to maintain denominational teaching, and put those provisions under the protection of the County Council, and also give the County Council under the protection of the Board of Education to grant power to a minority of the managers or to any number of the parents or the ratepayers to appeal to the Board of Education or the County Council. Surely that could be done, and at the same time the denominational teaching might be safeguarded. He had sufficient faith in the goodwill
  864
  and fairness of the people of this country to believe that no body of managers would venture to disregard such provisions as he had suggested. Surely it might be arranged that where there was a sufficient number of children desiring a certain denominational teaching it might be adopted, and, on the other hand, where undenominational teaching was desired, that also might be adopted. Would it not be easy by having a body which would see fair play, thus disarming suspicion and jealousy, to arrange for the denominational teaching of the Church of England or any other school, and provide this by statute, placing it under the protection of the local authority and the Board of Education? That would maintain the connection of the school with the denomination, and would give all that the managers were entitled to require. That would be just as good a safeguard as they were now proposing, and it would be far more likely to conduce to harmonious working. He regretted that some scheme of this kind had not been introduced. With regard to the appointment of teachers, it was not for him to say what would be accepted. Suppose they thought there should be a teacher of the denomination to which the school belonged to give denominational teaching; suppose they put in a provision that where the denomination had a school it should have power to say that one of the teachers should belong to that denomination. He admitted that they would get all they desired in that way, but at the same time they would not violate what appeared to him to be a fundamental principle.
  He regretted that the Government should maintain their object by a provision which would not only produce controversy in Parliament, but the greatest possible irritation and controversy in the country. The County Council would not have the power of allaying it, for it would not have much to do with the schools; it would not be supreme; it would be subject to the control of the Board of Education, and they all knew what it could do when under the control of one political party. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] The Board of Education did vary its policy from

  865
  time to time. He could give instances, he believed, of the Board of Education being accused of being at least deficient in the virtue of impartiality. [Sir, J. GORST dissented] The right hon. Gentleman would be hard put to it to show that this was not the case, but would have opportunity of doing so. The proposal of the Government would, in his opinion at any rate, do injury not only to a large section of the community, but to education. It would destroy the best hope of working the schools. It would do another injury by depriving the schools of that popular interest which ought to be their greatest support. One of the evils of the present system was to have the parish clergyman talking of "my school." ["Oh!"] It was best to teach the people to talk of their school. This was a question of civic right. He put it to the Committee as a question of teaching the people to care for their schools, and of giving the people that best interest in them which they would have by taking a proper share in their management.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, with the long vista of further Amendments before them, he hoped the Committee would now finish that stage of his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman made two constructive contributions to the new scheme of education. One was that the denominational character of the schools should be placed under the control, first of the County Councils, and then of the Board of Education. He could not imagine a more disastrous, and had it not been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, he would have said a more ludicrous course.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman did not quite under-stand what he said, which was that the Act might declare the denominational character of the schools, and direct that this denominational character might be observed, and he only mentioned the County Council and the Board of Education as the authorities who, if anything were done inconsistent with the lines which the statute laid down, should see that the managers respected the statute.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not see any difference between this version
  866
  of the proposition and the brief abstract he gave of it. The proposal was that the County Councils and the Board of Education should become the guardians of denominationalism in this country. He could imagine nothing more de structive of denominationalism and nothing more absolutely ruinous both to the County Councils and the Board of Education. If that were the kind of proposal the right hon. Gentleman would propose if he were in the position of the Government—
  MR. BRYCE: I do not say that at all. I say it is better than your plan.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was the best plan the right hon. Gentleman had to suggest.
  MR. BRYCE: It is not in the least what we should propose.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid if the right hon. Gentleman had a still better plan locked up in his despatch-box, the Government would like to know what it was. The Government always liked to have the best plan, and the right hon. Gentleman had only given them a second best. The right hon. Gentleman s second constructive suggestion was that the various denominations of Protestants required different treatment from the Roman Catholics.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he did not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but that should not be taken as his view.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had done his best to interpret the position of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to describe the position of Roman Catholics, and the position of Protestants, and he understood him as saying that the two categories required different treatment. He did not believe that the country would stand that; he hoped it was also only a second best plan; and that if the right hon. Gentleman ever had to deal with the education problem, he would have a still better one. So much for the two constructive suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman. As to the right hon. Gentleman's two criticisms, the first was

  867
  that he did not think that the one-third minority would be worth having. His right hon. friend near him had made a hasty calculation—he was sure no one would dispute his right hon. friend's arithmetic—and assured him that the Members of the House who were opposed to the Government on this Bill, were much less than one-third. No one could say that that minority was ineffective, or that it had not had great effect and influence upon the course of events. If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, with that relatively small phalanx, could do so much, and do it so long, upon this Question, he need not despair of the effect upon these Boards of management which the one-third minority provided by the Bill would be able to produce.
  MR. BRYCE: We do not succeed in improving the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman said that. He had received such laudations from the other side for the Amendments he had already introduced, that it would be bitter to think that there was any tinge of insincerity in the very kind remarks that had been made. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill did nothing to popularise control, and to bring a wider element into the management of these denominational schools. According to the right hon. Gentleman, the present state of things was that in about 8,000 schools there was "one man" management, the one man being the parson of the parish, who controlled both secular and religious education. Under the Bill, the whole of the secular education would be transferred to a popularly elected body. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not like that body. He said it would consist of squires and other unhappy people of that kind. But, at all events, it would be popularly elected. That body would have absolute and complete control of secular education in these schools. After all, secular education had something to do with national education. It was, he might remark, the main subject of the Bill, and it should not be left absolutely out of account, as being wholly alien. Religious education would be under the control, not of one man, and that man the parson of the parish, but of a Board of six. Of these, the parson would probably be the only
  868
  minister of religion, and three would be managers representing the denomination. Then there would be the minority of two, who would be connected neither directly nor indirectly with the denomination — at any rate, they would be nominated by the popularly elected body. That might be a good scheme or a bad scheme, but it was ludicrous to suggest that it left untouched the one man clerical management of these 8,000 schools; and it was ridiculous to go on discussing the Clause as if nothing had been done to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was afraid he would have to address the Committee many more times before the Clause was disposed of; and, therefore, in mercy to them he would bring his present observations to a close. He did not think that the views of the Government had been treated quite fairly by hon. Gentlemen opposite, though he was sure they did not mean to misrepresent them in any way. His strong impression was that when the Bill was brought into working order, it would be found to give general satisfaction. However that might be, he ventured to suggest that the initial stage of the Amendment might now fittingly be brought to a conclusion.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid he wished to correct a statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Essex County Council had passed a certain resolution germane to the subject under discussion. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right; but when the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to state that the Essex County Council was a Conservative body he was speaking in the language of exaggerated hyperbole. The majority of the Essex County Council were of the same political opinion as the right hon. Gentleman himself, and if he were a Member of it he would find himself in the unusual position of being in a majority.
  *MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid that to give control to denominational managers as distinguished from publicly-appointed representatives on the local boards of managers for elementary schools would operate most unfairly to Nonconformist parents and be prejudicial to the true interests of education. He would give an example so that

