Sitting of 22 July 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
ROYAL ASSENT.

  COMMISSION.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and being returned—
  MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to a number of Bills (see page 877).

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAIL WAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  FLEETWOOD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That in the case of Fleetwood Urban District Council Bill, as amended, Standing Orders223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  (King's Consent signified); Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMA TION (No. 1) BILL [LORDS].
  Read a second time and committed.
  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMP STEAD RAILWAY (No. 1 AND No. 3) BILL [LORDS], AND CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAIL WAY (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway (No. 1 and No. 3) Bill [Lords], and Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway (No. 2) Bill [Lords], that they have power if they think fit, to consolidate the said two Bills into one Bill.—(Mr. Bartley.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—

  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,

  West Ham Corporation Bill,

  Newport Corporation Bill,

  North-Eastern Railway Bill,

  894

  London and North-Western Railway Bill,

  North Metropolitan Tramways Bill,

  Croydon and District Electric Tramways Bill,

  Metropolitan Railway Bill.

  London County Council (General Powers) Bill, with Amendments.

PETITION.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Gloucester; Northwich; Golcar; Bradford; London; Manchester (two); Longsight; Gorton; and Leeds; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Devonport; Bangor; Middleton St. George; Carlton le Moorland; Bridgwater; and Exeter; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return for the quarter ended 30th June, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings during the month of March, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAINING COLLEGES (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 25th June; Mr. Boland]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Copy presented, of telegrams concerning the siege of Ladysmith [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a light railway in the West Riding of the county of York from Holmfield to
  895
  Southowram (Holmfield and Southowram Light Railway Order, 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a light railway in the counties of Kent and Surrey from Orpington to Tatsfield (Orpington, Gudham, and Tatsfield Light Railway Order, 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1806.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the rural district of Halesowen, in the county of Worcester (Halesowen Light Railways (Extensions) Order, 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  India—Chiefship of Kythal, Punjab.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Phulkean Bhaikean family are alleged to have been wrongfully deprived of the chiefship and principality of Kythal of the Cis Sutlej territory of the Punjab in the years 1843 and 1847; and will he explain on what ground the Government of India decline to restore to Sirdar Bhai Shamshere Singh, the present representative of the Kythal chiefs, the territory claimed by him.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I am aware of the allegation stated in the Question put by the hon. Member. In the Return, East India (Kythal), ordered by the House to be printed on the 24th of April, 1896, the facts are fully set forth, and I have nothing to add to my predecessor's decision, printed as No. l3 in that Blue-book.

  Tents for District Officers on Tour in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government
  896
  of India have yet considered the expediency of superseding the large tents used by district officers on tour in India by the more economical and handier Swiss Cottage and Cashmere tents.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have no information on the subject of the hon. Member's Question.

  Naval Lieutenants on Coastguard Service Pay, Visiting Allowance, Income Tax.
  MR. ARCHDALE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the fact that, by the new scale of pay, lieutenants employed in coastguard service are placed at a disadvantage with lieutenants of equal rank in other employment, owing to income tax being now charged on all their pay, whereas formerly visiting allowance was not subject to income tax; and will he take steps to relieve these officers of this charge.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The hon. Member is evidently under a misapprehension. The visiting allowance of lieutenants appointed to the coastguard on or before the 1st of April, 1902, is not affected by the changes in the pay of senior lieutenants in the Royal Navy, and therefore these officers are in exactly the same position as formerly as regards exemption from income tax. Lieutenants appointed to the coastguard since that date will draw a reduced visiting allowance not subject to income tax, but it is not considered that they are thus placed at a disadvantage with lieutenants otherwise employed, the whole of whose pay is liable to income tax.

  South Africa—Censorship.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state on what grounds a private telegram, sent by Mr. Alfred Willis to his son at Brockburg, Transvaal, was refused at the General Post Office on 17th July on the ground of censorship; and how long this censorship is to continue.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) When the telegram in question, which was addressed to Boksburg (not Brockburg) was handed in, the restrictions

  897
  on telegrams for the Transvaal prohibited the acceptance of any addressed to Boksburg. These restrictions have now been removed, and the telegram has accordingly been sent to its destination.

  Local Loans—Rates of Interest.
  COLONEL NOLAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state what is the lowest rate of interest which has been charged to any harbour authority or local body in Great Britain on any loan advanced from the Treasury of the Exchequer.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The hon. and gallant Member's Question is presumably intended to refer to loans advanced out of the Local Loans Fund by the Public Works Loans Commissioners. The interest on loans advanced to local bodies on the security of the rates is fixed from time to time by Treasury Minute with reference to the terms on which the Government can borrow, and the currency of the loan. The lowest rate which has been fixed for loans to local authorities, and this rate applied to harbour loans where the security of local rates was forthcoming, was 2¾ per cent., fixed by Treasury Minute after the passing of the Public Works Loans Act, 1897. But that minimum rate has since been raised to 3¼ per cent., which is now the lowest rate for such loans. Where the loans are not guaranteed by the local authorities the rates are higher.

  China—Likin Duties.
  MR. WYLIE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what proposal has been received from Sir James Mackay regarding the Likin system which are to be submitted in this country and in China.
  (Answered by Viscount Cranborne.) The scheme which has been received from Sir James Mackay deals very fully with the difficulties of the Likin system; but as the proposal is still under consideration my hon. friend will no doubt forgive me if I make no statement in regard to it at the present moment.

  Education Election Orders.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with reference to the suggestion addressed to School Boards that, in the event of their term of office expiring before the 26th March, 1903, an election may be avoided by omitting the nomination of candidates, so that the existing School Boards would remain in office, whether in such case School Boards will be required to pay full fees to the returning officers for an unopposed election.
  (Answered by Sir John Gorst.) As the Board of Education must issue the election order, the returning officer will be entitled to his fees on unopposed election scale.

  Precautions Against Liver Fluke.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the present climatic conditions, the Board will issue leaflets in English and Welsh explaining the causes which produce liver fluke, and the precautions to be taken against that disease.
  (Answered by Mr. Hansbury.) If I find that the information available as to the causes of liver fluke and as to the precautions to be taken against it is sufficient to justify the issue of a leaflet, one shall be prepared and issued without delay.

  Galway Irish Interpreter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, owing to Galway city being merged in the county by the Local Government Act, the interpreter of Irish has lost the emoluments he received from the town grand jury, and is obliged to do for nothing work for which £25 a year was previously paid; and will he consult the Recorder of Galway on the matter, with a view to this extra remuneration, if found equitable, being paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The present interpreter was not an "existing" officer within the meaning of Section 109 of the Local Government Act of

  899
  1898, in as much as he was not appointed until March, 1901. Moreover, the amalgamation of the city with the county of Galway took place in January, 1900. There are no grounds, therefore, for considering that he has any claims for compensation as suggested.

  Imperial Yeomanry—Case of Robert Edmondson.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. Robert Edmondson, formerly sergeant-major 35th Company Imperial Yeomanry, 11th Battalion, who was detained under arrest from 1st July, 1900, to 5th February, 1901, in South Africa, without any crime being placed against him and without his being tried for any offence, as required by the King's Regulations; and whether any steps are in contemplation against the officers responsible for the man's detention.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) My attention has been drawn to the case of Edmondson. As the case will probably be the subject of legal proceedings, I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to it.

  Return of Troops—Second Essex Regiment.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the Second Essex Regiment which is now in South Africa has been on foreign service for twenty years, he will arrange that the regiment is brought home at the earliest opportunity.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The roster of units for home is at present being considered, and the long foreign service of this unit will not be lost sight of.

  Remounts—Purchases in Hungary, Australia and America.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that the Commissioners to investigate locally the proceedings of the remount purchasing commissions in Hungary, Australia, and America were
  900
  appointed owing to doubts as to the conduct of the officers composing those purchasing commissions, and that direct accusations have been made against those officers, will he, as the reports received from the investigating Commissioners are not to be published at present, take further action in the matter at the earliest opportunity; and, if so, state what such action will be.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am afraid that I have no further information at present to add to that which I have already given the hon. Member on this subject.

  South Africa—Medals, etc., for Nurses.
  MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS: To ask the Secretary of State for War what medals or rewards have been given to nurses for service in South Africa; whether these have been conferred upon trained nurses who served as volunteers, as well as upon Army nurses; and, if not, upon what grounds a distinction has been made.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) May I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 20th February last to a Question put on this subject by the hon. Member for North Cumberland.†

  Netherlands Railway—Arrears of Interest.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government will pay the arrears of interest due on the Netherlands Railway, having regard to the fact that both principal and interest were guaranteed by the late Transvaal Republic, and duly paid up to 1st October 1900, and that His Majesty's Government took over the said railway.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) His Majesty's Government are not prepared to make any statement at present.

  Post Office Buildings—Inspection under Factory Acts.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office has arranged to permit the inspection of
  †See (4) Debates eiii., 581.

  901
  post office buildings by Factory Act officials when such inspection is considered necessary; whether the Postmaster General will direct that upon the staff making complaints in writing with reference to the sanitary condition of the buildings in which they work, an inspection will take place, and the result be communicated to the men concerned.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The Postmaster General has made an arrangement with the Home Office under which he is able, if he considers it necessary, to avail himself of the services of a factory inspector, in dealing with any question whether a post office building fulfils the conditions of the Factory Acts, and he has already done so. Every complaint made by the staff as to the sanitary condition of a post office building is thoroughly investigated, but the Postmaster General cannot undertake to call in a factory inspector every time a complaint is made.

  South Africa—Repatriation of Boer Prisoners.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to lay upon the Table the Estimate for the repatriation of the Boer prisoners, and when he proposes taking the discussion upon it.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) No separate Estimate will be laid. Transports provided for out of Army funds will be utilised for the purpose both of repatriating prisoners and bringing back troops.

  Johannesburg Mines—Native Labour —Arrest of Five Natives.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the circumstances which led to the arrest of the native chiefs at Johannesburg at the beginning of this month; how many chiefs were arrested, what was the charge preferred against thorn, and by whom; whether the chiefs have been brought to trial, and with what result; whether an attempt was made to release them; and, if so, by whom was such attempt made; what then took place, and did any bloodshed or loss of life ensue; and whether instructions have been given to the
  902
  authorities in the Transvaal that no aid is to be given, directly or indirectly, to procuring forced labour for the mines or any other form of industry.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I am informed that a number of natives employed by Gendennuis Estate Mine were brought up under Master and Servant Act. The five ringleaders, who had been instigating others not to work, were sentenced to one month imprisonment with hard labour. There was some excitement among the natives, but Lord Milner states that there was no loss of life, no bloodshed, and no resistance either before or after the arrest. The policy of His Majesty's Government, which is against forced labour, is made clear in the Parliamentary Paper Cd. 904; and I have no reason to suppose that anything in the nature of forced labour prevails at Johannesburg.

  (2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    South African Settlement.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he expects to make a further statement as to the progress of the settlement in South Africa, and when it is intended that full information should be made available for the public by the removal of the censorship.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I apprehend that this matter will best be discussed on the Colonial Office Vote, and I suppose it will be convenient for the Committee and for my right hon. friend that that Vote should be taken some day next week.

    Remounts—The Studdert Case.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any decision has yet been taken as to a prosecution in the Irish Remounts case.
    The following Question also appeared on the Paper—
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State

    903
    for War if he will state whether Colonel St. Quentin is the Member of the Imperial Yoemanry Committee, whose duty it was to inspect the remounts for the South African War, who made the arrangement with Major Studdert for the purchase by him of horses in Ireland for the South African War; and will he say why Colonel St. Quentin was not called as a witness at the trial in Dublin of the Secretary of State for War v. Studdert and others.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): This question is being considered by the Law Officers of the Crown. Pending the receipt of their advice, I cannot answer the Questions addressed to me by the hon. Member for South Donegal.
    MR. SWIFT MACNE1LL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he was aware of the terms under which the action of the Secretary of State for War v. Studdert, for fraudulent breach of contract as agent and trustee, was compromised by the Solicitor General for Ireland, as counsel for the War Office, and did he personally assent thereto; and if so, will he state the grounds on which his assent was based.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Solicitor-General had full power to take what course he thought proper in this case. He took the course he did, and has not in any way bound the Government as to further proceedings.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question. Did he personally assent to this compromise?
    MR. BRODRICK: I am not prepared to go further into the matter. Full power was given to the Solicitor General to act on behalf of the War Office.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman now kindly make the statement which he promised on Thursday last that he would make in reference to this transaction?
    MR. BRODRICK: I have given the hon. Member all the information it is in my power to give.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is not the "full statement" you promised.
    MR. FLAVIN: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman keep his promise?

    National Scouts—Enlistment in the S.A. Constabulary.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government in South Africa are employing, or intend to employ, the Boers who joined the National Scouts for police or other duties in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony.
    MR. BRODRICK (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): Lord Milner reports that a very large number of burghers have applied for enlistment in the South African Constabulary, and that he has taken on between two and three hundred of them, very carefully selected. About half of those are National Scouts who have borne a good character in that force. The rest are men who have recently surrendered, and who are vouched for by the Boer generals.

    Terms of Peace—Vereeniging Resolutions.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the (Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table copies of the Vereeniging Resolution of the Boer delegates stating the grounds on which they accepted the terms of peace; Lord Kitchener's speech to the delegates at Vereeniging; the letter of Louis Botha and Schalk Burger to the burghers; Lord Kitchener's message of thanks to the Boer Commanders and the King's message; and other papers throwing light on the circumstances accompanying and following the signing of the terms of peace in South Africa.
    MR. BRODRICK (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): My right hon. friend is about to lay printed Papers, and he will consider whether he can properly publish the documents referred to in the Question.

    Lord Milner and the Johannesburg Mines.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table

    905
    a full Report of the statement made by Lord Milner to a deputation from the Chamber of Mines of Johannesburg, which statement was referred to in a discussion in the Chamber on 19th June.
    MR. BRODRICK (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): No such Report has yet reached my right hon. friend; when it does, the question of laying it on the Table of the House will be considered.

    Soldiers War Gratuities.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that a number of reservists and other soldiers will be soon arriving home who are entitled to gratuities and other payments, in order to prevent this money being squandered if paid at once, he will consider the advisability of arranging for payment to be made through the post office in the locality where the man decides to take up his abode.
    MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member is evidently unaware that his suggested arrangement is the present rule of the service.