  869
  the Committee, by the illustration, would realise the situation. In a parish in Bedfordshire he knew of a case where a clergyman managed a school at the present time under a deed of trust; not only was he himself one of he managers, but he was allowed to place on the Board as many curates as he liked. The only other individuals on the Board must he communicants in the Church of England for three years; and they were to be elected only by those who attended the church and contributed to the schools. It would be perfectly absurd, after the passing of this Bill, to allow a body to be composed entirely of denominationalists of that kind. It did not make the slightest difference whether the squire's gardener would be elected on such a body, as its policy would be dictated by the parson, his curates, and the other members of the Church of England. He wished to pay a tribute of praise to the energy and ability with which many clergymen of the Church of England had carried on education in the schools under their control. Had these clergymen shown, any intolerance towards Nonconformist children, undoubtedly many contributions from members of their
  own Church would be withdrawn, as a protest against an arbitrary exercise of power. Then, again, at the present time, the parents had the power of establishing a School Board, and the parsons know that they had that power. Under the provisions of the Bill, however, it would not be necessary for the parson to ask for contributions for the denominational schools, and Nonconformist parents would not be enabled to establish a School Board. Therefore, the two very powers which caused tolerant action to be exercised towards Nonconformists would be withdrawn. The First Lord of the Treasury alluded to the supreme power which would be vested in the County Councils; but the Vice President of the Council stated in reply to a question on 18th June that if a County Council appointed an Education Committee, that Committee need not ask for confirmation of any of its acts. Therefore, the representatives of the people would have no absolute control.
  (11 23.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 93; Noes, 237. (Division List No. 309.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

  Haroie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Rigg, Richard

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Brigg, John

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Russell, T. W.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford

  Caine, William Sproston

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Caldwell, James

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, Willam (Carnarv'ushire

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Langley, Batty

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cremer William Randal

  Layland -Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Dilke. Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark

  Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

  Tomkinson, James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Mildmay. Francis Bingham

  Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

  Dunn, Sir William

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire

  Ure, Alexander

  Edwards, Frank

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Warner, Thomas CourtenayT.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Newnes, Sir George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Furness. Sir Christopher

  Price, Robert John

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Priestley, Arthur

  TELLERS FoR the ayes—

  Grant. Corrie

  Rea, Russell

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

  Reckitt, Harold James

  and Mr. William M'Arthur

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Allhusen, August's H'nry Eden

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon, John

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  O'Brien Patrick (Kilkinny)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

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

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Hambro. Charles Eric

  O'Conner, James (Wicklow, W.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nd'r'y

  O'Malley, William

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hammond, John

  O'Mara, James

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bill, Charles

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Blundell, (Colonel Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Boland, John

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesiey

  Bond, Edward

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Pemberton, John S. G

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Percy, Earl

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Brown. Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bull, William James

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Button, John (Yorkst, N. K.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Butcher, John George

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Carlffe, William Walter

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Purvis, Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward H.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pym, C Guy

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Kennaway, Rt Hon. Sir John H.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Keswick, William

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Chapman, Edward

  Kimber, Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Charrington, Spencer

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cochrane, Hon Thos H.A.E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Coghill, Donglas Harry

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Conen, Benjamin Louis

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Cellings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Lawson, John Grant

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Robinson, Brooke

  Corbett, T. L. (Down North)

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Legge, Ceil. Hon. Heneage

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Crossley, Sir Saville

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lock wood, Lt.-Col A. R.

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Davenport, William Bromley

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

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East.

  Delany, William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Dillon, John

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lundon, W.

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Doughty, George

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Faber, George Denison (York

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edward

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  M'Cann, James

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Finch, George H.

  M'Kean, John

  Valentia, Viscount

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Manneis, Lord Cecil

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

  Fither, William Hayes

  Milvain, Thomas

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E (Notts.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Mooney, John J.

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

  Gardner, Ernest

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Garfit, William

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Gordon, Maj Evans. (T'rH'mlets

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

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

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Murphy, John

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

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

  Gray, Ernest. (West Ham)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdmunds

  Newdigate. Francis Alexander

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Gretton, John

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

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

  Sir William Walrond and

  Guest Hon Ivor Churchill

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  MR. WHITLEYmoved to insert after "authority," in line 29, the words "or for the use of which any rent is paid by them." He thought the right hon. Gentleman would have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment, as it was really necessary to carry out the pledges of the Government. The differentiation of the two classes of managers had been based on the ground that the voluntary school managers were to provide schools free of any rent, but the word "provided" did not carry that understanding with it. The right to have a majority on the management of a voluntary school was a quid pro quo for the school being provided free of rent to the local authority, and it was only right that that should be made perfectly clear.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page2, line39, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words ' or for the use of which any rent is paid by them.' "—(Mr. Whitley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid his belief was that every school building for which any rent was paid by the local authority was a school provided by them. He would undertake, however, if the word "provided" did not cover such a case, to have words inserted at a subsequent stage.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSwas not aware of any Act which declared that a school for which any rent whatever was paid was a school "provided" by the local authority. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to assent to the principle that whoever originally founded the school, if any rent by way of valuable consideration was paid by the local authority, that school was, under the Bill, to be a school "provided" by the local authority?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is so.
  DR. MACNAMARApointed out that, a month ago, when he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be possible in future to charge the local authority any rent for a school, the reply he received was, "Certainly not," whereas now the right hon. Gentleman contemplated a charge for rent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURexplained that if a rent was charged, the school would cease to belong to the managers, and become the property of the local authority. He did not at all say that the trustees could not rent their school to the local authority, but if they did so, it would cease to be a voluntary school, and become a "provided'' school.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked whether he was correct in supposing that if the trustees charged a rent, the school became a public authority school, the religious instruction became undenominational, and the management fell under the early part of Clause 7.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYasked what would be the position of schools which were partially transferred, the managers retaining control during the first hour of the day, during which hour religious instruction was given. Who would be the managers of such a school?
  MR. M'KENNAthought the point just raised was extremely important, because if a school was partially transferred and the denominational managers retained the control, the appointment of teachers for secular as well as religious instruction would rest with the denomination. If, however, a partial transfer meant a transfer for all purposes, there might be undenominational teachers giving the religious instruction, and that would not satisfy hon. Members opposite.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought the word "provided" was very vague, and contended that a definition was absolutely necessary.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONthought the promise of the First Lord was satisfactory. The case referred to by the hon. Member for North West Ham was not likely to occur in future, because the reason trustees had partially transferred their schools in the past was that they had not the funds to defray the expense of the secular instruction, and that difficulty would now be removed.
  *SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid he was one of those unhappy beings called "squires," and as such was the owner of an unsectarian voluntary school. Under this Bill, would he be able not only to throw the whole expense of education on the county rate, but also get rid of the expense of maintenance, by the simple process of charging the local education authority a rent for the school?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the hon. Member could have done that at any moment through a School Board
  *SIR BRAMPTON GURDONpointed out that a School Board rate would then have been charged all over the parish, and he would have had to reduce his farm-rents to a greater extent than the amount of the rate.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTpointed out that in some cases the amount of the subscriptions was not nearly sufficient to cover the annual cost of repairs, and, therefore, those schools would be unable to comply with the condition of sub-section (d) of Section 1 of Clause 8. The managers of these schools, under the right hon. Gentleman's definition, would be able to get over the difficulty by taking a rent from the local authority, and so be able to keep the school for all other purposes. In some cases the payment would fairly represent the value of the buildings, but, in others, it would be merely a nominal amount, accepted by the trustees in order to transfer the school. The definition of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to cover only the first of those cases.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that while he would be unwilling to press this question unduly, after the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought the present was peculiarly the point at which the matter should be dealt with. The Committee were about to discuss the quid pro quo, and it was desirable that they should clearly understand what the quo was before they proceeded to consider the quid they were to give. The words he had placed on the Paper had been carefully thought out, and would entirely meet the intention expressed by the First Lord.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  EDUCATION ACT, 1901 (RENEWAL) BILL
  Read a second time, and committed for tomorrow.

  LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894, (ACCOUNTS UNDER SEC TION 1 (7) OF THE ACT).
  Return ordered, "showing, according to the Acounts for the twelve months preceding the 31st day of March, 1902, furnished to the Local Government Board under Section 1 (7) of the London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894:—

  (1) The amounts paid during the year by the London County Council out of the Equalisation Fund under the Act to the Corporation of the City of London and each of the Councils of Metropolitan Boroughs to whom payments out of that fund were made.

  (2) The amount of the expenses in curred during the year by each of these authorities (a) under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, including expenses of scavenging streets); (b) in respect of lighting; and (c) in respect of streets (other than the expenses of scavenging); and—

  (3) The amount expended during the year by each such authority out of the sums received by them under the Act. (In continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 358, of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)

  POST OFFICE SITE (OBAN) DRAFT PRO VISIONAL ORDER.
  Ordered, That the Evidence taken before the Committee of this House on the Bill for the Callander and Oban Railway Act, 1897, be referred to the Commissioners appointed under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to inquire into the Post Office Site (Oban) Draft Provisional Order, 1902.— (The Lord Advocate.)
  Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAY BILL.
  Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  NEW FOREST (SALE OF LANDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.
  LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bills passed, and returned to the Commons.
  NORTH METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL,
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  CROYDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Read 3a, with the. Amendments; further Amendments made. Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Amendments reported according to order), and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.
PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition for amendment of: Of Justices of the Peace for the city and county of Worcester; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour of: Of Swinton Primitive Methodists; Eccles Free Church Council; British Temperance League; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CENSUS OF IRELAND (1901).
  Part II. General Report.
  SALMON FISHERIES (ROYAL COMMIS SION).
  Report of the Commissioners on Salmon Fisheries; Part I., Report and Maps.
  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY.
  Report of the Principal Chemist, Government Laboratory, upon the work of the Laboratory, for the year ended 31st March, 1902, with appendices.

  TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2857. Austria-Hungary (Bohemia).

  No. 2858, United States (States of Oregon, Washington and Idaho).

  No. 2859. Brazil (Porto Alegre).

  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 357. Northern Territories of the Gold Coast; Report for 1901.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION ACTS, 1881 AND 1802.
  Thirty-eighth annual report on alkali, etc., works, by the Chief Inspector: proceedings during the year 1901; presented to the Local Government Board and to the Secretary for Scotland.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (IRELAND) (PROBATE DIVISION).
  Accounts for the year ended 31st December, 1901.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE SITE (OBAN) DRAFT PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  Ordered, That the evidence taken before the Committee of this House on the Callander and Oban Railway Bill, 1897, be referred to the Commissioners appointed under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to inquire into the Post Office Site (Oban) Draft Provisional Order.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAM BRIDGE ACT, 1877.
  Statute made by the Master and Fellows of University College, Oxford, on 20th March, 1902, amending Statute III., twelve (Fellowships held by Professors) of the Statutes of the College (laid before the House on Friday last); to be printed. (No. 157.)

  LICENSING BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1:—
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid it was most necessary that there should be power to apprehend a person found drunk in a place of public entertainment, and in such a place of public resort as a railway station; but he understood the Clause, as at present drafted, did not cover such cases. The Clause as he proposed to amend it would provide that if a person was found drunk in any highway or other place, or place of public entertainment, or resort, whether a building or not, or on any licensed premises, and appeared to be incapable of taking care of himself, he might be apprehended and dealt with according to law.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, after 'place,' to insert 'or a place of public entertainment or resort.'" — (The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD BELPERsaid the objection to inserting these words lay in the fact that at present it was not an offence to be drunk in a place of public entertainment or resort, and that the Clause merely dealt with existing offences. He hoped the right rev. Prelate would not press his Amendment.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERwithdrew his Amendment at this stage, but intimated his intention of moving it on Clause 2.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved to insert the words "or is a nuisance to the public." This was his own Amendment, although he had others on the Paper which he had undertaken to move on the part of the trade. When he came to move these Amendments he should have an explanation on the part of the trade to make, and he proposed to read the reasons why each particular Amendment should be agreed to. As to this particular Amendment, he thought that when a man was found staggering about the street, and in his drunken condition knocking up against people, the police should have power to arrest him. Drunkenness could best be suppressed by the police by an Amendment of this. kind.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 9, after 'himself,' to insert 'or is a nuisance to the public.'."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD BELPERthought that the-words of the noble Earl were of a vague character and might be liable to misconstruction. The case of a man staggering through the streets would be covered by the present law, which enabled the police to apprehend a man who was drunk and disorderly and who was making himself a nuisance.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid he would not press his Amendment, but he hoped that what the noble Lord had said would be fully reported, and that the police would act upon it.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERmoved an Amendment which provided that if any person is found drunk in any highway or other public place, "or

  729
  place of public entertainment or resort," while having the charge of a child apparently under the age of seven years, he may be apprehended and made liable to fine or imprisonment. The right rev. Prelate considered that, as the Clause most rightly made it an offence for a person to be drunk in certain places while in charge of a child under seven years of age, it was highly desirable that it should be extended in the direction of his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, line 12, after 'place' to insert 'or place of public entertainment or resort'"—(The Lord of Winchester.)
  LORD BELPERsaid his objection to the Amendment was this—that all other offences under this Bill in reference to persons arrested for drunkenness were confined to offences Committed on the highway or other public place, or on licensed premises. The- Home Office considered it very undesirable to extend the definition of this Clause, and so extend the provisions of the Bill in one isolated case.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYhoped the Amendment would not be disposed of without further consideration or discussion. A new offence was created by the Clause, and the offence created ought to be extended to o her places than those mentioned in the Clause. It was unreasonable to say that because no such power had been given it should not be given.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought the argument of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would prevent any change in the law. He was of opinion that a great deal could be said in favour of including the offence mentioned by the Amendment within the scope of the Clause, He thought that the words "or resort" might be very well omitted by the right rev. Prelate.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERmentioned that, according to decisions in the Law Courts, railway stations, theatres, concert halls, athletic grounds, and auction rooms had been held to be places of public resort. These ought to
  730
  be included under the new provision, and he hoped the noble Lord would reconsider whether he could not accept the Amendment.
  LORD BELPERsaid that if the right rev. Prelate would withdraw the Amendment he would undertake to meet him, to some extent, by putting in words in the definition Clause to meet the special point he had raised.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERagreed to accept this undertaking.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsuggested that after the words "found drunk while having the charge of a child apparently under the age of seven years," the words "or of any horsed vehicle or motor car" should be inserted.
  LORD BELPERpointed out that the Amendment was unnecessary, as a drunken man in charge of a horsed vehicle or motor car could be arrested under the present law.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4:—
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved an Amendment to provide that the licensee should be required to prove that "he did not knowingly suffer drunkenness to take place on his premises," instead of being required to prove, as the Clause proposed, that he took "all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness on his premises."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 8, to leave out from 'him' to the end of the Clause and to insert did not, knowingly suffer the said drunkenness to take, place on his premises.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss".)
  LORD BELPERsaid he was rather surprised that such an important Amendment should be moved without any explanation being given of the reason why it was introduced. The Clause dealt with a very important subject, and with a case where the law had been proved to be very unsatisfactory.