    Age Regulations for Volunteers.
    MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Colour Sergeant James Roy, of the 2nd Volunteer Battalion Scottish Rifles, who has been certified as having thirty years efficient service, and has been present at every company and battalion drill during that period (excepting only one battalion and one company drill), and has been present in every camp of instruction attended by the regiment during the past thirty years, was, under an order issued in the 26th and 71st Regimental District, N.B., refused the privilege of having an application considered for an extention of service in terms of Article 154 of the Volunteer Regulations; whether he is aware that although Colour Sergeant Roy had not made any application for his discharge, he received a discharge bearing to be granted at his own request and to be issued in accordance with the provisions
    906
    of the seventh section of The Volunteer Act, 1863; and, whether he will take steps that Colour Sergeant Roy may have the question of his further continuance of service considered in terms of Article 154 of the Regulations for the Volunteer Force.
    MR. BRODRICK: The retention of Volunteers after fifty years of age rests entirely with the Commanding Officer of the Corps and the Officer Commanding the Regimental District, with whose discretion in the matter I am not prepared in any way to interfere.
    MR. CALDWELL: But, notwithstanding the regulation, consideration of the request has been refused by the Commanding Officer.

    Chatham Naval Store housemen.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, seeing that a petition from the Store housemen of the Naval Store Office at Chatham has been under consideration for the past three years, will he state when a reply to the petition may be expected.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The petition referred to raised questions of status and pay affecting the storehouse staff at all the naval establishments, and it was therefore impossible to deal with the case of Chatham, except as part of a large question of re-organisation. The matter is receiving careful consideration, but the Admiralty are not yet in a position to announce any changes in the existing clarification and pay of the storehouse staff.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Is the consideration likely to take three years more?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Gibraltar—Anglo Spanish Relations.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the statements in the Liberal and the Correspondencia Militar relative to proposals for erecting fortifications on the Spanish territory encircling Gibraltar, and to the relations of

    907
    Spain with England, in connection with General Weyler's forthcoming inspection of Mediterranean coasts; can he state whether there are any, and if so what, outstanding questions with Spain as to the Mediterranean, and especially whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to entertain or initiate proposals to come to any such friendly understanding with reference to Gibraltar as would provide, on the one hand, against the erection of fortresses over against Gibraltar by Spain, and, on the other hand, against contingencies involving the defence of Gibraltar by British military operations on the adjacent Spanish territories.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): His Majesty's Government are aware of the newspaper articles referred to. There are no outstanding questions with Spain as to the Mediterranean. I venture to think that it is not for the public interest that such subjects as those to which the concluding part of the hon. Member's question refers should be discussed by means of questions and answers in the House of Commons.

    Pembrokeshire Hunt Hounds.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEY; I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Agricultural Department received information at the beginning of this year that rabies broke out among the hounds of the Pembrokeshire Hunt; and will he explain why, under the muzzling order issued for South Wales in consequence of this outbreak, the owners of the hounds of the Pembrokeshire Hunt and other sporting dogs in South Wales were not treated in the same way as the owners of other dogs.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): The answer to the first paragraph is yes. The hounds of the Pembrokeshire Hunt, so far from being treated with exceptional leniency, have all been confined to the kennels by special notice, since the beginning of February.

    Argentine Beef Trade.
    MR. BULL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, having regard to the present high price of beef, and to the fact that the Argentine Republic is stated to be free from foot and mouth disease, if he can state when the trade in beef will be allowed to be resumed from that country.
    MR. HANBURY: The withdrawal of restrictions against the importation of Argentine cattle must depend upon the Argentine Government adopting regulations, which in my opinion would be likely to safeguard their country against the introduction of disease, and afford security for a steady trade between this country and the Argentine. I am at present in communication with the Argentine Government on this subject.

    Scottish Deer Forests Return—Applecross Forest.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, seeing that the last Deer Forest Return issued by the Crown Agent for Scotland was prepared on information obtained from the assessors, will he state whether the assessor for Ross and Cromarty ever visited the Forest of Applecross, and, if so, when; and, in view of the fact that this forest is stated in the Return to contain no more than 37,000 acres, will the assessors be recommended to test the accuracy of any information they may receive in regard to the area of deer forests, by personal inquiry on the spot.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer this Question. I am not aware whether the assessor for Ross and Cromarty visited the forest of Apple-cross or not; but as the question of area is no criterion as to value in the case of a deer forest, I see no reason for any recommendation on the subject.
    In reply to a further Question by Mr. WEIR, Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY said the value of a deer forest was based on the number of stags killed.
    MR. WEIR: And what is the value put on each stag?

    Port of Ness Harbour.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that, in order that the harbour of Port of Ness, Island of Lewis, which wag constructed out of a Government grant, should be rendered of service at the earliest possible date, 150 of the fishermen have recently expressed their willingness to give six days free labour each to assist in the removal of the accumulated sand; and, in view of this offer, will the Congested Districts Board endeavour to arrive at an early decision in regard to the application which was made to them some time since relative to the removal of the sand during the summer months.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed that an offer has been made on behalf of 140 fishermen to each give six days free labour, to begin on 1st October next. The Board will arrive at as early a decision as possible in the difficult and complicated situation of this case.

    Female Training Colleges in Dublin.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the average annual cost per pupil in the female training colleges in Kildare Street and in Baggot Street, Dublin, respectively; and, seeing that it would be impossible, without serious loss, for these colleges to pay interest and sinking fund on their loans, will he state on what grounds it is proposed for the training colleges at Limerick, Belfast, and Waterford to defray this charge.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I am not yet in a position to give the information desired in the first part of the Question. When received, I will communicate it to the hon. Member. In respect to the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to my reply to the similar inquiry of the 24th June.†
    MR. JOHN REDMONDwas understood to ask whether institutions of enormous importance such us these were to be ruined by the refusal of a paltry sum of £3,000.
    †See (4) Debates, eix., 1518.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask for notice of that Question. It is a matter of arrangement with the Treasury.

    Police Pensioners as Prison Warders.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many police pensioners are employed as warders in Irish prisons; whether, before qualifying for pensions, they were declared unfit for further service in the police; whether it is intended to make any further appointments from the same class; and whether the Prisons Board intend to adopt a system of examinations for promotions in the prison service.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Three pensioners, declared to have been unfit for further service in the police force, are employed as warders in the Prisons Service. Before they were taken into the latter service they satisfied the Civil Service Commissioners and the Prisons Board of their fitness for the position of warder. Further similar appointments will be made as opportunities occur. All permanent warders undergo examination before appointment. The present system, whereby the best men are promoted by selection, works thoroughly well, and it is not proposed to alter it.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say how it is that policemen who are declared unfit for further service are declared fit for service as prison warders?

    Naas Registry Office.
    MR. LEAMY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the registry of births, deaths, and marriages in the workhouse of the Naas Poor Law Union consists of two rooms, an inner and an outer room, the inner room being a strong closet in which filled-up registers are deposited, the outer room only being used by the master and other officials of the union for the transaction of official business; and whether, seeing that the registration inspector has reported that the use of this outer room by the master and

    911
    other officials causes no inconvenience; and that its use by them will be discontinued should the room be required for registration purposes, in order to avoid the unnecessary expense of building new offices for the master, &c., the Registrar General will reconsider his decision and allow the room to be used as hitherto under the control of the Guardians.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I replied very fully to a Question put by the hon. Member on this subject on the 30th June.† To that reply I have nothing to add, except to say that the Inspector has not reported to the effect alleged.

    Royal Hibernian Academy.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that the question of what can be done to improve the position of the Royal Hibernian Academy is now engaging the attention of the Government, whether the Government is in communication with the corporate body of the Royal Hibernian Academy, and is in full possession of its stated claims to be placed on a footing similar to that conceded to the Royal Scottish Academy in the interests of living and contemporary art culture in Scotland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to this Question is in the affirmative.

    Scottish Deer Forests—Inaccurate Returns.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will impose penalties on owners of deer forests who fail to furnish the assessors with accurate information in regard to the area of forests, or on other points on which information is required for valuation purposes.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The deer forests are not valued in respect of their acreage. The Valuation Acts already provide under the exaction of penalties for the furnishing of such information as is necessary for the purposes of valuation. There is not, as I am advised, any necessity for legislation on the subject.
    † See preceding volume, p. 303.

    Imperial Defence.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: On behalf of the noble Lord the Member for Woolwich, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the attention of the Government has been given to the need for some re-enforcement of intellectual equipment for directing the forces of the Empire, and for better preparation in advance with regard to the defence of the Empire; and will he state what steps will be taken to remedy the alleged deficiencies in these respects.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be delighted in any way to increase intellectual equipment in connection with this or any other subject.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman has not said what steps he will take in that direction.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The field is already open to such talent as may be available.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now give the House a clear and more definite idea of the business for each day until August 8th. I may take the opportunity of recalling to the right hon. Gentleman's recollection the fact that there is a vote for excesses in the Army Estimates of the previous year which was put off in order that it might be considered by the Public Accounts Committee. That has now been done, and I wish to know when the opportunity for the discussion of this Vote which the right hon. Gentleman has promised will be given.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman is probaby aware that on March 3rd the Vote was withdrawn on my representation. I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will afford an opportunity for its consideration, as it has not yet been discussed.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I at the same time ask what the Government proposes to do with regard to the money for the repatriation of the Boer prisoners, and whether a day will be given for the consideration of the matter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer the last Question. There are fourteen days still remaining, including today, before the House will adjourn for the recess. There will be eleven afternoon sittings, eleven evening sittings, and three Fridays. Five days must be devoted to finishing the Estimates, and I shall have to find an evening sitting for dealing with the Supplementary Estimate referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. Next Friday has been given for the discussion of the financial relations between Ireland and England; there will have to be opportunities for discussing the Appropriation Bill and the Motion for the holidays. In spite of all these obligations, it ought to be possible to find an afternoon and an evening sitting for the London Water Bill, and three whole days more, including today, for the Education Bill, which I hope, will be ample to finish the Clause on which we are now engaged. I also hope to find opportunities of advancing the two Irish Bills of which mention has been made, and also the Food and Drugs Bill, which I believe to be non-controversial. For these purposes it will be necessary to suspend the twelve o'clock rule at the end of the month, but it may be some consolation to hon. Members to know that this will be done at a later period than has been customary for many years past.

    South Africa-Courts Martial Commission.
    MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a matter of urgent public importance — namely, the impending departure from England, four days before the long vacation, of the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Bigham, which, in the opinion of many, amounts to a gross dereliction of duty and a grave public scandal.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must surely be aware that that is a matter which cannot be discussed on a Motion for the adjournment of the House. It has frequently been ruled that a Motion affecting the conduct or character of His Majesty's Judges cannot be discussed on a Motion for adjournment.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Joseph Devlin, esquire, for the County of Kilkenny (North Kilkenny Division).
    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
    Ordered, That three additional days be allotted to the Business of Supply.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour).
  NEW BILL.
    ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
    "To amend the Law with respect to Customs Duties in the Isle of Man,"—presented by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, under Standing Order No. 31; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 283.]

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, line 39, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'or for the use of which any rent is paid by them.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. WHITLEYsaid that in view of the satisfactory statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury on the previous night that any school for which rent was charged would ipso facto become a provided school, and that he would introduce words to make that perfectly clear, he was willing to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment; but before doing so he wished to ask whether on consideration the First Lord had not come to the conclusion that the insertion of the words he had proposed was not the most suitable way of carrying out the undertaking.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said these words could not possibly be inserted, because their insertion here would throw doubt on the construction of the expression "provided" as applied to schools without any qualification in a previous Clause. The twenty-third section of the Act of 1870 made provision for the transfer of schools to a School Board either absolutely or for payment of rent. Where rent was paid it was clear from that section that to the extent to which the use of the school was required by the local authority it was intended to be a school "provided" by the Education Department. That Act was now to be read in conjunction with the Bill under consideration. If the rent charged was a bonâ fide rent, it was beyond all controversy that the school would be in every sense of the term a school provided. There might, however, be cases where a merely nominal rent might be charged by some one practically providing the school. It deserved to be considered whether a definition was not required to determine whether a school provided on these terms was to be deemed a school provided by the local authority. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the statement he had made.
MR. WHITLEYsaid it was difficult for a non-legal mind to follow the whole of what had been said, but so far as he could gather, the statement of the Attorney-General was not altogether in accordance with the First Lord of the Treasury's statement on the previous evening, which clearly was that the charging of the rent would ipso facto make a school a "provided" school. The question of a nominal rent had now been introduced; but who was to decide what amount of rent was nominal? Suppose a rent of £40 was charged on a building which cost £2,000. That was not a commercial rent, but yet it was substantial, and he held that the owners of the school should not be allowed to retain all the privileges of private managers. He did not think any solution of the difficulty could be more satisfactory than the one they understood the First Lord to agree to on the previous night, and before withdrawing his Amendment he would like to hear other opinions.
MR. JAMES HOPEthought the Amendment in admissible, because it would practically prohibit the managers of a day school from letting to the local education authority for evening classes. He could not believe that that was the intention of hon. Members opposite.
MR. McKENNAsaid it had been stated over and over again that the majority of the school managers and the appointment of teachers could not be given in the case of schools not provided by denominations but only rented to the public. The First Lord of the Treasury had made a clear and definite statement that a school for which rent was paid was ipso facto a provided school, and he thought they were justified in keeping the right hon. Gentleman to that statement.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that although the matter was complicated there was no real difficulty in it, and there should be no obscurity about this. Hon. Gentlemen appeared to think that the observations of the Attorney-General wore intended to limit his statement. But that was not the case: they rather extended it. If a school was transferred to the local authority under the Act of 1870, then the Bill would not interfere at all. With regard to cases not under the Act of 1870, suppose a schoolhouse were practically let to the local authority for a business rent, evidently that became a provided school. But his hon. and learned friend suggested whether, if only a nominal rent were charged, the question might not be raised whether the school should be deemed to be "provided" or not. They thought it ought to be. If an owner chose to let it to the local authority, in so far as it was let it was subject to all the provisions of this Bill, which transferred educational powers to the local authority. If the school was completely transferred for a peppercorn rent during the whole of the twenty-four hours, that school would be subject to, provided by, and financed by the local authority, and the Cowper-Temple Clause would operate through the whole period. Whether the rent be large or small, excessive or nominal, so

917
long as the local authority paid that rent the school would be provided by the local authority and subject to the incidents of that position.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid an out-and-out transfer was perfectly clear, but take the case of denominational managers who, without any formal arrangement, lease, or document, put down in their accounts £30 as rent. Was that a school provided by the local authority? As an illustration he might mention the case of Preston, where there was a denominational building out of which it was suggested the managers made a profit.
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON: I do not think that such a statement should be made on hearsay. Is the hon. Member going to bring forward evidence in support of it? I deny that it is the case.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there would be no difficulty about proving it in the course of the debate, as one of his hon. friends had got all the facts. There was in Preston a denomination controlling a school for which they got £300 or £400 from the Treasury. They had practically no voluntary subscription, and they charged a certain amount for rent for the use of the building during the time occupied with secular instruction, other portions of the week being used for other purposes. Would that be a school provided by the local authority? Supposing they were dealing with a denomination or church, would the right hon. Gentleman allow an arrangement between the denomination and managers whereby rent was paid? The managers were not identical with the denomination; they were two separate bodies in law. Would the denomination be allowed to charge any amount for rent in their accounts without the school becoming "provided" by the local authority?
MR. ERNEST GRAYwould like to put the question in a different form. Trustees gathered funds from the congregation of a chapel and built a school and let the building to members of the congregation, who became
918
managers; and it was the practice of the managers of the school to pay to these trustees a sum for rent. At the present time this sum was paid either out of voluntary contributions or out of Government grants received by the managers. The question arose for the future, if that rent continued, would the school become "provided by the local authority"? Again, there might be a public company who, having erected a school, played the part of the trustees in the other case and received a rent from the managers. What would be the position there? Yet another case was that of a private individual who built a school hired by managers at a nominal rent, and sometimes rent was received for half of the building. All these points went to show that the subject required careful consideration. He thought the suggestion of the Attorney General that the matter should be postponed was a very wise one.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid these points, whatever their importance, did not arise on the Amendment, in which the point was whether rent paid by a local authority made a school a school provided by the local authority. This was important, because provided schools were under different rules to those for voluntary schools. The question raised by his hon. friend had nothing to do with rent paid by a local authority.
MR. ERNEST GRAY: In future rent now paid from contributions will be paid from the rates.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid if the payment came from the local authority the general rule would apply. There might be, and he was afraid there were, hard cases, but he did not know how they could deal with those. He thought the Committee would get into hopeless trouble if they tried to make an arrangement by which the local authority would pay rent and yet the schools remain voluntary; he did not see how it could be done.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid this question of rent was one of extreme importance. He could not

919
quite follow the right hon. Gentleman. On the 2nd of May last, when he asked if it was competent for the managers of a public elementary school not provided by the local authority to make a charge for school buildings, he was answered in the negative. He was, in fact, told it would be impossible for managers to make any charge for a public elementary school. Now he gathered that they might make a charge subject to the consequences that might follow if the Bill contained a definition in a certain way. It was notorious that large sums had been taken from School Boards by all denominations for rent. No doubt it had often been paid back in the form of the voluntary contribution, but what he wished to call attention to was that every time there had been an addition to public aid, there had been an increase in the rent charged for schools, and this had been mentioned in the Report of the Education Department after the passing of the Voluntary Schools Act. The report ran—
"My Lords have regretted to find that in certain cases, happily not very numerous, a new rent, or an increased rent, has been charged since the passing of the Voluntary Schools Act."
The Parliamentary Return showed that a number of schools, many of them without voluntary contributions at all, made enormous demands on the Education Department for rent. All denominations were offenders in this respect, and especially so the Wesleyans. When the First Lord made the statement that there was to be no charge for rent, the Wesleyans, who were building a school at Leigh in Lancashire, dropped their operations at once and abandoned the scheme. The managers of some of these Schools charged £200, £300, £400 and even £600 a year for the rent of these buildings; and that was true of all parts of the country. And whenever there had been an addition to the Government grants there had been an addition to the rents.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he quite recognised the interest and importance of the point which the hon. Gentleman was discussing, but was it really relevant to the Amendment before the Committee?
920
The Amendment dealt, and dealt only, with the rent paid by the local education authority for the school, small or big as the case might be; but it did not seem to him to have anything whatever to do with the point now being debated by the hon. Member for North Camberwell.
DR. MACNAMARA: But the local education authority will be compelled to pay these rents.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then in that case the schools would become provided schools.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he would sit down at once if he thought that he had departed from the precise point before the Committee. The local education authority would be compelled to pay these rents; and the point he wanted to get clear was would the Government say that the Bill did provide, at some stage, that where the local education authority was charged any rent for the use of the school buildings, that school would be treated as a provided school, and be under the entire control of the local education authority, and would be undenominational in its religious instruction. That was the real issue. He would quote from a Parliamentary Return, giving an illustration of each case. The Talbot Roman Catholic School, Preston, charged a rent of £653 2s., and the voluntary subscriptions amounted to £496 11s., though he must say that the money paid as rent went to improve the school. Then, in regard to the British Schools, there was the case of Grimshaw Street School, Preston, in which the rental charge was £70 and the voluntary contributions £3 3s.
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid that that was not a denominational school.
DR. MACNAMARA: No; but it was a denominational school. Then there was St. Paul's Square Presbyterian School, Preston, which took £48 in rent and there were no voluntary contributions at all. He did not think he need pursue this subject any further, but would refer hon. Members to the report

921
of Mr. Holman, His Majesty's Inspector of Schools, published in the Blue Books a year or two ago. In that report it, was stated that the finances of the Preston schools were absolutely unsound, and ought to be audited by the Public Auditor.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped his hon. friend the Member for Preston would resist the challenge which had been thrown out to him, and not delay the procedure with the Bill by discussing this extraneous question which had been imported into the debate. Everyone was aware that in some cases, and at some places, those concerned with voluntary schools had represented an imaginary rent as the amount of their subscription to the school. But that was a matter between them and the Board of Education. It had been suggested that the statement in the item of rent did not show justly the amount which was contributed to the schools. but that was a hundred miles away from the question which the Committee was now discussing. The question was, what would happen if the local education authority took over the use and control of a school, either for the whole time or a portion of the time during the week? If the local education authority took over the use and control of the school, with or without the rent—the rent was not the important question—to the extent that they acquired the use and control of the school, the Government intended that it should be a provided school. It was so now under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1870; and if, by any arrangement outside that section, the use and control of the school should pass to the local education authority, he suggested to the Committee that the proper way to deal with this point was by definition, when they came to the proper part of the Bill.
DR. MACNAMARA: Will you do that?
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that his right hon. friend had already stated that he thought some definition would probably be necessary upon this point; but I the terms of that definition required very careful consideration. He suggested that the matter should stand over to the proper time.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that not being a lawyer he had not been able to follow the course of the Attorney General's argument; but he understood from the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, that where money was provided by the local authority, either out of the rates or through them from the Education Department, that was taken for the purpose of the rent of buildings during the day school hours, that that was to be considered a provided school. If that were made perfectly clear, he should not think of pressing the particular words he had suggested to a division. But he should like to ask, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee, whether he would put down words on the paper before the adjournment for this part of the Session.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly before the adjournment.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that in that case he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
*MR. YOXALLsaid that the statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury was very satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman had said that his Amendment applied to the provided schools, and to the aided schools as well. But the statement of the Attorney General limited the application to the provided schools. He ventured to say that the Attorney General did not seem to grasp the point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement had reference to the schools, which, being now denominational, were taken over by the local authority, either wholly or partly, during the week, and in that case the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that these schools would be regarded us provided schools, and that any rent charged would cause them to be regarded as provided schools. The question was as to aided schools. The school budget being provided for, partly by the State and partly by the local authority, if any item of economic rent appeared in that Budget, from that moment would the school cease to be a denominational school and become a provided school?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought it would be impossible for the local authority to give any aid of the kind referred to, which was not to be a school provided by themselves; but if they paid a rent for it, then it should become, as he understood it, a provided school, for the hours during which the local education authority had control.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. McKENNAproposed an Amendment, under which any school not provided by the local education authority, and—
"Which is the only public elementary school within a radius of three miles,"
would be treated as a provided school. It had nothing to do with the Amendment of his hon. friend, which dealt with areas. Where there was only one school within a radius of three miles, the parent had no option as to which school he should send his child to. In a town where there were denominational and undenominational schools, it might be reasonable, although he did not agree with it, that the denominational schools should be maintained out of public funds; but where the parent had no option, it appeared to him that the only school available should not be a school of a particular denomination, having the atmosphere of that denomination, and yet paid for wholly out of public funds. It was said yesterday by the First Lord of the Treasury that the local education authority had full control of secular education in these denominational schools. That was, if he might say so, with great respect to the First Lord of the Treasury, a fundamental mistake. It was quite true that the local education authority would have full control in outlining the education to be given; but it was the schoolmaster who would have control over the children; and he was to be appointed, not by the local education authority, but by the school managers. The Bill would give the local education authority the dry bones, keeping the juicy meat for the managers. He submitted that, where there was only one school, and the parents had no option, it was not reasonable that the children should be sent to that school to be taught
924
a denominational creed, or oven if they absented themselves during the period of religious teaching, to be taught in a denominational atmosphere at the public expense. They were entitled to ask for some concession on the point. What were they giving up? He was quite prepared to accept the figures of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were told that the value of the present voluntary school buildings was £22,000,000 sterling. That, at 2½ per cent., worked out at £450,000 a year rent; and, taking the repairs at 33⅓ per cent, of the rent, it meant that the total gift of the voluntary subscribers to the nation amounted to £600,000 a year.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see what this has to do with the three mile limit.
MR. McKENNAsaid he was showing that what was to be given in exchange for a great public expenditure was so small that some concession should be made in eases where the parents had no option. He intended to show what the public expenditure and the voluntary expenditure would really be.
*THE CHAIRMAN: That is the general question which was argued last night. The hon. Member must show some special reason why a school, which was the only school within a radius of three miles, should have exceptional treatment.
MR. McKENNAsaid he was about to say that where the taxpayer paid £10, the voluntary subscriber paid only £1, and the taxpayer did not get what he wanted—and had no chance of getting what he wanted—but he would not pursue that point. Then, again, children would be excluded from becoming pupil teachers unless they belonged to a particular denomination.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that that was a question which would come up later, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not raise it now.
MR. McKENNAsaid he was merely outlying the hardships which would occur when there was only one school. Unless a child, in such a case, belonged to the denomination to which the school belonged, he would be excluded from

925
becoming a pupil teacher. That was a real hardship, and he asked the First Lord of the Treasury to allow parents in such cases full control as to what the denominational training should be. Why should a denominational school belonging to a minority have the patronage of the teaching profession to the exclusion of the children of the majority; and why should a child be taught in a religious atmosphere, to which the parent objected, without giving the parent any control or any option to send the child elsewhere?
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 39, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'and any school not so provided which is the only public elementary school within a radius of three miles.'"—Mr. McKenna.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that no one, he thought, would deny—he would not deny—that the particular case the hon. Gentleman had in view, namely that of a denominational school being the only school within reach of the children in a considerable area, did present a hardship. That was one of the difficulties of the existing system, and would be one of the difficulties even of the system which would be brought into being under the Bill. Everyone who had studied the question knew that that was one of the grievances of Nonconformists; but there was a correlative grievance on the part of members of other denominations, where there was only one board school, in which case, parents could not get the religious teaching they wanted at any cost. That was one of the unfortunate results of their religious divisions. But he would point out that the Bill as drawn would diminish the grievance; because it would permit what was not permitted under the existing law, other schools to be provided of a denominational character by the local authority, or by other religious bodies than the denomination which possessed the only school in the district. Therefore, the Bill would do something, and something very material, to mitigate the evil to which the hon. Gentleman referred; but as long as the Cowper-Temple Clause was insisted on, and as
926
long as denominational schools were maintained, so long would the grievance exist in some form or another on both sides. All that could be done was to diminish it as much as possible; and the Bill did that. He would not refer to the point about pupil teachers, because that was a question which would come up later for discussion. Speaking broadly, the Committee would readily understand that it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment which would result in denominationalising a very large number of denominational schools.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was very glad his hon. friend had raised the question, which was one of the greatest hardships under which Nonconformists suffered. There were 8,000 parishes which would be affected by the Amendment. They contained 9,000 denominational schools, and no other schools; and Nonconformists would be bound to send their children to those schools where the only religious education they could get would be contrary to the doctrines of their own Church.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that even Christians were not always talking about their differences.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that that did not come well from the Leader of the Party that insisted on differences between Christians. Their contention was always that Christiana ought to agree on the teaching to be given in the schools; and they had given pledges of their willingness in that direction. It was because the Party of which the right hon. Gentleman was each a distinguished Leader, had refused to come to an agreement with their fellow Christians and fellow Protestants, that all these differences had arisen. The grievance could be removed without destroying the principle of the Bill. In 8,000 parishes in the country, one of the most honourable branches of the Civil Service was shut against Nonconformist children. There were between 40,000 and 50,000 teacherships in those parishes; and every penny of the salaries attaching to them was paid by the State. Every Nonconformist child was precluded by the deed of trust from entering the teaching profession. It was true, with