  731
  There were an enormous number of convictions for drunkenness, especially arising out of drunkenness in public-houses, whilst the number of convictions for permitting drunkenness was infinitesimal. The words in the Clause had been carefully thought out, and they seemed to get over the difficulty. As a matter of fact, the Clause recognised that a great privilege was given to the licence-holder, and that within the terms of that privilege it was his duty to exercise his trust with due care, and to do everything he could to prevent drunkenness on his premises. The Clause looked to the licensed person to prove that he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness. He thought the words of the Bill would be much more effective than those of the Amendment. It was the duty of the person in charge to take steps to find out whether a man was drunk before serving him, otherwise it would be easy for any publican to shut his eyes to the fact. The words of the Clause were not unreasonable, and it would be for the magistrates to decide whether the publican did take reasonable steps. He was aware that the words in the Clause were not the same as were suggested by the majority and minority Reports of the Royal Commission, but the object in view was the same. He could not accept the Amendment, believing this Clause to be the most useful in the Bill for putting down drunkenness.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid the trade were of opinion that the words in the Bill, "reasonable steps" were vague, and might be very differently construed, and that the licensed victualler should not be subjected to undefined obligations. As the noble Lord had admitted, the words in the Bill did not meet even the recommendations of either the minority or majority Reports of the Royal Commission. The majority Report (page 21) said—
  "Where a person is found drunk on the licensed premises, or observed quitting them in that condition, the licence-holder should be required to prove that he and his servants were ignorant of the drunkenness, or that if they knew it they did not permit the offender to remain."
  The minority Report was even clearer and on page 168 said—
  732
  "Whether a person were found drunk on the premises or were seen leaving the premises in a drunken condition, it should be incumbent on the publican to show that neither he nor his servants knew of the drunkenness, and that he did not with such knowledge permit him to remain on his premises."
  The words of his Amendment were practically those of the minority Report.
  VISCOUNT CROSShoped the Government would stand by the words in the Bill. The effect of those words was to throw the onus of proof upon the publican, which was preferable to throwing it upon the prosecution.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, Withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  *LORD WINDSORsaid the now Clause standing in his name had for its object more the prevention of crime than the punishment of crime after it had been Committed. It was moved in the other House on the Report stage, and was opposed by the Home Secretary for the one reason that it would diminish the responsibility of the publican. The object of the Clause was to provide that instructions should be given to the police generally—where they were present and were able to do so—to assist the publican to prevent crime. But absence of warning could in no case be pleaded as a defence. Under the Bill as it stood, a publican might unknowingly commit an offence and be convicted. The Amendment which had just been withdrawn would have prevented that state of things, because the noble Lord suggested the insertion of the word "knowingly." As the Bill now stood they were putting a man into a position in which he could commit an offence against the law and be convicted of that offence although he committed it without knowing he was doing so. It surely was not unreasonable, if they put a man into that position, to give general instructions to the police that when they saw a man who was obviously drunk going into a public-house they should warn the publican at once, so that the man should not be served. That seemed to be the only reasonable view, and was supported by the evidence given by Sir Albert de Rutzen before the Royal Commission, and quoted by him (Lord Windsor) on

  733
  the Second Reading debate. Sir John Bridge, in giving evidence before the Royal Commission, said his opinion was that if a constable saw a drunken man go into a public-house it was quite right for him to enter and acquaint the land-lord of the fact. Then, only last month, another magistrate, sitting at the Greenwich Police Court, dismissed a summons against a publican for permitting drunken persons to be on the premises, on the ground that the police constable might have stopped the man before he went into the house, but did not do so. He quoted those instances to show that it was not at all an uncommon practice for a police constable to take this very natural course, and surely it was reasonable to put in the Bill, that regulations should be made by the various police authorities showing that it was the intention that constables should not only be set to watch the public-houses in order to obtain as many convictions against the publicans as they possibly could, but that they should also do their best to prevent crime. He hoped the Government would think it a reasonable Clause to insert in the Bill.
  Amendment moved, to insert as a new Clause—
  "Regulations shall be made by the police authority for the purpose of securing that, where possible, a constable who sees a drunken person (or anyone who is a convicted person within the meaning of this Act) entering, or about to enter, licensed premises (or a club registered under Part III. of this Act), shall at once warn the person in charge of the premises against serving such person.''—(Lord Windsor.)
  LORD HENEAGEthought it was only fair, if the Government allowed certain wretched and miserable public houses to exist in the country districts, they should give the people who served in them warning wherever possible. In rural districts the landlord of small houses, which in many cases did not afford a living to the tenant, was generally absent all day long, and the bar was left to his wife or servant, who also had the household duties to attend to. In such cases it was desirable that the police should give warning wherever it was possible to do so. The publican had a right to have, as far as possible, the protection and guidance of the law. He saw one danger, however, in the new
  734
  Clause. A publican might plead that the police had not given warning. He did not know how that would stand, but words ought to be inserted to make it clear that a publican, when charged with permitting drunkenness, could not plead in defence that the police had not given him notice. That was a matter that could be looked into by the Standing Committee.
  LORD BELPERsaid it was the duty of a policeman to do everything he could to prevent a contravention of the law, but it was unusual and undesirable to define the duties of the police in an Act of Parliament. There was also the danger, if the Clause were accepted, that a licence-holder charged with permitting drunkenness might escape on the plea that he was not warned by the police. He could assure the House and the noble Lord that they quite recognised that it was the duty of a policeman to do what was pointed out in the proposed new Clause. If the Amendment were withdrawn, he could undertake that the Home Secretary would issue a circular pointing out to the police that it was their duty to assist publicans in keeping the law, and not to lay traps for them.
  *LORD WINDSORsaid it was not his intention, in moving the Amendment, to allow the plea of not having been warned to be set up by the publican as a defence. As it was thought inadvisable to insert a provision of this sort in a Bill, he thought he ought to accept the undertaking of his noble friend, and in those circumstances he would withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid this Amendment had the strong support of the trade.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 5:—
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERmoved an Amendment providing that, instead of making a separation order, the Court might, with the consent of the wife, order her to be detained in an inebriates' retreat. He said this subsection dealt with one of the most difficult subjects in the Bill. The first