927
the consent of the trustees, certain children were allowed to come in, but a thing of this kind ought not to be left to the magnanimity of one sect. In the diocese of Bangor there were 9,500 children in the voluntary schools, of whom 75 per cent, were Nonconformists. What happened in the district? This Bill, instead of relieving, aggravated the grievance. Under the old system one-sixth of the cost of maintenance of these schools fell upon the denominationalists, and if they reckoned in the fabrics as well only one-third. Under this Bill henceforth the denominationalists would only pay one-tenth. The right hon. Gentleman could not make any concession to the Nonconformists in this matter so long as the denominationalists controlled the schools and selected the teachers. The 25 per cent. of church children got a preference to which, by no principle of equity with which he was conversant, were they entitled. In one parish of Bangor there were 110 children, and only one school —a church school—which these children were compelled by law to attend. Eighty of those children were Nonconformists, thirty were Church children. For the last thirty years they had not had a Nonconformist teacher there. He did not suggest they did not take a Nonconformist child and train him up as a teacher, but they did so only on condition that he would become a Church member. Some of the best ministers in Wales at the present time had been bought into the Church in that way. In that parish there was one Church. The Nonconformists had to maintain five chapels. The maintenance of the Church came out of rich tithes, so that the Nonconformists had to maintain it; they were compelled by law to contribute. Therefore in that parish practically the whole burden of maintaining this institution fell upon the Nonconformists and the whole of the management was given to another sect. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was part of the penalty which had to be paid for religious division. Would the right hon. Gentleman point to one civilised country where these divisions exist where the control of the Church schools was given to the minority.
LORD HUGH CECIL: There is Ireland.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In Ireland in the Catholic districts the priest managed the schools; in the Protestants districts the Protestants managed them. Could the noble Lord point out in Ireland a single Protestant parish where the Catholics were in a minority, and where the schools were controlled by the Catholics, or could he point to the converse case?
LORD HUGH CECIL: The hon. Member seems to suggest that I approve of this state of things. I have always acknowledged the grievance.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there was a great chasm between acknowledging a grievance and remedying it. It was in the power of the noble Lord, and he knew it, to bring pressure on the Government to redress this grievance. If the extreme section of the Church party were willing to assist in redressing this grievance, he did not believe the First Lord of the Treasury was the man to stand in the way. Was the noble Lord, since he had acknowledged the grievance, prepared to get up in the course of the debate and say he would assist in redressing it? What would he do? They were entitled to know. Take the case of countries where there was denominational education—where the settlement was on the denominational basis, but where the children were divided in the parish — Holland, Manitoba, Ontario, Victoria, Switzerland, some parishes in Germany. Would he settle this grievance on the basis of any of those alternatives? Or take Quebec, where they had the most effectual denominational education in the Empire, but where, at the same time, there was a perfect system of control. Could the noble Lord point to a single case in the world where this question was settled on the basis on which it was in this country — a basis which did wrong and injustice to perfectly law-abiding citizens? Seventy-five per cent, of the children were ruled out ! And the children felt it. The moment they crossed the threshold of the school they felt their position to be one of subordination and inferiority, and a school was the last place in which such a thing as that should be tolerated.
MR. DILLONsaid he could not support the Amendment, because the effect of it would be to introduce the Cowper-Temple Clause, which he regarded as the concentrated essence of all evil, into the rural schools, thus preventing Episcopalians from obtaining that religious teaching which they desired for their children. It was upon that ground that he objected to the Amendment, but he did not care to allow this, the first time that this particular matter had been discussed, to pass without making an urgent appeal to the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman to devise some scheme for remedying the grievance which it was admitted the Nonconformists had. If a plan could be devised by which this grievance might be redressed without inflicting a grievance upon other people, it would undoubtedly smooth the passage of the Bill and would have some effect in alleviating the bitterness of this discussion. So far as the Irish Catholic Members were concerned, they were prepared to support any plan which remedied that grievance without inflicting any hardship upon others.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid the hon. Gentleman had travelled from China to Peru to discover different methods of settling this question, and had asked him to select one which he thought would be satisfactory. The proper course for the hon. Member, however, was to put down on paper in succession these particular proposals, and then they could judge of the merits in each case. The particular proposal now before the Committee had the disadvantage of not remedying the grievance of which he thought the hon. Member very reasonably complained. The grievance was that there was only one school, and that that school gave a form of religious education which was distasteful to a large part of the population; but under the Amendment that grievance would still exist as long as they had only one school in a district. Supposing the management altered the religious character of the school, then the grievance would be merely transferred to another set of people, and would be just as great.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, it would be a grievance of the minority, instead of a grievance of the majority.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid the hon. Member did not mind the grievance of the minority.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, I did not say that.
LORD HUGH CECIL: The hon. Member had never been prepared to admit that the grievance of Churchmen in resenting a particular form of religious teaching was the same as that of Nonconformists. The true remedy was partly applied in the Bill, which provided for the erection of new schools where there was a religious grievance. The further remedy would be to allow different religious teachers to enter the schools and teach their different beliefs. But the hon. Member never would accept that.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, I would support it.
LORD HUGH CECIL: That Amendment will come on in due course, and I hope then the hon. Member will go into the Lobby to support it.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, if it is done all round.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he looked with terror on the vista opened up, if his noble friend and the hon. Gentleman—those two redoubtable champions—dragged the Committee into a discussion of the broadest aspects of the measure. Before they knew where they were they would be involved in a Second Reading debate. He earnestly trusted the Committee would refrain from that rather trying pleasure. They should as far as possible restrict themselves to the important point now raised, and come to a decision upon it.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he believed the intentions of the Government to deal with this grievance were good, but they were far too elaborate, and that the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for North Monmouth touched the heart of the grievance better than the more elaborate Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, with all its ingenuity. It had been said that the proposal of his hon. friend was unworkable, but his hon.

931
friend was not so wedded to his Amendment but that he was quite prepared, if it was carried, to put down other Amendments in order to carry out his proposal. There would naturally have to be some kind of educational census in the country, and certain scheduled districts. The proposal would not result in the complete remedy of the existing grievance, perhaps, but in a considerable diminution of it. It would place within the reach of the Nonconformists and the Evangelical Protestants such a school as they desired to have. He did not believe in the existence of the Church of England parents about whose grievances they had heard so much. These grievances were but the views of a very narrow section of the clergymen of the Church of England, who were strong and were growing stronger every day in the localities to which the Amendment of his hon. friend applied. Where there was a village with only one school, there the religious difficulty arose, and education suffered in consequence. He believed that if British schools or County Council schools were opened in these villages, the extra cost would be well repaid in its good results.
MR. CHANNINGsaid he thought the question had been happily raised. It was a question upon which a reasonable compromise might be arrived at if the First Lord of the Treasury and the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich would give it their consideration. The First Lord of the Treasury had indicated that his own solution at the present moment would be to allow the local authority to provide small extra schools, the "thirty pupil" schools—Little Bethel schools—to meet the necessities of a certain section of the population. He could not go farther into that question at present than to say that, in the interests of education, he protested against the duplication of schools in the most emphatic way. Most people knew that in the rural districts at the present time, schools were often far too small to be efficient, and where there were now two schools there really ought only to be one. Why could not they treat the single Church School in the rural parish on a somewhat different basis, both from the schools provided by the authority
932
and from the denominational schools, as regarded management? Why could they not interpose a distinct typo of school and make special arrangements for these intermediate schools between the two types? It was absurd to argue from the Catholic schools, which were rarely the single school and stood on a wholly different footing. The Church of England was a national institution, and stood upon a totally different basis, both morally and religiously. So long as the Church remained established all had a claim to share in the schools. His suggestion was that the Government should find a middle ground between the regulations in the provided schools and the powers given to the denominational schools. He thought it would be reasonable to have the same system as had been introduced in Lincolnshire, where they had special Church teaching on special days, and on other days simple Bible teaching, without any distinctive formularies or doctrines which might alienate the sympathies and be offensive to Nonconformists. This system worked admirably, and produced religious peace and good-fellowship in many of the parishes in Lincolnshire. Another method was to give religious teaching during special hours. The suggestion to duplicate the schools and support these reactionary and ill-equipped little schools as a solution of this difficulty was a suicidal policy, educationally and religiously. He appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to try to find some modus vivendi for these rural parishes, where an enormous amount of ill-feeling had been caused in the past; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether they could not find a solution of this difficulty by placing these schools in some intermediate position between the provided schools and the denominational schools.
MR. CHARLES ALLENasked if the Prime Minister was prepared to say that, in a largely predominant Church village with a High Church parson and a Low Church majority of inhabitants, it would be possible for those Low Churchmen to have a school of their own. In his opinion, that would be absolutely impossible. An inquiry must be held by the Board of Education, which was a State Department, which recognised a State Church;

933
and therefore any inquiry held by the Board of Education would raise the whole question of Ritualism, and the Board of Education would be called upon to decide between one branch of the Anglican Church and the other. It would be impossible for the Board of Education to hold any such inquiry. He thought it was most advisable that Clauses 9 and 10 should be amended in the direction he had indicated, and he should cordially support the Amendment.
MR. CAINEsaid he wished to appeal to hon. Members who belonged to the Evangelical Church party, and who held strong views, judging from their public utterances, to support this Amendment. Judging from their speeches, their views were just as strong upon this question as those who sat on the opposite side. At a meeting held in connection with the Church Association at Exeter Hall the chairman (Mr. James Inskip) said—
"The work of the Association was never more needed than today. They were engaged in a great battle against sacerdotalism and sacramentarianism. The Education Bill was introduced to satisfy the High Church party, and was calculated to work great mischief. They were not met to revile their neighbours, but to set up their own banner. They were angry, but they did well to be angry with a righteous anger."
At the same meeting the following resolution was carried, with one dissentient—
"That the prevalence of Romish heresy among a large section of the clergy of the Established Church makes them unfit and untrustworthy guardians of religious education in the schools of the nation, and that no scheme of religious education which leaves to the clergy the determination of what shall be taught in public schools can be satisfactory or deserving of support at the present juncture. The combination of the priests of the Roman and Anglican Churches to monopolise the education of the young, and to capture the board schools, is a danger to the purity of the faith and to the freedom of the English people, and ought to be resisted in the interests of both civil and religious liberty."
In moving this resolution, the Rev. W. R. Mowll said—
"The clergy had, as a body, shown themselves lacking in backbone, knowledge of the times, and power to act. If only the Evangelical party would stand film and shoulder to shoulder, the whole question would soon be dealt with. It was their bounden duty to resist the Bill, and offer it the most strenuous opposition. They should say to the Government, If you intend this Bill to pass, let the Bible, pure and simple, be taught without creed or catechism."
934
He appealed to members of the Evangelical party opposite to get a little backbone into themselves and vote for an Amendment which was on all fours with what they desired equally with the supporters of this Amendment. This proposal seemed to him to be a most reasonable settlement. He should certainly look to the division list with considerable interest upon this Amendment, and he looked to some of the members of the Evangelical party with confidence for support. If they would only vote as a body along with the Liberal Unionist Nonconformists in support of this Amendment, it would have as great an effect as winning the Leeds election next week.
*MR. TREVELYANthought this Amendment was a sort of compromise by which the Government could do something to mitigate the opposition which their proposals had caused. The unfairness in the case of a single school belonging to a denomination where there was no alternative school, was the worst of the evils which this controversy raised. This point was emphasised in a speech delivered by the Colonial Secretary some years ago, in which he pointed out this evil in the voluntary system. There was a village in Cambridgeshire called Toft which had only one denominational school, which was managed by a denominational committee. Half the people in that village were Nonconformists. Two years ago a new clergyman came to that village, and he found in the school a woman teacher who had been there for fifteen years. He quarrelled with her — it was not quite clear on what particular point, but it was supposed to be over a new catechism. The matter was brought before the managers, and they dismissed the teacher. She had given thorough satisfaction to the greater part of the village, and so much were the people pleased with her teaching that they asked her to remain and carry on another school. She consented to do so, although they could not provide a salary for her. There were now two schools running in that village. The point which he wanted to insist upon was that if the managing

935
body had been representative of the whole village, even if they had dismissed that teacher, the people would have said, "Well, after all, it is our representatives who have done it," and there would never have been that split in the village which was now spoiling the friendly feeling between the two sections there. That was the consequence of leaving the management of what ought to be a matter of universal interest in the hands of one section. From another point of view, it was most important that at any rate some of the schools should be managed by the representatives of the people. They were setting up the County Council as the controlling authority, and they were hoping to get an interest in education through the County Council. The only way in which they would excite in the people a permanent interest in education was by giving them the feeling that they could control the schools intimately themselves. That alone would give them an understanding of those higher ideas of policy which were required on the County Council. He, therefore, sincerely hoped that where a compromise could be made by the Government they would attempt to do it in this particular respect.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid this was not a matter on which Irishmen could be expected to give a silent vote. He remembered that in his boyhood in Ireland there was nothing that so much excited animosity, and the feeling of subordination and inferiority of which the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Burghs spoke, as the fact that there was a large number of schools in Ireland, richly endowed and greatly patronised by the authorities, the purpose of which was to proselytise the children of Catholic parents, and entice them away into the religion of Englishmen and Protestants. When hon. Members brought before the Committee cases in which was the suspicion, and in some cases, he was afraid, the well-grounded suspicion, that the resources of the State were being given to a particular sect or school for the purpose of seducing children into the religion of that school, the sympathies of every
936
Irishman must naturally be evoked on behalf of the Nonconformists. The hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs had made a statement founded on his own experience. Was there any hon. Gentleman opposite who would regard it as a just and tolerable state of things that there should be eighty children of Nonconformist parents out of 110 in a school, and that the entire management of the school should be in the hands of the sect which was in a minority? That was a state of things which no Irishman could be expected to support. From the moment the Bill was brought in, the Irish Members gave fair warning to the Government that they would support the Nonconformists in the endeavour to get this grievance remedied, so far as principle would admit. The grievance was admitted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was admitted by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, whom he took as representing the high-water mark of Church feeling on the subject. The noble Lord's answer was that they had no remedy for it. That was a position of impotence which no Government ought to take up when dealing with so supreme and vital a question as national education. He put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether, when they were beginning a new chapter in education, and in the Christianity of the country, they could have a worse thing than the fierce religious warfare illustrated by the case to which the hon. Member for the Ellon Division referred. It was not for him to say whether the threats of violent action which some of the friends and supporters of the Nonconformists in the country had uttered would be realised, but what was evident to every man in this House was that, unless some compromise was made on this question, there would be a great deal of religious feeling and animosity aroused, and he would have no respect for the Nonconformists if they did not revolt against the oppression which was proposed. This question affected 8,000 parishes. The Prime Minister had said that the effect of the Amendment would be to undenominationalise all the Church schools in these parishes. His own interpretation of the Amendment was that the effect of it would practically be to exclude from all those denominational schools

937
denominational teaching, and to substitute there for what was roughly called the compromise under the Cowper-Temple Clause. That was anathema, maranatha to the Catholic Church. The Bishop of Raphoe was a tolerant and high-minded ecclesiastic of the Catholic Church, who would be as much inclined to sympathise with Nonconformists as any of them, but he had heard him say that he would sooner have an extreme form of Protestantism taught in a school than the form of religion which came under the Cowper-Temple Clause. It was unfair to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept the Amendment. It was for the State physician to prescribe what should be done, and not a simple member of the Opposition; but this he did say—that the Nonconformists of this country were entitled to demand that a clear and broad distinction should be made, between localities where the parents had a choice of schools, and localities where they had no choice. That was a proposition which would get the universal assent of the House. A parent who had only one school to which he could send his child was in an entirely different position from the parent who had a choice of schools. He would not deal with the objection which might be urged that a certain number of Nonconformist parents had the right to call for and get the establishment of a school representing their views. The multiplication of small schools would, he thought, be a great disadvantage. He had put before the Committee the general principle. It was not for him to suggest to those in charge of the Bill in what particular way that principle could be carried out. He was clear in his own mind that the Nonconformists had a legitimate grievance, that that grievance had met with an impotent answer, and that that grievance reached its maximum when the Nonconformist parents had nothing but a Church of England school to send their children to.
MR. McKENNAsaid that, although the construction of the Amendment, if it stood alone, might be perfectly right, its purpose was to distinguish between schools where the parents had no option and other aided schools.
MR. EMMOTTsaid that the meaning of the Amendment was that a difference should be made between those schools to which all children—Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Nonconformists—must go, and other schools. He ventured to appeal to the Government, as one who had done all he could to arrive at something like a reasonable compromise on this most difficult question, to try and find some means by which those schools should be differentiated from other schools. It was not necessary that the managers of those schools should be preponderatingly chosen by the local authority, or that denominational teaching should be excluded from the curriculum. It was becoming increasingly apparent that the attempt to deal with public schools and denominational schools was not sufficient, for there was the case of the Roman Catholic schools, which, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, should be treated on a different basis. Very often the majority of the children in the single schools were Nonconformists, and if in all the denominational schools a majority of the managers was to be of the opposite denomination from that of the children, the passing of this Bill would only be the beginning of very serious trouble. He agreed on the whole with the hon. Member for Camber-well, not only that this Bill was not meant as a clerical control Bill, but that it would not so work out. The days of one-man management had passed away, or were drawing to an end; and, at any rate, the power of the ratepayers would increase, and the power of the denominational managers would decrease. Seeing that many of the local authorities sympathised with the Opposition and not with the Government, he asked whether there was not a serious danger of reprisals being made. These authorities would have the control of all secular education. They would have the power of building new schools, which he hoped they would not have to do; but with these powers in their hands, he was certain that reprisals would be possible, and it was because he did not wish to see this war carried on under the Bill that he earnestly asked the Government to consider the grievance.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid he wanted to ask, if the management of these 8,000 schools was placed in the hands of denominational managers, by what

939
means did the right hon. Gentleman propose to compel those managers to upset, tolerate, and employ Nonconformist teachers and Nonconformist masters and mistresses? If once complete denominational management and control was established, by what means could this very real grievance be removed? Two or three months ago a person writing a reply to a letter in regard to this question, in behalf of the school management, frankly said: "I am sorry to say that my managers regret being unable to appoint you, because of your being a Nonconformist." Now, this teacher was admitted to possess the highest qualifications for the teaching profession. There were thousands of parish schools where, if denominational management was once established, as it would by the first part of Clause 7, the same thing would happen. There was one other grievance he wished to refer to, although he would not have done so but for the words used by the Prime Minister when he administered a severe rebuke to Members on this side of the House for introducing religious differences. He charged hon. Members with un-Christian feeling by those constant references to religious differences.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: When did I do that?
MR. BROADHURST: In an interruption to the hon. Member for Carnarvon.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid the words which the right hon. Gentleman used were that Christians do not attack each other, or words to that effect. The case he wished to refer to was that of a parish school with no alternative Nonconformist school within ten miles. In that parish school the person charged with the delivery of a Bible lesson, and imparting religious instruction to the scholars, ordered the children of Nonconformist families to stand on one side, and the reason given was that these children were the children of the devil, as they belonged to Nonconformist families. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Those words were used.
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,): Where?
MR. BROADHURST: They would not have been used to the children had it not been known that the parents of those children were dependent for employment on persons who were strongly and wholly of the Church persuasion. It was nonsense to say that a man could maintain an independent position when he had eight or nine little children to provide for.
SIR JOHN GORST: Where were those words used?
MR. BROADHURSTsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would give him his word of honour that he received the information in confidence, there would be no difficulty in saying where and when. If inquiry were to be made it would give away the whole case. [Laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] He did not see where the laughter came in. If hon. Members opposite were earning only 16s. a week, with eight children to provide for, they would not laugh at the chance not only of losing their employment, but in all probability of being driven forth out of the parish without a cottage to cover their head. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council knew of these cases as well as he did. They were not isolated cases, and such things would not be practised with parents who were independent. In nearly all cases the offences were committed against poor labouring people who had not the means of protecting themselves against these insults. And that was why the Nonconformists objected to the control of these schools by the Church party. The Nonconformists had no objection to Church doctrines being taught in the schools. If they shared in the control of the management, they would not object to Church doctrines being taught. He supported the Amendment and he hoped it would be accepted.
MR. TRITTONsaid he would not have troubled the Committee but for the challenge thrown out to any evangelical churchman to get up and speak in favour of this Amendment. The debate had only confirmed the opinion he had long held, that Nonconformists had a most distinct grievance

941
in this matter. That grievance had been admitted on all sides and if he, or any of them, could do anything to allay religious grievances, to soften religious asperities, and to knit together in peace and amity the members of the different Christian Churches, surely it was their duty to do so. He spoke as an evangelical churchman, who had had the privilege for many long years to work in harmony with members of other branches of Christ's Chinch militant here on earth. He saw a most bitter feeling coming up, and he was thoroughly afraid that one of the results of this Bill, if it passed in its present state, would be to accentuate their differences, and, to a considerable extent, to spoil that harmony which he had hoped was increasing. He made a most earnest appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury, to see if he could not do something to meet this acknowledged grievance. If he did not give them some compromise it would do a great deal to quicken and make more easy the passage of the Bill through the House. It would do no harm, he believed, to the Church; it would do a great deal of good to the cause of true religion. He felt so strongly that, if the First Lord did not see his way to hold out a hope of doing something to lessen this serious grievance, he should have to do what he had not yet done on this Bill—vote against the Government.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONdesired to acknowledge the broad-minded spirit of the speech of the hon. Member opposite, and to second the appeal he had made to the First Lord of the Treasury to see if the right hon. Gentleman could not, either now or at some later period, produce some scheme or make some proposal which would eliminate the bitterness of a grievance admitted on both sides of the House. Unless something was done, in this new departure upon education, to do away with this friction, the national system of education would not be improved but quite the contrary. It was quite obvious after what had been said on all sides of the House that there was an admitted grievance, and if the present Government refused to deal with it, it would be the duty of those who succeeded them to do so.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid it was, he felt, impossible for him to add to the force of the speech of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, but he desired to identify himself in the fullest possible way with the spirit of that speech, and he trusted the Prime Minister would not turn a deaf ear to the appeal made to him from all parts of the House. Speaking for the Irish Party, who in the main had supported the Government in this Bill, he did think their views ought to have some influence with the right hon. Gentleman. They felt most strongly that here was a serious grievance which had not been denied from any part of the House, and for his part it seemed to him that it would be perfectly easy for the right hon. Gentleman, without in the smallest degree imperilling those interests which he had at heart, to propose some compromise which would go a long way towards mitigating a legitimate grievance of a large portion of the people of this country. He earnestly appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to set his mind to the task of devising a compromise which would do something towards remedying this grievance.
SIR MICHAEL FOSTERrose with some diffidence to make a suggestion with reference to the Amendment now before the Committee, because he approached this subject from a different point of view to that of many Members on both sides of the House. He was one of those who had long been convinced that the only, not only logical but sound and satisfactory, way of dealing with their difficulties was to separate secular education entirely from religious education—that the public ought to pay for and control the secular education only, and that the religious education should be paid for and controlled by private sources. In the interest of the schools and also of religion, he would make the school the teacher of tolerance of all kinds of faith and not a source of bitterness and strife. He was told that the view which he was urging was not practicable. The Prime Minister, on Saturday, said the country would not stand it. He accepted the situation, and he accepted it all the more willingly on account of the favour with which he observed the Cowper-Temple

943
Clause was received on both sides of the House. He believed the Cowper-Temple Clause had been called an illogical compromise. He ventured to think it had only been as successful as it had been, because it had also been as illogically carried out. Though he was convinced that every bit of knowledge well and truly taught went to form character, yet he recognised that at the present time the best way of effectively and speedily forming character was to make use of religion, and by religion He meant something based on a definite belief. Unless both secular and religious teaching were made use of, public education would always be halting. The Prime Minister had said that the country would not stand such a system of education as he was in favour of. Well, the suggestion he had now to make to him was this—was he willing to make an experiment by which in the small areas under discussion, which could not be dealt with in other ways, there should be introduced schools which should be controlled by the people, but in which schools, in the absence of any other suitable school, each denomination might give the teaching of its own?
MR. LLOYD MORGANsaid he agreed with the principle laid down by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He had always thought that Nonconformists made a great mistake when they abandoned the system of secular instruction only. He did not believe the day school was the proper place to teach religion, or the master of that school the proper person to teach it. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would agree to accept this Amendment, or make some substantial concession in this direction. If all churchmen spoke as the hon. Member for Norwood spoke, and approached the question in that way, he did not believe that there would be any difficulty in the management of their public elementary schools in any part of the country. Unless something were done to meet the Nonconformists in a fair and reasonable spirit, he believed they would have a controversy such as had not been experienced for a long time past. He pointed out that this Amendment dealt with rural districts, and that it was there that the grievance was a real and
944
a serious one. Previous to the passing of the Act of 1870 these schools were built by the joint effort of Churchmen and Nonconformists. These schools had in some surreptitious manner got into the hands of one religious body, who taught doctrines in the schools which Nonconformists believed to be theologically wrong and politically unsound, and it was proposed by this Bill to perpetuate these grievances. The cleverest of the Nonconformist boys and girls were shut out altogther from the teaching profession unless they became members of the Church. They had either to abandon their profession or sacrifice their religious principles. That was a real and crying grievance which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to remove.
MR. WALLACEhoped it was not imagined that his hon. friend was not prepared to accept changes in the Amendment which would carry out the object which he really desired. Whatever his private opinion of the Cowper-Temple Clause might be, he would not be a party to doing anything indirectly which the House would not wish to do directly. They were not seeking to turn all these schools under the Cowper-Temple Clause. He had great sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for London University, whose view he took to be to have united secular education and separate religious instruction. Their grievance was that there was only one school in a district in which doctrines were taught, to which evangelical Churchmen objected as strongly as Nonconformists.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought the Government had no right to complain of the style and tenor of the speeches, but they did complain of the substance of the criticisms of some of the details put forward in the Bill. He admitted that there was a grievance. He had never denied it since he first spoke on education in that House, which was now many years ago, more years than he cared to remember. He admitted that with regard to schools in some districts, there was reason to fear that there was a real grievance to the Nonconformists. They were told by the

945
hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, that the Government, having admitted the grievance and not remedied it, it was a scandalous admission of legislative impotence. Well, they all knew that there were many ills which should be remedied.
"How small, of all that human hearts endure, That part which laws or kings can cause or cure."
The charge that the Government had shown want of goodwill in this matter was, he thought, unreasonable. There were other grievances which he did not rind hon. Gentlemen on the other side so very anxious to remedy, and in regard to which, no reproach was brought against the occupants of the Treasury Bench. As he understood the matter, the particular weight of the charge was that there was only denominational teaching provided in a great many schools where a large number of children in attendance did not belong to the particular denomination. What remedy was proposed by the Amendment before the Committee? That Amendment apparently met the favour of his hon. friend behind him. He had heard his speech with sympathy, but his conclusion with astonishment. What his hon. friend was going to vote for was an Amendment which absolutely destroyed the denominational character of 8,000 denominational schools. The Amendment, though hardly anybody would have guessed it from the speeches which had been delivered, was that the management of these schools should be precisely the same as the management in schools provided by the education authority. What was that system? The management was one which had no denominational character at all.
MR. Mc'KENNAsaid the system of appointing managers would become the same, but there was nothing in the Amendment which would apply the Cowper-Temple Clause to these schools.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the hon. Member was correct in saying the Amendment did not carry with it the Cowper-Temple Clause, but it would carry with it, the absolute undenominationalisation of the whole school management. It would absolutely
946
exclude managers who would have the power of managing under the trust, and substitute persons appointed by the County Council. To adopt that as a remedy for this grievance which the Committee had had unfolded to them seemed to him the most extraordinary and extravagant course which the Committee could adopt. Gentlemen who did not like the Amendment were, it was said, going to vote for it as a protest. He hoped that would not be the case. The result would be, if they had their way, that an Amendment which they did not approve would be introduced into the Bill, and the Bill would be absolutely destroyed. He was one of those who had always thought that this difficulty might be met by permitting outside denominational teaching of all kinds in the school, if a sufficient number of parents desired it. That was the principle of the Clause which the Government introduced into the Act of 1897, for which they were soundly rated by the Nonconformists, and against which there was a Nonconformist agitation. He had seen some of the pamphlets against that Clause. If anything in any degree on those lines would settle this question, or go any important way towards settling it, well and good. He did not see why there should be any difference between the two sides of the House on that subject. ["With public control or without?"] But that interruption showed that it was not the teaching which was wanted, but an alteration of the management of the schools. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken would be content with the solution which he offered; but the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was not content that the children of Nonconformist parents should have teaching in accordance with the religious opinions of those parents. If that would satisfy him, he thought he could promise him satisfaction. He hoped his hon. friend behind him noticed from the ominous silence which now reigned on the Benches opposite that that was not the solution which they desired, or with which they would be content. It did not satisfy them that when there were a sufficient number of children, those children should be taught the religion which their parents