  735
  part of the Clause, which protected a wife against a drunken husband in a case of extreme necessity, did not meet with any opposition, but in the second part they had to face the problem of a woman being turned absolutely adrift by her husband without any chance of obtaining regularly the money for maintenance to which she was by law entitled. She might have small chance of getting the money under the law, and there was a danger of her place being taken by someone who would occupy her position as wife with out marriage. By the Amendment he hoped this difficulty could be met, and the woman would have the option of going into a reformatory and beginning a new life. Thus there would be a chance of restoring peace into the household. Objection was made to his Clause on the ground that no drunken woman would give her consent to such detention. This, he thought, was not the case. The experience of those valuable public servants, the police-court mission aries, was strongly in favour of the provision he advocated.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 40, after 'wife,' to insert 'Provided that, instead of making an order in pursuance of paragraph (a.) of this sub-section, the Court may, with the consent of the wife, order her to be committed to, and detained in, any retreat licensed under the Inebriates' Acts, 1879 to 1900, the licensee of which is willing to receive her; and such order shall have effect as if she had been admitted to the retreat under Section 10 of the Habitual Dunkards Act, 1879, as amended by any subsequent enactments.' "— (The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD BELPEEthought the Amendment would be an improvement to the Clause, which was entirely in conformity with the provisions of the former Act. It would obviously be an advantage that a woman in this position should be given an opportunity of deciding whether she would not go into a reformatory and begin a new life, with the possibility of being reunited with her husband.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Would the husband have any option under this clause?
  LORD BELPER: No, I think not.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6:—
  LORD BELPERproposed a drafting Amendment to this Clause, dealing with the prohibition of sale of liquor to persons declared to be habitual drunkards. The Amendment provided that'' for any subsequent offence "a fine" not exceeding twenty pounds" shall be inflicted, instead of "twenty Bounds"
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 31, after 'person' to insert 'to a fine not exceeding.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8:—
  LORD BELPERproposed, in the following sub-section, "On any application for the grant, renewal, or transfer of a licence the licensing justices shall have regard to any entries in the register of convictions relating either to the person by whom, or to the premises in respect of which, the licence is to be held," to substitute for the word "convictions" the word "licences."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 15, to leave out 'convictions' and to insert 'licences.' "—(Lord Helper.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSproposed to add to the end of the sub-section the following:— "Except where the convictions are for offences of a technical or trivial nature, or where the last recorded conviction is more than three years old." He contended that where the licence had been renewed for three years and no later offence had been committed, no power should be given to the magistrate to interfere.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 16, after 'held,' to insert 'except where the convictions are for offences of a technical or trivial nature, or where the last recorded conviction is more than three years old.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD BELPER,in opposing the Amendment, said endorsement was done away with altogether, and in its place it was provided that a register of every conviction should be kept. The magistrates

  737
  should have absolute discretion as to how far they should give regard to previous convictions. If the words of the noble Earl were accepted, the magistrates would not be able to exercise that discretion. The Government preferred the Clause as it stood. The magistrates were not obliged to take a particular course of action in consequence of the convictions recorded in the register.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD BELPERsaid the object of the new sub-section standing in his name was to make it perfectly clear that the system of endorsing licences had been abolished.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 20, to add as a new sub-section: After the commencement of this Act no conviction shall be recorded on a licence."— (Lord Helper.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9:—
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid that persons now trading as wine and spirit; dealers, and who sold cigars, would, under this Clause, have to obtain a justices' licence under which to conduct their business simply because they did sell cigars. The effect of his Amendment would be to provide that the sub section should not apply to any excise licence taken out by a spirit dealer or wine dealer for premises which were exclusively used for the sale of intoxicating liquors or of intoxicating liquors, mineral waters, "and cigars."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 29, after 'waters' to insert 'and cigars.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD BELPERsaid that if they accepted the Amendment they could not stop at cigars, but would have to include cigarettes, biscuits, etc. He did not see any reason why cigars should be specially included.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to leave out the words "except as hereinafter provided," his object being, if their Lordships accepted this Amendment, to subsequently move the omission of subsection 4, which ran as follows:—
  "Provided that where a licence for the sale of wine, spirits, liqueurs, sweets, or cider, not to be consumed on the premises, was in force on the 25th day of June, 1902, an application for the renewal of such licence, or of any licence granted by way of renewal thereof from time to time, shall not be refused to the person who held such licence on the 25th day of June. 1902, except on one or more of the grounds on which it might have been refused if this Act had not passed, or on the ground that the licensee has sold surreptitiously under such licence, or has assisted in concealing or misrepresenting the nature of goods sold under such licence, or has in any other way, in the opinion of the justices, been guilty of misconduct in the management of his business under such licence."
  The effect of this sub-section was to give persons holding grocers' licences on June 25th last an absolute right to claim such licences during the remainder of their lifetime. That was a principle that ought not to he adopted in dealing with licences. Justices would therefore be prevented from exercising any control over such licences for the next twenty years as least, and the serious character of such an exemption would be seen when he mentioned that at present there were some 10,000 or 11,000 grocers' licences in existence. The powers of the justices would, in fact, be limited entirely to the now licences. He maintained that if it was right for justices to exercise any discretion at all, it was right for them to exercise it as to all these licences. It had been said that if the Clause had been passed as it was introduced it would have had the effect of abolishing grocers' licences altogether, but people who thus argued could know very little about the matter. It was very undesirable to introduce still further the exemptions in the Licensing Act. The danger of postponing legislation of this kind for a long period was seen in the case of the anti-1869 beer-houses, of which there were 35,000 in existence, and which at present were only under partial control of the justices, who could not deal with any of these licences except in reference to the character of the individual licence-holder or the

  739
  manner in which the house was conducted. This was one of the disastrous effects of postponed legislation, and they had seen that many of the worst houses in the trade were to be found among those privileged houses, some of which sold very little beer, and only lived a precarious existence in the hope that compensation would be given for their abolition. They wanted no vested interests created in these grocers' licences. The course adopted by the Government in this matter was at variance with both the majority and the minority Reports of the Royal Commission, as both these Reports recommended that such licences should be brought under the control of the justices. Besides, some years ago, Mr. Ritchie, when a private Member of the other House, successfully passed through Parliament a Bill bringing off-licences under the control of the justices without any kind of exemption. He had failed to understand the reasons which induced the Home Secretary to accept this provision at the last moment. If the justices were to be trusted at all, they should be trusted completely, and should be free to use their power free and unfettered. By carrying his Amendment, the Clause would be restored to the form in which it was when the Bill was originally introduced into the House of Commons.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 9, page 4, lines 35 and 36, to leave out 'except as hereinafter provided.'"—(The, Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BELPERsaid that the Amendment which had been moved was undoubtedly one of importance. The Clause for the first time gave the licensing justices power to deal with grocers licences according to their discretion. It was not correct to say that this particular sub-section would give the present holders the right to have the licence as long as they lived. All that it said was that they should have the licences upon the old terms so long as they should require them. This was not necessarily as long as they lived. The case of grocers' licences was entirely different from that of beer-house licences. The proposal was not brought forward because there was any serious complaint with regard to the way in which grocers' licences were managed,
  740
  nor because of their inordinate number, but from the fact that they were very much increasing, and that it seemed to the Home Secretary desirable that power should be given to the justices to prevent that increase, and put a limit upon their number. The Clause was not framed on the assumption that grocers' licences were an evil, and ought to be abolished. The exemption of the existing licences was accepted by the Government as a compromise.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he had carefully read the proceedings in the other House, but failed to find anything in support of the view that the exemption was accepted as a compromise.
  LORD BELPERsaid that was the case, for on a division the temperance party did not challenge a division. Looking to the fact that they were not creating a vested interest, and that there was no strong desire to reduce the licences which existed, he hoped the House would not accept the Amendment.
  LORD HENEAGEcontended that the effect of the proviso was to give a vested interest in a licence in many cases to young men who had just succeeded to a business. Those persons had never had a vested interest before. Why should they have it now?
  LORD BELPERdenied that they gave, a vested interest. They only enabled the existing holders of licences to obtain a renewal on the same conditions as before.
  LORD HENEAGE: Exactly. In future these licences must be renewed, no matter what was the age of the licensees nor for how long a period, they might be capable of holding them. By that very proviso they created a vested interest in the licences which already existed. With regard to the-alleged compromise, their Lordships had not been informed that a circular was sent out from very influential persons holding a large number of licensed grocers' shops, with a few to putting pressure upon Members of the other House to get this proviso put in. The compromise did not take place in the House of Commons, and he hoped their Lordships would not think much of it, but deal with the question entirely on its merits.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERwas ready to support the Government to the best of his power in their endeavours, realising as he did the extreme difficulty they had to contend with, but he could not follow them in this case. The noble Earl had made out an unanswerable case. There was nothing about a compromise in the debates in Hansard.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDassured the Committee that there was no new vested interest created by this proviso. An existing grocer's licence might still be refused on the grounds on which it might be refused if this Act had not passed. The power of the justices was exceedingly wide with respect to the renewal of licences, and if this reservation was not made, justices might say they objected to all grocers' licences, and might proceed accordingly to abolish all such licences. The proviso prevented such a sweeping away of all grocers' interest.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYasked why the Government expressed such profound distrust of the justices to whom they were giving these additional powers. And why did they introduce the Bill without this exemption?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKdid not think the argument of the noble and learned Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy touched the point, for the reasons that if the justices adopted the extraordinary course suggested, the persons holding the licences could appeal against their decision.
  *LORD WINDSORpointed out that the recommendation of the Royal Commission that grocers' licences should be put under the licensing authority was part of a large scheme dealing with all licences. The Bill already gave two new grounds on which the magistrates could refuse to renew a licence; and he hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would not be agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid that no distrust of the licensing authority was implied in the Clause. As to the change which had been made in another place, no doubt the Bill as originally introduced was an excellent one, but that was not to say that all proposals for its improvement must necessarily be shut out.
  EARL SPENCERsaid he preferred the Bill in its original form. The Clause as it stood would strengthen the position of the grocers who held licences. He was opposed to doing away altogether with grocers' licences; but, considering the evidence before the Royal Commission, it was evidently high time that these licences should be brought under the same control as other licences. There was nothing to show that the magistrates would be more disposed to sweep away grocers' licences than any other form of licence: and their authority ought not to be hampered.
  On Question whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause, the House divided:— Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 38.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Dudley, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Haddington, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Hardwicke, K.