947
desired them to be taught. What they wanted was to get hold of the schools which now belonged to the denomination, and hand them over to managers who were quite fitted and ought to deal with schools provided by the local authority, but who surely ought not to be given the absolute control, so far as managers had control, of schools provided by special denominations. The issue before the Committee was—would they, or would they not, undenominationalise these schools? It was not, as his hon. friend appeared to think. Would they, or would they not, force down the throats of reluctant children, or the children of reluctant parents, denominational teaching of which they disapproved? That was covered by the conscience Clause. Nor was it a question whether they would provide those children with the teaching of which their parents approved, because that could be managed. He thought the Committee would be most ill-advised if, under the cover of this Amendment, brought forward nominally in the interests of religous toleration, they were to deal with these 8,000 schools in a manner which he was sure was not in conformity with the general wishes of the community.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would have been more satisfactory if it had been less vague, and it would have been less satisfactory if it had not been so sympathetic, and he did not know which of these views to take. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of promising satisfaction to the desire that the children of Nonconformists should not be taught doctrines with which their parents did not agree and should receive the religious education of which their parents would approve. But why had he not given that satisfaction? The whole of the question depended upon the provisions by which that point would be met. The silence on which the right hon. Gentleman commented was due to the fact that hon. Members on that side had never heard of any such intention on the part of the Government, and were at a loss to know what the right hon. Gentleman was going to do. They
948
were anxious to know exactly what would be put before them before expressing their approval. The right hon. Gentleman did not observe that the claim made went beyond the question of religious teaching, and did not, on the other hand, go quite so far as he had tried to frighten the Committee into believing. The claim was not that these schools should be placed wholly under public control; it was that the public voice should be heard in the control of these schools. There was no claim that the schools should be absolutely denominationalised; the claim was that the management should be denominationalised, should be made less of a monopoly of one sect, and that public interest in the locality should be fully represented in the management. He thought his hon. friend the Member for North Monmouth was much to be congratulated on having pointed to this particular case and having shown the way in which it could be dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman had recognised the grievance, but said that it could not be cured by human laws. The grievance had, however, been created by human laws, and he was afraid it could only be remedied by further laws. He trusted, however, that what they had gained from the right hon. Gentleman might not be little. He had stated that He understood the grievance, and had publicly expressed his desire to remove the cause of the grievance. He had promised satisfaction in regard to that part of the question which affected religious teaching. Let him go a little further. Let him recognise that to leave these schools—the only schools to which these children could go—under the hard and fast system of the Bill, would be a gross injustice, and that some way ought to be discovered of meeting a grievance, the existence of which He had candidly and spontaneously acknowledged.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON,said that while the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, in. so far as it was sympathetic, was very satisfactory, it was not really comforting to know that the grievance had been recognised for so long without any practical effort having been made to remove it. The right hon.

949
Gentleman has admitted that the Amendment would not inflict the Cowper-Temple Clause upon denominational schools, and suggested that the Opposition should he satisfied with tin; opportunity for all denominations to teach the children of their members their particular doctrines. But the First Lord thought the arrangement should there come to an end, and described the suggestion that he should go one stop further and accept the principle of public management as absurd and extravagant. That view could not be accepted. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean when he spoke of "undenominationalising" these schools? The only object of securing denominational management in these schools was to secure exclusively denominational teaching, but if the right hon. Gentleman once agreed to abolish that exclusively denominational teaching, on what ground could he seek to have exclusive control or management? Public control could do no harm to the rights of the denominational system in the schools. The right hon. Gentleman had taunted them with being silent in regard to this matter. One of the most important grievances was that in the schools which these children were compelled to attend, the doors were practically closed to them with regard to the teaching profession. What they sought to introduce into this Clause was that the management should be public and that the door should no longer be closed to those children. That was why the control should be public. The management should be public so that they might have for all children and teachers an equal chance for all denominations. He did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should taunt them with silence in this matter, when they were insisting upon public control and equal opportunities for all.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought it would be a great pity if this House and the country was left in ignorance of what the views of the Government were upon the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded. The hon. Member who had just spoken had dealt with denominational teaching and management, but he thought those questions might be dealt with separately. The right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that
950
there was another method of dealing with the grievance in regard to denominational teachers, and he said that he saw his way to give them satisfaction upon that point. But why should they not now know what the views of the Government were upon that question? He thought it would be a great pity if this afternoon they did not have some definite idea of what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he said that He recognised the grievance in a country village that children could only receive one form of denominational teaching, and that they could not receive that form of religious teaching which the parents—who might form a majority of the parish—might desire. That was the feeling which was very extensive throughout the country, and it was one of the great sources of bitterness in this controversy. He was aware that they would have frequent opportunities of dealing with this question of denominational management, but, in his opinion, it would be an immense advantage in dealing with this measure if they knew what the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind as the solution, which he regarded as satisfactory, in reference to denominational teaching, and which might meet the views of hon. Members who were not members of the Church of England. It had been rightly pointed out that this was a grievance which was felt, not merely by Nonconformists but also by members of the Evangelical Church. It was a grievance of a very real character, and it was the source of all the friction in this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind some method of removing that grievance, it would be a very great relief to people, not only in this House but also in the country, if the Government would state their views upon it. They might, at any rate, partially redress the injustice if they wore not prepared to remove the whole of it. He felt sure that the First Lord of the Treasury would not be unwilling to listen to the appeal that he should let the Committee know how far he would go in this direction. Having admitted the existence of this grievance in frank and sympathetic tones, and having told the Committee that, as regarded a portion of that grievance he was prepared to deal with it, the right hon. Gentleman should now go further, and at this very critical period of the Bill at which much might; be determined as to the spirit in

951
which it would be dealt with, tell the Committee at least how far this portion of the grievance could he redressed, and what was really in his mind. By doing this the right hon. Gentleman might, at all events, throw oil upon the troubled waters which might perhaps have some effect in allaying the storm, and if it did not remedy the whole grievance it might remove a portion of it,
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he supposed he must answer the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, although he confessed that his previous replies had not tended to shorten the debates. This debate had already gone very wide upon a comparatively narrow point. Now what was the grievance which he had admitted? It was that there was no teaching available in those single school districts of a kind that the majority of the parents of the children, attending the school in those districts desired. That was the grievance. That grievance could be met by permitting such teaching in the schools, whether they be voluntary schools or Board schools. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and the principle applicable to the one was also applicable to the other. If they permitted denominational teaching under these circumstances to be given in a solitary Board school, in precisely the same way they could provide for undenominational or Cowper-Temple teaching in those single school districts where those schools belonged to a particular denomination. Those were the general lines upon which a remedy of this grievance should proceed. If that was the grievance which the Committee generally felt, he could not doubt that they would be able to find some general solution. He begged the House now to come to a decision.
SIR JOHN BRUNNER,said he considered himself something of an authority with regard to the question now before the Committee. He said this because he did not think any other hon. Member had taken the pains he had done to ascertain the feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the House with regard to this difficulty.
952
He invited the First Lord of the Treasury to think as kindly as he could of them, because the more considerate he was in regard to the grievances of Nonconformists the more assuredly would he satisfy his own followers, for he knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite were almost one and all desirous of satisfying the feelings of those who sat on the Opposition side of the House. This proposal entirely failed to meet the grievance which was keenly felt. Something had been said about the pupil teachers, but that was not enough to meet the case, and it was not sufficient to say that Nonconformists would be able to become teachers in those schools. Granted that religious teaching in accordance with the wishes of the parents was given, they did not think it was right that the one denomination should be able to appoint all the teachers, and by their votes exclude other denominations. If this matter were left to the free vote of the parishes in the country, he did not believe any set of people would decide to exclude the teachers of various denominations. Wherever the experiment was tried, kindly feeling and consideration were assured, and wherever there was freedom in this matter there was peace. Therefore he asked for freedom for the people in each locality to choose the teachers, and not leave it to one religious sect. He was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman's followers wished to meet them, and he asked that hon. Members should be left free to vote as they liked.
*MR. HELMEsaid he approached this question with a sincere desire to secure the best possible results. Their object on both sides was to develop good citizens, and it was generally held that moral principles must be inculcated in order that this should be successfully done. Therefore, he had great sympathy with; Gentlemen who supported the denominational system. In a village with which he was acquainted there was only one school, and it was connected with the Church of England. The Rector, desiring to meet the wishes of his Nonconformist parishioners, undertook to provide non-sectarian

953
education in the elementary school. However, under the pressure of public opinion among Churchmen in the neighbourhood, he had to recede from that position. Eventually, the school committee decided that religion of an unsectarian character should be given during the first half hour on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and that on, Friday, after the school had been formally dismissed, those children whose parents desired it should remain for the teaching of the Church Catechism.
*THE CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the present Amendment.
*MR. HELMEsaid he would try to keep to the point before the Committee. But he argued that there should be provided in school districts such management as would be secured by the Amendment. He would read as briefly as possible the resolutions passed by the Methodist Conference, which was a non-political church, to which he invited their attention. One of the resolutions expressed deep regret that steps had not been taken by past Governments to carry out their policy declared some years ago in regard to education (there was no allusion to the present Bill in that resolution), namely, that its primary object was the establishment of School Boards everywhere.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I must invite the hon. Member to be more relevant to the Amendment.
*MR. HELMEsaid he would endeavour to obey the ruling. The resolution concluded with the words —
"And the placing of a Christian unsectarian school within reasonable distance of every family."
This was of special importance in rural districts, where Nonconformists had no alternative to the compulsory attendance of their children at Anglican schools. He therefore asked the Committee to consider the expressed views of so large a church, which were shared by all the
954
other Nonconformist churches, and which together formed a majority of the people of this country. Further, he urged that, as the Government proposed to re-open the compact of 1870—by which it was agreed that all rate-aided schools should be, unsectarian — consideration should be given to their views in the new settlement, so he hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would consider the appeal which had been made to him by the hon. Member for Norwood, and that he would find out some practical way of meeting the views of Nonconformists in regard to the provision of unsectarian teaching.
MR. DILLONsaid that he was deeply disappointed by the attitude taken up by the First Lord of the Treasury on, this question. It was a question on which he thought the right hon. Gentleman would at least be willing to make an effort to meet the admitted grievance of the Nonconformists. He saw no promise of any proposal to meet that grievance in a generous spirit.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said I would meet it.
MR. DILLONsaid he listened sympathetically to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and he did not think it contained any promise that an endeavour would be made to meet the grievance. That, at least, was the interpretation He placed on the speech. Unless this grievance were met, the cause of denominational education in this country would be put in the most serious jeopardy. A reaction would set in with such force that the denominational schools would be in danger of being swept away altogether. The denominationalists were parting with more of their power over the schools generally than they realised; and if the measure did not pass as a concordat in a spirit of conciliation and peace, if this grievance wore left unredressed, it would mean the opening of a new war, in which the Nonconformists would have advantages they had not hitherto possessed. In these circumstance it was only natural that the

955
Irish Catholics, who formed a small minority, should be afraid that between the unreasoning policy of the Church of England party on the Ministerial side, and the consequent instigation of Nonconformist animosity, their own schools might be wiped out of existence in the ensuing struggle. The Irish Party could not support the Amendment, for reasons which had been given; but they would not support the Government in resisting the demand for some redress. Did anyone in this House say that in the 8,000 parishes where there was only one school to which the Nonconformists could resort, that these schools were not used as instruments to proselytise the Nonconformist children, and place them in a position of inferiority? It would be impossible for the Irish Catholics to support such a system, and all they could do under these circumstances, in view of the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury, was to withdraw from the House altogether.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear !
*MR. H. J. WILSONsaid he wanted to refer to what had happened when his friend the hon. Member for Leicester was quoting a case of hardship. The hon. Member was met with derisive cries of "Where," the implication being, as had often occurred before, that unless the circumstance, time, and place, were all given, there was no truth in the story. Now the grievance they were discussing was admitted, but no adequate remedy had been proposed by the First Lord. He would point out that, in his opinion, hon. Members opposite did not hear of those grievances in the way hon. Members on this side of the House did. There was a vast number more of them than hon. Gentlemen opposite had any idea of, but they could not be brought forward because the grievances would be only thereby accentuated, and the Nonconformist parents and children would be victimised by the teachers and managers. He would give a case with the names. A gentleman named Mr. Benjamin Elsmere, a missionary of the Society of Friends, living at No. 11, Brooklands Terrace, Swansea, some time ago went to reside in a small country village. In that village there was only one school, a Church school, and he sent his children to it. His
956
little boy was questioned on the principles and doctrines of the Church of England, and one of the questions was something about who was his godmother. The child, knowing nothing about it, said he had only one mother, and for this, that child was laid across the desk and caned severely. [Loud cries of "Oh, oh !"]
SIR JOHN GORST: Will the hon. Gentleman give the name of that school?
*MR. H. J. WILSONsaid he had not the name of the school at that moment, but he had given the name of the man. He had a letter in his possession with name of place and all particulars, although not in his pocket, and would give it to the right hon. Gentleman, or to any Member of the House. There was no secrecy about this case. In consequence of what had occurred, Mr. Elsmere withdrew his children, this boy and two girls, from religious instruction, under the Conscience Clause, and for that they were subjected to the most offensive treatment. They were told to stand aside because their father did not believe the Bible. He knew the right hon. Gentleman would repudiate and condemn such treatment as that. The law was not made for people who knew how to behave themselves, but for the protection of citizens from the lawless. There was one other thing he wanted to say. He was glad to hear the hon. Member for London University speak as he had done. He was glad that the hon. Member had been supported by a Welsh member and a Scotch member. He desired, as an English member, to associate himself with those hon. Members who said that the only logical solution of the question was united secular and separate religious instruction.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he hoped that the Statement made by the hon. Member for Holmfirth would be probed to the bottom; but, until he heard the case proved, he should refuse to believe it. He was very much obliged to the First Lord of the Treasury for the way he had treated this question. There was a remedy in the Bill, but he believed it was entirely unworkable, and, even if it were workable, it would be disastrous, and educationally grotesque.

957
As a practical man he wished to point out to the First Lord that they were dealing with Clause 27 of the Bill of 1896. That clause provided that in all denominational schools the local education authority, in town or country, should be granted the right to bring in outside denominational teachers and give the children specific denominational teaching in accordance with the faith of their fathers. And from the cheers with which that plan was received he thought that was a line which might be acceptable to many members of the Committee. He should be profoundly disappointed if it was. It must be remembered that in many parish schools there is only one room, and how could they get eight or nine Wesleyan children in one corner, and the same number of Anglicans in another corner, and impart to them in that fashion serious religious instruction? He did not see the necessity of breaking up the children into these pens. He believed in common vital religious teaching. He had a great respect for the clergy of all denominations, but sometimes they failed to convince him as an adult. What He maintained was that the clergy were not trained to deliver themselves in that simple way which would commend itself to the children. He had another serious question—
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was now not even discussing the Bill, and he would invite him to give his attention to the clause before the Committee.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid certainly he ought to have dealt entirely with the alternative.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had sketched out an alternative, but he thought that example ought not to be abused.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was not inclined to abuse anything or anybody. He saw the difficulty, and was as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman to find a solution. But the solution in the clause would be an impracticable one, and it would take out of the hands of the teachers their most important function, viz., that of religious instruction. He had been a teacher himself, and he would have strongly objected if any one had taken away from him the right to give religious instruction. He did not want to see volunteer teachers of all denominations upsetting the harmony and discipline of the schools.
(6.26.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 243. (Division List No. 310.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Strond

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Hy.

Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

Horniman, Frederick John

Atherley-Jones, L.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Banes, Major George Edwdl.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Button, Alfred E. (Morley)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Dunn. Sir William

Jacoby, James Alfred

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Edwards, Frank

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Emmott, Alfred

Jones, William (Carn'v'nshre)

Brigg, John

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstne

Kitson, Sir James

Broadhurst, Henry

Evans, Samuel T ((Glamorgan

Langley, Batty

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

Levy, Maurice

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Foster, Sir Michael (Lord. Univ

Lewis, John Herbert

Caine, William Sproston

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Lloyd-George, David

Caldwell, James

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lough, Thomas

Cameron, Robert

Fuller, J. M. F.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Kenna, Reginald

Causton, Richard Knight

Grant, Corrie

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Cawley, Frederick

Grey, Rt Hn. Sir Edw. (Berwick)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Channing, Francis Allston

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Craig Robert Hunter

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Moulton, John Fletcher

Cremer, William Randal

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Newnes, Sir George

Dalziel, James Henry

Helme, Norval Watson

Norman, Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

White, George (Norfolk)

Palmer, Sir Charles (Durham)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Partington, Oswald

Soares, Ernest J.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Paulton, James Mellor

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whitley, J. H (Halifax)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Tennant, Harold John

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Price, Robert John

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Priestley, Arthur

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

Rea, Russell

Thomas, David Alfred (Mer hyr

Wilson Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

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

Rickett, J. Compton

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Rigg, Richard

Tomkinson, James

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Trevelvan, Charles Philips

Yoxall, James Henry

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Robson, William Snowdon

Ure, Alexander

Russell, T. W.

Wallace, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Sehwann, Charles E.

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Mr. William M'Arthur.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

COOK, SIR FREDERICK LUCAS

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Allhusen, Augustus Hry. Eden

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cranborne, Viscount

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Heaton, John Henniker

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Croswley, Sir Savde

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Arrol, Sir William

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Baird, John George Alexander

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Balcarres, Lord

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Houldsworth, Sir William Hny

Baldwin, Alfred

Doughty, George

Howard, John (Kent Faversham

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R)

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Duke, Henry Edward

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhonse

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Banbury, Frederick George

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Faber, George Denison (York)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Kimber, Henry

Bignold, Arthur

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Mancr

Lambton, Hon Frederick Wm.

Bigwood, James

Finch, George H.

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monmth)

Bill, Charles

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lawson, John Grant

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fisher, William Haves

Leo, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Bond, Edward

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Boulnois, Edmund

Flower, Ernest

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Bousfield, William Robert

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Gardner, Ernest

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

Garfit, William

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S

Brown Alexander H. (Shropsh

Gordon, Hon J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Lowe, Francis William

Bull, William James

Gore, Hn G. RC. Ormsby-(Salop

Lowther Rt Hon. James (Kent

Butcher, John George

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestof

Carew, James Laurence

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Greene, Sir E. W.(B'ySEdm'nds

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Macdona, John Cumming

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Grenfell, William Henry

Maconochie, A. W.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gretton, John

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Chapman, Edward

Greville, Hon. Ronald

M'Killop, James (Stirlingsh.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Manners, Lord Cecil

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

Gunter, Sir Robert

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Coddington, Sir William

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hall, Eward Marshall

Moon, Edward Robert Paey

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hambro, Charles Eric

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh

960

961

Morrell, George Herbert

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Morrison, James Archibald

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Thornton, Percv M.

Morton, Arthur H.A. (Deptf'rd)

Renwick, George

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Mount, William Arthur

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Valentia, Viscount

Murray. Col. Wyndham (Bath

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Myers, William Henry

Round, Rt. hon. James

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE. (Taunton

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Rutherford, John

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

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

Sackville, Col. S G. Stopford-

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Parker, Sir Gilbert

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

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Pease Herbert Pike (Durl'ngt'n

Seton-Karr, Henry

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Peel Hn. WM Robert Wellesley

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Pemberton, John S. G.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Penn, John

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.

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

Percy, Earl

Smith, H. C (North'm. Tyneside

Wilson. John (Glasgow)

Pierpoint, Robert

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (York)

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

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

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Spear, John Ward

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

Plummer, Walter R.

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanley, Ed. Jas. (Somerset)

Wylie, Alexander

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Purvis, Robert

Stroyan, John

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Randles, John S.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Rankin, Sir James

Sturr, Hon. Humphry Napier

Sir William Walrond and

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Mr. Anstruther.

MR. A. J. BALFOURthen formally moved to leave out from "authority" to the end of the clause, with the view of inserting the Amendment of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 39, to leave out from the word 'authority,' to end of clause, and insert the words—'shall, where the local education authority are the Council of a county, have a body of managers consisting of a number of managers not exceeding four appointed by that Council, together with a number not exceeding two appointed by the minor local authority. Where the local education authority are the Council of a borough or urban district they may, if they think fit, appoint for any school provided by them, such number of managers as they may determine.
"(2) All public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority shall have a body of managers consisting of a number of trust managers not exceeding four appointed as provided by this Act, together with a number of managers not exceeding two appointed—
"(a) Where the local education authority are the Council of a county, one by that Council and one by the minor local authority; and (b) Where the local education authority are the Council of a borough or urban district, both by that authority.
"(3) One of the managers appointed by the minor local authority or the manager so appointed, as the case may be, shall be the parent of a child who is, or has been during the last twelve months, a scholar in the school.
"4() The 'minor local authority' means the Council of any borough or urban district, or the Parish Council or (where there is no Parish
962
Council) the Parish Meeting of any parish which appears to the County Council to be served by the school. Where the school appears to the County Council to serve the area of more than one minor local authority the County Council shall make such provision as they think proper for joint appointment by the authorities concerned.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman or one of his colleagues had not thought fit to give the Committee some information with reference to this important Amendment.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid this was the first of a string of Amendments which had been put down by the right hon. Gentleman, and formed part of the Amendment moved yesterday on which the principle had been discussed.
SIR WALTER FOSTERthought instruction would be beneficial, but he would as far as possible apply himself to the Amendment without. Personally he was disposed to view the Amendment with disappointment, because many high hopes had been based upon its effect.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid it was not competent for the hon. Member to reopen the discussion on the same points as the Committee had decided the previous day.
SIR WALTER FOSTERpointed out that the Amendment dealt with the entire management of the schools of the country.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that this point had been discussed the previous day.
SIR WALTER FOSTERasked whether the Committee was then to be deprived of the power to refer to the management of the voluntary schools.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the present Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was consequential on the first Amendment which had been already moved. The right hon. Gentleman had moved a series of Amendments, and on the first Amendment the discussion had been taken. If the hon. Member could say anything relevant to the Question he had now put from the chair which was not a repetition of the discussion of the previous day he might do so, but he was not entitled to go over the same ground covered in the previous discussion.
MR. DILLONsaid that he had refrained from speaking the previous day in the belief that his opportunity would now come. According to the ruling of the Chair the Committee could not discuss anything on the present Amendment. He thought that no previous discussion could prevent the Committee from discussing the Amendment now put from the Chair.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that this argument would be applicable to a whole string of Amendments. It had always been customary for the Committee to take the discussion on the first Amendment and then to move Amendments to the others as occasion might serve. Supposing that instead of this being one Amendment it was divided into six compartments, it would not be open to re-discuss the same question on each of the six Amendments.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that this Amendment contained the whole of the proposals of the Government with reference to the management of schools. The real Amendment was to strike out Clause 7. Surely it was permitted to discuss the propriety of these proposals. The Amendment which the Committee considered yesterday was a merely verbal Amendment.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the discussion of the verbal Amendment occupied the whole of the sitting; and what was discussed was not a small verbal Amendment, but the Amendment now before the Committee. If the Committee were to re-discuss that now, what did it settle yesterday? Nothing. He felt bound to rule that the Committee settled the principle of this Amendment yesterday.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he could not see how the mere technical omission of the words which were left out on the previous day should preclude a discussion on the words of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. These words were omitted to provide an alternative.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was wrong. If he referred to a Report of what occurred, he would see that it was the principle and not the omission of these particular words that were discussed. He was bound to hold that the Committee decided something. That being so, what it decided was to accept the spirit of this new Amendment. It might be open to the Committee when the Amendment was amended by the insertion of words to discuss the whole question.
SIR WALTER FOSTERsubmitted that in discussing the omission of the words the Committee had a right to consider the proposals in detail.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that the ruling of the Chairman led to the conclusion that yesterday's discussion was out of order, rather than the discussion on the present Amendment. The Committee was asked to leave out certain words in order to prepare the way for other words, not in

965
nubibus but definite. Now was the time to consider the new proposal as compared with the old. There were many members who intended to take part in the debate, and who had no idea that yesterday was the only opportunity for doing so.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not the only opportunity.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the Committee were not out of order yesterday in discussing the whole question on the first Amendment of the First Lord of the Treasury. It constantly happened that a string of Amendments were moved to carry out a particular object; and then the principle was decided on the first of the series. He had not the slightest doubt about the matter. No hon. Member was precluded from taking part in the discussion yesterday.
MR. BRYCEpointed out that the Amendment today was not the same as yesterday. There was a paragraph now introduced which did not appear yesterday, and which, therefore, could not form part of the discussion.
MR. A. J. BALFOURurged that the new paragraph was discussed yesterday, and because it was discussed, it was introduced.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to move to insert any words he liked as soon as the Committee had got rid of the words in the Clause.
MR. LLOYD GEORGEsubmitted that a part of Clause 8 ought not to have been taken out and inserted in Clause 7. The most controversial part of Clause 8 had been taken out and introduced into Clause 7. It was an unfair thing to do, and its object was only to kill the agitation against the Bill. That was stated by one of the organs of the Government.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was not in order in discussing that question.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the question was that certain words should stand part of the Bill. He wished them to stand part.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member could hardly mean that; because, if his wish were given, effect to, there would be no verb in the Clause. If the hon. Member objected to certain words having been taken from Clause 8 he could move to strike them out of the Amendment at the proper time.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he knew he should be in order then, but he objected to the whole of the words of the Amendment. He objected to the method of drafting. The Amendment was not proposed with a view to providing a good educational authority, if the organs of the right hon. Gentleman's own party were to be believed, it was for some propose wholly irrelevant to the Bill. If that was so, it was unfair to the Committee and the Bill, and he objected to it.
*MR. CHANNINGtook exception to the omission of the words "under Section 15 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870," and desired to move an Amendment by which power would be reserved to the Committee to deal with those words after the Amendment of the First Lord had been dealt with.
*THE CHAIRMANpointed out that that would be an alternative Amendment to that proposed by the First Lord, and that the right hon. Gentleman took precedence because he was in charge of the Bill.
*MR. CHANNINGsaid in that case he would resist the Amendment on the ground that it struck out the powers of the local education authority under section 15 of the Act of 1870. The Vice President had stated that the managers appointed under the present Bill would be the creatures of and absolutely controlled by the education authority. The words of the section to which he referred secured to the local authority that power over the managers in the schools provided—
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now re-discussing the point we decided yesterday. This Amendment is an alternative to the latter part of the Clause, and the Committee decided yesterday in principle to accept the alternative.
*MR. CLIANNINGasked whether he was not entitled to discuss the exclusion of the powers under section 15 of the Act of 1870.
*THE CHAIRMANthought not, as that was before the Committee on the previous day, when, as he had said, it was decided in principle to accept the Amendment of the First Lord. He invited the Committee not to go back on that decision, but to make such Amendments as they thought were desirable in the Amendment proposed by the First Lord.
MR SAMUEL EVANSsaid the tangle into
which the Government had got was entirely of their own making. The Clause as it would stand after the omission of these words dealt with nothing at all, and he supposed for that reason it would be open to Members to put down any Amendment they pleased. He agreed with the Government that, as a matter of drafting, subsection (c) of Clause 8 ought to be in Clause 7, but the mischief which had been done was entirely due to the Government or their draftsman.
(7.8.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 91; Noes, 267. (Division List No. 311.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

Rickett, J. Compton

Allen, Chas. P. (Glonc., Stroud

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Harwood, George

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Robertson. Edmund (Dundee)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D

Robson, William Snowdon

Brigg, John

Helme, Norval Watson

Russell, T. W.

Broadhurst, Henry

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Chas. H.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Holland, Sir William Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Horniman, Frederick John

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Caine, William Sproston

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Scares, Ernest J.

Caldwell, James

Hutton, Alfred K. (Morley)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cameron, Robert

Jacoby, James Alfred

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

Thomas, J. A. (Glamor, Gower

Causton, Richard Knight

Langley, Batty

Tomkinson, James

Cawley, Frederick

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Craig, Robert Hunter

Levy, Maurice

Wallace, Robert

Cremer, William Randal

Lewis, John Herbert

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Dalziel, James Henry

Lough, Thomas

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

White, George (Norfolk)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

M'Kenna, Reginald

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Dewar John A. (Invernes-sh.

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Dunn, Sir William

Newnes, Sir George

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Edwards, Frank

Norman, Henry

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

Emmott, Alfred

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Partington, Oswald

Fuller, J. M. F.