  Colchester, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Mayo, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Powis, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Grafton, D.

  Romney, E.

  James, L.

  Portland, D.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Killanin, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.,)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Lawrence, L.

  Camden, M.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Lindley, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Yarborough, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Robertson. L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Cross, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Gosehen, V.

  Tredegar, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Cawdor E

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Belper, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

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

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L,.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Chiehester, L. Bp.

  Foley, L.

  Gloucester, L. Bp.

  Hatherton, L.

  Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Heneage, L. [Teller.]

  Carlisle, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Lamington, L.

  Durham, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Leigh, L.

  Morley, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Brampton, L.

  Reay, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery)

  Clonbrock, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Coleridge, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Davey, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Denman, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Farrer, L

  Amendment negatived.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERproposed a drafting Amendment to sub-Section 4 which would make the last words read "guilty of misconduct in the licensing management of his business under such licence."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 19, after the second 'the,' to insert licensing.'"—(The Lord Bishop of 'Winchester.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10:—
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid the argument in Grand Committee was directed against the use of "screens." The words of the Clause were indefinite and vague, and did not state from whose observation. The words he proposed in his Amendment ensured the person selling having full opportunity of observing or identifying anyone who was either intoxicated, a "convicted" person under the meaning of Clause 6, or a child messenger under age.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 29, to leave out from 'conceals' to 'for' in line 30, and to insert 'the person obtaining intoxicating liquor from the observation of the person supplying the same.'" —(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD BELPERsaid the concealment of the person obtaining intoxicating liquor from the observation of the person supplying it was only one of the objects which the Clause was intended to meet. If the Amendment of the noble Earl were accepted it would deprive the justices of the power of supervising the structural alterations.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTERquestioned whether the words in the Clause would be construed to cover the case referred to by the noble Earl, and suggested the combination with them of the noble Earl's words.
  LORD BELPERsaid it seemed to him that the words covered the case completely.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved to amend sub-Section 4, which provided that—
  "On any application for the renewal of a licence for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors to be consumed on the premises, the licensing justices may require a plan of the premises to be produced before them… and on renewing any such licence they may, by order, direct that, within a time fixed by the order, such alterations as they think reasonably necessary to secure the proper control of the business, etc."
  He moved to omit the words "they think reasonably necessary to secure the proper control of the business," and to insert "may be necessary for the due observance of the law." He did not think it was legitimate for magistrates to interfere with the conduct of the licence holder's business except where the law was violated.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 12, to leave out from 'as'' to 'shall' in line 14, and to insert 'may be necessary for the due observance of the law.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD BELPERsaid this Amendment was moved and objected to in the House of Commons, and the words in the Clause were accepted as a reasonable compromise. The words proposed by

  745
  the Amendment were very vague. It was impossible to know exactly what kind of alterations would be covered by the words in the Amendment and, in the circumstances, he hoped the House would adhere to the Clause as it stood.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERproposed an Amendment empowering the justices to direct that such alterations should be made in that part of the premises where intoxicating liquor was sold or consumed, "or which is used as a means of communication between such part and any street or other public way." He should have thought that in the second part of the Clause it was as necessary to have some proper description of the public-house as it was in the first part.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 15, after 'consumed' to insert, ' or which is used as a means of communication between such part and any street or other public way.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD BELPERsaid that if the words in the Amendment were introduced they might give rise to a number of difficult questions. The object of the Clause was to give the justices control over the structure of those parts of the premises where intoxicating liquors were sold and consumed. In many cases it might happen that the communication to the street was not under the control of the licence-holder at all.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD BELPERmoved an Amendment which would make the order of the justices subject to an appeal to a Court of Quarter Sessions as provided by the Alehouse Act, 1828.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 16, after 'sessions' to insert 'as provided by the Alehouse Act, 1828'"—(Lord Helper.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSproposed an Amendment to the effect that if any such order for structural alterations was made and complied with "or reversed
  746
  on appeal" no further requisition for the alteration should be made within the next five years. He said it was obviously unfair that if the justices had made an order which had been successfully appealed against, they should be able annually to put the licence holder to trouble and expense on a matter already adjudicated upon.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 17, after 'with' to insert 'or reversed on appeal."'— The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD BELPERdid not think the point raised was one likely to happen. He was unable to accept the Amendment, for if one particular order had been reversed the words of the noble earl would prevent any other order of a smaller character being made in respect of structural alterations.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSwas strongly in favour of the words, but in face of the opposition to them he withdrew the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD BELPERproposed two drafting Amendments to the end of the sub-section, which read as follows—
  "If any such order is not complied with the licensed person shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding 20s. for every day during which the default continues."
  The first Amendment was—
  "To omit the words 'any such order is not complied with.'"
  The second was—
  "To insert after 'person,' the words 'makes default in complying with any such order.'"
  Amendments agreed to.
  LORD BELPERsaid the sub-section standing in his name had been asked for by the liquor trade, and was a reasonable provision.
  Amendment moved—
  "After line 22, to insert as anew sub-section: '(5) Notice of any order under this section shall be forthwith given by the clerk to the owner of the premises in respect of which the order is made.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12:—
  * THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid this Clause provided that no clerk of licensing justices—
  "Shall, as solicitor or agent for any person, conduct or act in any application for or in respect of a licence or any other proceedings whatsoever under the Licensing Acts, at any licensing or petty sessions held for the district for which he is the clerk, except so far as relates to the preparation of notices or forms, etc."
  He moved as an Amendment—
  "The insertion of the words 'or any adjoining district' between 'clerk' and 'except.'"
  He said the matter had been before the House on former occasions, and was the subject of discussion last year. It came out in evidence before the Royal Commission that in the case of two adjoining divisions served by the same Brewery Company, the magistrates' clerk in division A, acted in all the company's cases in division B, and the magistrates' clerk in division B, acted in division A. This enabled the Brewery Company to secure by what could hardly be called legitimate means, the interest of the magistrates' clerk in all their cases.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page, line 32. after 'clerk,' to insert 'or any adjoining district.'"—(The, Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  EARL BATHURSTsaid this Clause had had a very chequered career in another place, and he thought that the Amendment was unnecessary because it would do no good for the cause of temperance for which the Bill was introduced. So far as the magistrates' clerks were concerned, it would place them in a very awkward position, and they would have either to sacrifice their position or give up the greater part of their private practice as solicitors. In the Cirencester Division, in which he acted as a magistrate, the magistrates' clerk would, if the Amendment was accepted, either have to resign or give up his private work in nine towns. He did not think that any influence which the licensing clerk could bring to bear on the licensing magistrates would result in extra licences being given.
  VISCOUNT CROSSalso expressed the opinion that the Amendment would, inflict hardship on justices' clerks. It was not, he reminded their Lordships, a very easy task to obtain such clerks as were required, and this Amendment would considerably increase that difficulty by still further limiting the choice. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
  LORD HENEAGEsupported the Amendment, which he thought a very reasonable one. If justices could not be trusted to shield themselves from the influence of their own clerks, they ought not to be subjected to the influence of the same clerks in other divisions of their district. The same justices sat on different Benches very frequently, and magistrates' clerks were very much connected one with another.
  LORD BELPERthought it was going far to disqualify a man from acting in any district besides the one for which he was clerk. It could hardly be assumed that the clerk would corruptly influence the Bench by acting outside the area in which he was magistrate's clerk. Such an argument was extremely far-fetched. Besides, to pass such an Amendment would be to seriously restrict the incomes of the clerks. In the case of the Bench upon which he sat, such an Amendment would have the effect of preventing the magistrate's clerk acting as a solicitor in three counties. As the noble Viscount had pointed out, it was very important that magistrates should be able to command the services of the best men they could get as clerks, but this Amendment would most seriously restrict their choice.
  EARL SPENCERsupported the Amendment. In dealing with licensing matters, everyone should be above suspicion, or the least chance of suspicion, and this could not be the case if magistrates' clerks were allowed to practise in districts where the magistrates under whom they acted went. No doubt the petty sessional clerk did not rule the magistrates, but he was a person of great importance in the public eye, and of great importance to the magistrates, and it was of the high-

  749
  est value that he should not be supposed to be interested in any case that was brought before the magistrates. He agreed that it was desirable to get the best men for these posts, but he would not despair of succeeding, though he admitted that it might be necessary to raise salaries for that purpose. He
  Amendment negatived.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERmoved an Amendment to provide that magistrates' clerks should be required to secure the consent of the licensing justices to their preparing notices or forms. A solicitor to a great brewing company had stated not long ago that he never prepared any notices or forms himself, but always gave this work to the justices' clerks in the various districts, in order, of course, to secure their weight upon his side. That being so, it should, at the very least, be obligatory on the clerk to let those who had the decision in the matter know that he had been employed to draw up the notices.
  would prefer having to deal with that question than to leave the Clause as it stood in the Bill without the Amendment.
  On Question, that the proposed words stand part of the Clause, the House divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 62.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Farrer, L.

  Hatherton, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Heneage, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Gloucester, L. Bp.

  Leigh, L.

  Carrington, E. [Teller.]

  St,. Albans. L. Bp.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Sandhurst, L. [Teller.]

  Spencer, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Donman, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  NON-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Powis, E.

  Culville of Culross, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Stradbroke, E.

  Davey, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Dawnay, L. (v. Downe.)

  Grafton, D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Foley, L.

  Portland, D.

  Yarborough, E.

  James, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Killanin, L.

  Cross, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Camden, M.

  Falkland, V.

  Lamington, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.(L. Steward.)

  Knutsford, V.

  Lindley, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Newton, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Doneaster, E (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Belper, L.

  Sinclair, L.

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

  Tredegar, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Ventry, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Haddington, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Windsor, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Wrottesley, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Zouche of Haryngvvorth, L.

  Morley, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Onslow, E

  Coleridge, L.

  Amendment moved—
  "In line 33, after 'preparation,' to insert 'with the consent of the licensing justices.'" —(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD BELPERsaid the Amendment was not a very important one. The Government thought that, for the convenience of everybody, the clerks should be allowed to prepare the notices and forms without any application to the magistrates.
  * THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid he did not propose to press the Amendment to a division, but he was not convinced by the noble Lord's argument.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 amended and agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15:—
  *THE LOUD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERmoved to insert words to deal with the question of bogus agreements, where, on a proposed transfer, one agreement was produced to the magistrates, while the agreement which in fact governed the conditions under which the House was held was kept in the background. His object was to compel the production of documents which were now often withheld and to put an end to bogus agreements.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 8. line '26, to leave out from the second 'the' to 'and' in line 27, and to insert ' tenancy, agreement, or other assurance under which the licensed premises are to be vested in the applicant.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD BELPERthought the clause as it stood secured the object, the justices having statutory powers of calling for any agreement.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD DAYEYpointed out that the document under which the licence was transferred was frequently not an agreement but the lease itself, which was not, strictly speaking, an agreement.
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 26, after the word 'agreement,' to insert 'or other assurance.' "—(Lord Davey.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERmoved the insertion of a proviso. Ho understood that, in the view of the Government, the words were unnecessary, but he proposed them in order to make impossible the existence of these secret agreements which were the governing thing between the owner of the house and the tenant.
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 33, after 'both,' to insert 'the tenancy, agreement, or other assurance to be produced under this sub-section shall be deemed to contain the terms of the proposed transferee's interest in the licensed premises, and any additional, subsequent, or collateral agreement or defeasance shall be void and of no effect.'" —(The, Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD COLERIDGEhoped the right rev. prelate would insist on his Amendment, the insertion of which would enable the real relationship between the parties to be known, and would make clear to the justices the grounds on which they were granting a licence.
  LORD BELPERsaid he could not accept the Amendment, which was in the nature of a restriction between landlord and tenant.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid that the desire was to make it clear that the magistrates had the whole agreement before them, and that nothing was being kept back.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)said that this was an interference with the ordinary course of business. If the applicant, for example, did not, produce a mortgage the Amendment would make that mortgage void.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to
  Clause 16:—
  LORD HENEAGEmoved an Amendment—
  "Providing that, where there is no sitting of a Petty Sessional Court within 'a reasonable time previous to the day,' an occasional licence may be given by any two justices acting for the Division and sitting together."
  He moved that Amendment to take the place of the words of the Bill which fixed the limit at "seven clays." In some few exceptional cases the Bill would bear very hardly on the licence-holder. For instance, in the case of a cricket match, which had to be arranged hurriedly, a licence would be required in order to supply a luncheon on the field, and that could not be obtained if a Petty Sessional Court were to be held within seven days of the application. He asked for some relaxation to be given to the proviso.
  Amendment moved—
  "In lines 23 and 24, to leave out 'seven days of the tune' and to insert 'a reasonable time previous to the day.'"—(Lord Heneage.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid that in Scotland, in a ease such as the noble Lord had referred to, the signature of two justices was sufficient for an occasional licence.
  LORD BELPERsaid he was unable to accept the Amendment owing to its vagueness. But he would be willing to alter the time from seven to three days, which he thought would meet even the most extreme case.
  LORD HENEAGEaccepted the suggested alteration.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In line23, to leave out 'seven' and to insert 'three.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERmoved the insertion of a new clause. He said that if a man applied at present for a new licence he was bound under the law to give such notice as would render it possible for the inhabitants of the district to take any objection they liked. But if he applied for the transfer of a licence from his old premises to new premises the application was often granted without the inhabitants in the neighbourhood of the newly-licensed house having any opportunity of objecting. It was in order to meet these cases that he moved his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 7, to insert as a new clause: —17A. In respect of an application for the transfer or removal of a licence under Section 4 or Section 14 of the Alehouse Act, 1825, to other premises not theretofore licensed for the sale of the same kind of intoxicating liquor, the applicant shall give the like notices and deposit the like plans as are requisite in the case of an application for a new licence.
  Provided always that in any case where licensed premises have been by fire, tempest, or other unforeseen and unavoidable calamity rendered unfit for the reception of travelers
  754
  and for the other legal purposes of an inn, the licening justices may, in their discretion, for good cause shown, dispense with the observance of these regulations in any particular case if, in their opinion, such notices have been given as are reasonable under the circumstances of the particular case."—(The Lord. Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD BELPERsaid the right Rev. Prelate was inaccurate when he stated that there was no means of the inhabitants of a locality knowing that an application was being made for the transfer of a licence. The only difference in the amount of notice in the case of an application for a new licence and in that for a transfer was, that it was not necessary in the latter case to advertise in a newspaper. But in the case of a transfer it was equally necessary that, fourteen days before the application was made, notice should be served on the overseers of the parish, and on the superintendent of police, and also that on one Sunday prior to the date of the application, a notice should be affixed on the door of the new premises and on the door of the Parish Church. Therefore there was full and sufficient notice given to the people in the immediate neighbourhood. He hoped the right Rev. Prelate would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 18:—
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERmoved an Amendment to provide that an application for the confirmation of the grant of a licence should not be heard until twenty-one days had expired. He said it had been abundantly brought out before the Royal Commission that the confirmation of a licence had taken place on the same day as the hearing of the original application. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted, as it evidently carried out the intention of the Government.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 3, to leave out from '(1) to 'confirmed,' and to insert 'an application for the confirmation of the grant of a licence shall not be heard.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD BELPERaccepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSproposed to add a new Clause. The view taken by the trade was that if the objection was, in the opinion of the justices, frivolous or vexatious, why should they not have the power of granting costs against the objector? Under Clause 19 of this Bill any justice whose decision was appealed against was, in every case, to have his costs paid out of the county or borough funds.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new Clause: 'The licensing justices at the annual or adjourned licensing meeting may, in their discretion, grant costs against any objector to the renewal or transfer of a licence if the said justices consider the objection to be of a frivolous or vexatious character.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD BELPERopposed the Clause. He said he was informed that the real objection to giving this power was that the power to impose costs was never exercised except by a judicial court. Moreover, it was not desirable to limit freedom of discussion as to the propriety of renewing or transferring a licence, or to hinder people by such a provision from expressing their views as to the needs of the locality in the matter. It would be difficult, considering how much people's opinions varied on these matters, to say what was a frivolous objection.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid there seemed no reason why the convenience of an application for a provisional grant on the production of plans should be withheld from those applying for an off-licence. There could be no reason against such a proposal, now that all new off-licences were to be brought under the discretion of the magistrates. It therefore appeared absurd that an applicant should have first to build his premises and then apply for a licence. The inconvenience was slight when there was a limited power of refusal; with the change in the law the inconvenience would become a hardship. He hoped the noble Lord representing the Home Office would be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new Clause: 'The provisions of Section 22 of the Licensing Act, 1874, as to the provisional grant and confirmation of licences in respect of new premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors to be consumed on the premises, shall apply also to licences to sell intoxicating liquors for consumption off the premises.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD BELPERsaid that in the case of a grocer's licence there was no reason why the applicant should not wait till the premises were finished; it could make little difference in his chance of getting a licence. On the whole, the Government saw no reason for offering increased facilities with regard to these off-licences, which seemed to be the object of the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 19:—
  LORD BELPERmoved to substitute the words "cannot be "for the words "are not" in the sentence "all cost and charges which are not recovered from any other person."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 16, to leave out 'are not and to insert 'cannot be.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPERmoved to add at the end of Clause 19 the words contained in his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 19, after 'accounts,' to insert 'The order of the Appellate Court may be made either at the sessions when the appeal is heard, or at the next ensuing sessions, and the costs may be taxed either in or out of sessions.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  Amendment agreed to—
  Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 20:—
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid the Clause provided that no meeting of justices in petty or special sessions should be held on licensed premises after March, 1910. He moved the shortening of the date to 1907.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 21, to leave out 'ten' and to insert 'seven.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD BELPERsaid the Government had no objection to this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER,referring to the provision that no inquest should be held on licensed premises when other suitable premises had been provided, desired to add "or are available on reasonable terms."
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 26, after 'provided' to insert ' or are available on reasonable terms.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD BELPERcould not accept this Amendment. It would be impossible for coroners' inquests to be hung up while a search was being made to ascertain whether there were premises obtainable on reasonable terms. The Clause went quite as far as was possible in prohibiting licensed premises being used where other suitable premises were available.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEmoved to insert a new Clause on behalf of the Under Secretary of State for War. He explained that regimental canteens run by the regimental authorities themselves did not require licences or certificates from the justices, but at present canteens that were worked by civilian contractors, under agreement with the regiments concerned, did require licences. The Amendment was framed so as to avoid the necessity of regiments having to get licences when they wished to make agreements to hand over their canteens to be managed by contractors.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as anew Clause:—Notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary, it shall not be necessary for a person holding a canteen under the authority of a Secretary of State or
  758
  of the Admiralty to obtain a justice's licence or certificate to enable him to obtain or hold any excise licence for the sale of any intoxicating liquor, and an excise licence may be granted to any such person accordingly."— (The Earl of Hardwicke.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 amended and agreed to.
  Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
  Clause 26:—
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERmoved to insert "if it thinks fit" after the words "any person may" in Clause 26, which provided that "where a club has been registered in pursuance of this Act a Court of summary jurisdiction, on complaint in writing by any person, may make an order directing the club to be struck off the register on all or any" of the grounds set out in the subsections. The object of the Amendment was, he said, merely to mark clear that the Court had a discretion in the matter.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 12, line 20, after 'may' to insert 'if it thinks fit,'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD BELPERsaid the Government regarded the Amendment as a very necessary one, and they accepted it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERthen moved to omit Sub-section (e) "that persons are habitually admitted to the privileges of the club who are not members or entitled under the rules of the club to the privileges of members; or" and to substitute for it the words in his Amendment as one of the grounds for striking a club off the register.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out lines 29 to 31, and to insert 'that persons who are not members are habitually admitted to the club for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor; or.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD BELPERsaid he would accept the Amendment if the word "merely" was inserted after the word "club."
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER,would not resist the insertion, although he thought such a word as "merely' would to some extent spoil the Clause. For example, a man might urge that, it' he sat down, he had gone into the club to rest, and not "merely" for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved the insertion of an additional ground for striking a club off the register, and said it was undeniable that off-supply at some clubs was much abused.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 12, line 39, after Sub-Section(h) to insert as a new Sub-Section,(i) that abuses have arisen from the supply of intoxicating liquors to members on the premises for consumption off the premises"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD BELPERsaid this Amendment was covered by one of the sub-sections dealing with the proper management of the club.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses and Schedule agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. [No. 158.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.