Paulton, James Mellor

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Rea, Russell

Mr. Lloyd-George and

Grant, Corrie

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Mr. Channing.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Baldwin, Alfred

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Acland-Hood, Capt, Sir Alex F.

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

Bousfield, William Robert

Allhusen, Augustus Hry. Eden

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

Ambrose, Robert

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Banbury, Frederick George

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Beresford, Lord Chas. William

Bull, William James

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Arrol, Sir William

Bignold, Arthur

Butcher, John George

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Bigwood, James

Carew, James Laurence

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bill, Charles

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbysbire

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Baird, John George Alexander

Boland, John

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Balcarres, Lord

Bond, Edward

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Chapman, Edward

Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

Pemberton, John S. G.

Clancy, John Joseph

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Penn, John

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col Richard

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Coddmgton, Sir William

Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

Plummer, Walter R.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hozier, Hn. James Henry ceil

Power, Patrick Joseph

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pretyman, Ernest George

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R)

Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Purvis, Robert

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Johnstone, Heywood (Suss x)

Randles, John S.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bambridge

Jordan, Jeremiah

Rankin, Sir James

Cranborne, Visconnt

Joyce, Michael

Resell, Major Frederic Carne

Cross, Herb Shepherd (Bolton)

Kennaway, Rt Hn. Sir John H.

Reddy, M.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Keswick, William

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cullinan, J.

Kimber, Henry

Reid, James (Greenock)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Delany, William

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Devlin, Joseph

Lawson, John Grant

Renwick, George

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Dillon, John

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Robinson, Brooke

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Roche, John

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Donelan, Captain A.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Doogan, P. C.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Doughty, George

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

Rutherford, John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lowe, Francis William

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent

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

Duke, Henry Edward

Loyd, Arcoie Kirkman

Seton-Karr Henry

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Eiliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lundon, W.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside

Faber, George Denison (York)

Macartney, Rt. Hn W G. Ellison

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Farrell, James Patrick

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Spear, John Ward

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Spencer. Sir E. (W. Bromwich

Firench, Peter

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Field, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Finch, George H.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W

Stroyan, John

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Kean, John

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Sullivan, Donal

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

Flower, Ernest

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Thornton, Percy M.

Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S.W.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Tomlinson, Sir. Wm. Edw. M.

Gardner, Ernest

Mooney, John J.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Garfit, William

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

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

Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

Tully, Jasper

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

Valentia, Viscount

Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Morrell, George Herbert

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Morrison, James Archibald

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morton, Arthur H.A. (Deptford

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

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Mount, William Arthur

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds

Murphy, John

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Whiteley, H. (Asht'nund. Lyne

Gretton, John

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Williams Col. R. (Dorset)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gunter, Sir Robert

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Hall, Edward Marshall

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

Wills, Sir Frederick

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'ry, Mid

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lord G (Mid'x

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Hammond, John

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

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Harrington, Timothy

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry W.)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

O'Malley, William

Wylie. Alexander

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Mara, James

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Sir William Walrond and

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

Mr. Anstruther.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid it was very important that an opportunity should be allowed of avoiding the appointment of separate managers for separate schools, and if they chose they should be allowed to group the schools under the same managers. If those schools were inefficient, the reason was not far to seek. It was largely because having only one school, and that a very small school, of course their view was a very narrow one, and their experience was naturally very limited. It had become an impossibility for managers with only the experience of a small school to have that opportunity of comparison of arrangements which should be allowed to managers in order to secure the most efficient kind of teaching. The experience which managers ought to possess could only be gained by comparison of the progress made in one school with another. It was important that the local authority should have this opportunity of grouping certain schools together. In many villages it would be a great relief to the education authority to be able to choose their managers from a congregation of villages. In one particular village it might be impossible to find half a dozen suitable gentlemen, whereas by bringing in two or three villages together they would probably be able to get better men to join the Board of Management. As his Amendment stood, it would affect only schools provided by the authority, but even in that limited way it would be of great use.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 2, after 'shall' to insert 'either singly or in a group.'"— (Mr. Alfred Hutlon.)
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he quite agreed that something ought to be done in regard to the grouping of schools, but he did not think that this Amendment was the best way to do it. If the hon. Member would look on page 30 of the white Paper he would see an Amendment which carried out his view in a more extended form, and which stood in the name of his hon. friend the Member for Somerset. He suggested that, as the
972
words would come in better lower down, the discussion on the point might be deferred.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
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 OPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS. NORTH AND SOUTH SHIELDS ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
As amended, considered.
MR. PLUMMERmoved to add a clause requiring the Company to provide proper accommodation for conveyance of bicycles by all trains, but not more than six in one train. He was aware of the general feeling among Members who were averse from having matters of comparative unimportance, which had been decided by a Committee, brought up again before the House of Commons; but, in this case, there had been no consideration of the question, the Chairman having ruled that the cyclists had no locus standi. The Bill was one for the construction of an electric tube under the River Tyne, and the Company asked to be relieved from any obligation to carry bicycles at all. The population of Tyneside exceeded a million, and last year 44,000 cycles were carried by the old ferry steamer, so that it was a matter of some importance to all concerned. Cycling was no longer merely a pastime, but a real necessity, and not of professional men alone. He could testify to the increasing use of cycles by working men of late years, and it did not a little in certain districts to solve the housing question. He regarded the cycle as the working man's motor car. It might be argued that cyclists could still use the old out-of-date ferry

973
service; but there was no guarantee, as far as he could find, that the present rate of service would be continued He was not aware of anything but the pressure of local opinion to prevent those responsible for the service from dropping it to half an hours service or even less. Apart from that, on one side of the river at any rate there was a hill approaching the ferry which was certainly awkward, and very often dangerous to cyclists. He claimed for cyclists in common with other sections of the community, the right to participate in the improved facilities which science was placing at our disposal. Parliament always recognised the salutary rule that the powers it conferred on public companies carried with them obligations, and zealously guarded against the companies picking and choosing the convenient and profitable traffic and leaving the rest. He believed it was alleged by the promoters that the adoption of the clause would hamper them in the working of their scheme; but that was guarded against by the limit placed on the number of machines carried. It appeared that it was proposed that the train should stop only thirty seconds at each end of the tube; but he did not believe the folks of Shields wished this scurrying, neck-breaking, heart-disease producing mode of progress. It was further pointed out by the promoters that other electric tube railways had not had similar obligations imposed upon them; but this was not an electric tube railway in the ordinary sense of the word, but a short tunnel. Then the promoters stated they were advised that it was mechanically impossible, and that the additional expenditure would seriously interfere with the financial prospects of the company. He could not, however, believe that in these days of engineering skill and mechanical progress, especially in the North of England, it was impossible to devise some means whereby cycles could be carried.
A Clause (Company to carry bicycles) —(Mr. Plummer)—brought up, and read the first and second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
MR. ATHERLEY JONESsaid he was not interested financially or personally in this scheme. He would like to point out it could scarcely be called a railway. It was more of the nature of a tram line which was intended to afford a cheap and rapid transit from one side of the river to the other. The great object of these railways was to carry, passengers, and there was no provision made in these cases for luggage of any kind, because it was realised that if luggage were allowed it would involve delay and some danger to the public. The suggestion now made that the company should be compelled to provide for the carriage of six bicycles by each train would necessitate invidious selection and obviously cause not a little disorder when there happened to be more than six waiting to cross. Cyclists already had an excellent means of crossing by the ferry boats. He quite recognised the spirit in which the Cyclists' Touring Club had approached this matter but he rather deprecated the pressure put upon M. Ps. to take a step which was not in the interest of the public generally.
CAPTAIN NORTONopposed the Clause. He was greatly interested in the question of rapid communication when it was closely connected with the housing difficulty. The object of tubular railways was to secure rapid means of transit in order that —
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The general question cannot be discussed on this Bill. The point is whether cycles shall be carried through this particular tunnel under the River Tyne.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he had no intention of discussing the general question. This tubular railway was to serve a population of a quarter of a million, and it was strongly supported by the Tyneside Council as well as the Corporations of the large towns concerned and he did not think it fair to attempt to force this duty on the Company. They ought to have some direction from the Board of Trade on this matter; some hint as to whether that Department approved this proposal.

975
He was well aware that cyclists were worse provided for in tins country than in any other, but he doubted the wisdom of imposing a special obligation in this case.
MR. ROBSONsaid he would certainly do nothing to imperil or impede the progress of this Bill; but he was bound to admit that the cyclists of the two towns did not receive fair and adequate treatment under the Bill. The hon. Member who had last spoken said the cyclist had been refused a locus standi before the Committee. That was quite true, and that was the reason that they were called upon to discuss the Amendment now. His hon. friend had stated that there were sufficient means of transit for cyclists across the river. The question, however, was whether that means of traffic would last in anything like its present sufficiency when this Bill had passed. When his hon. friend talked of placing an obligation upon this Company which was not imposed on any other railway, he forgot that one of the matters into which a Committee had to inquire was whether any section of the community found its facilities diminished by granting facilities to any company. At South Shields there was at present a ferry which ran every fifteen minutes; but if their Bill were passed, that ferry service would be very likely diminished, because, when they had electric trams running under the river every six minutes, traffic would be diverted to that new means of communication. The ferry, if it was maintained, would not in all probability run with its present frequency: and, while the general public would be advantaged by the new means of transit, the cyclists would find their facilities lessened. Those who supported this Amendment had endeavoured to impose as little inconvenience as possible on the Company, and, with that desire, had consented to the absurd restriction that not more than six cycles should be carried at a time, and the price charged to be three times as much as that charged for the conveyance of cycles over the ferry.
MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he agreed that the floor of this House was a most inconvenient place to discuss whether bicycles
976
should be carried by this railway or not, but it was in consequence of the locus of the petitioners having been disallowed before the Committee that this discussion was now taking place. He thought the Standing Orders ought to be altered. He was Chairman of the Court of Referees, which disallowed the locus of the petitioners in this case. That Court was not concerned with the merits of the case, but decided against the right of bicyclists to petition upon technical grounds. He had, however, subsequently looked into the question and had satisfied himself that on the merits he should have gone against the bicyclists, because the scheme was intended purely for passengers, and the obligation sought to be imposed would be a serious hindrance. At the same time, he thought the Standing Orders ought to be extended, so as to allow bodies like the Cyclists' Touring Club to have an opportunity in the same way as Chambers of Commerce or Agriculture of being heard before the Committee.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would not be in order in discussing the desirability of amending the Standing Orders.
* MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he would vote against the Clause being inserted in the Bill.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he knew the localities to be served by this railway. Hitherto the means of getting across the river Tyne had been steam ferries, which worked very efficiently; but if this Bill passed the effect would be to direct a large proportion of the passenger traffic from the boats to the railway, and the boats would in all probability be largely withdrawn. It was the duty of the House to give the greatest possible facilities to all members of the public, even including cyclists. He was therefore of opinion that the justice of the case could best be met by admitting cyclists to have the facilities they desired.
* MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid that the promoters of a private Bill, who came to the House asking, privileges of any kind, must obey the rules set down

977
in the Standing Orders, and, therefore they had a right to expect that no new condition should be imposed on them while their Bill was before the House. What was now proposed was to impose on this company a new condition which had not been laid on any other electric tube railway company. That new condition had been laid on them while the Bill was passing through the House. The hon. Member for Newcastle said this was not a tube railway at all, but practically a tunnel. He was not an engineer, but he could not see the difference between the Central London Railway and that now proposed, except that the one was eight or nine miles long with thirteen stations and the other three-quarters of a mile long with two stations. The whole object of the railway was to give quicker means of communication between North and South Shields, the intention being to run trains every six minutes. It was necessary to the scheme that there should be speed in conducting the traffic. If bicycles were allowed to be carried, the difficulties of quick working would be increased. He hoped the House would not impose this new condition on the company.
MR. BRYCEsaid it appeared to him that the argument of the hon. Member for Newcastle was a very strong one, because what was proposed to be done by the promoters of the Bill was actually to diminish the facilities at present enjoyed by cyclists. Cycling had become all over the country a means of rapid communication for business purposes. His own experience, as a traveller who sometimes had his cycle conveyed by the underground railway, convinced him that there would be no difficulty in carrying bicycles on this line. He regretted that the Standing Orders did not permit of the petitioners bringing their case before a Committee of the House.
MR. BARTLEYsaid this House was bound to take cognisance of the change in the times, and to see that tube railway companies, to which they gave very valuable rights, provided the public with accommodation to the utmost possible extent. It seemed to him that the refusal to carry
978
bicycles was quite behind the times, seeing the great commercial uses to which those machines wore now put, and that Parliament was giving this company great powers, including that of going under the river.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that the hon. Member for Rugby had spoken about millionaires on the south side of the river. He did not know that millionaires were plentiful, but he knew that there were a large number of working men who lived on both sides of the river, and had to pass over the river to and from their work. Supposing, on account of the competition of the tube railway; the ferry should fall out of use, if the tube railway refused to carry their bicycles, what were the working men to do? He did not know as much about railway law as, perhaps, he should; but it was clear to him that this House, in considering railway Bills, should have some regard to the feelings and wants of the people. There was no use drawing a comparison between this proposed tube and the tubes in London. In no part of the country was the population so congested as in this particular district, and Workmen ought to have every possible means of access to their work. The company was not providing these tubes for the convenience of Work-people; their first consideration was to make profit. But if Parliament had the power to do so, they should make some provision for the cheap transit of cyclists and their machines.
MR. ALFRED THOMASsaid that this railway company was trying to get a great privilege from Parliament for the purpose of making, profit. They were justly entitled, therefore, to ask the railway company to do something in return in the way of carrying men to and from their work.
MR. CRAWFORD SMITHsaid that if cyclists were allowed to carry their bicycles in the proposed tube they would come in shoals every Wednesday and Saturday afternoon. There was a ferry every half mile on the Tyne, and cyclists had ample facilities for crossing the river by that means, and they would not lose more than four minutes anywhere by using the ferry boats as Compared with the tube.
MR. PAULTONsaid that no serious argument had been offered against the concession which would be made by the adoption of the proposed Clause. There were no engineering difficulties, and he thought he might take it that the promoters did not feel that the concession asked for would seriously interfere with the working of the railway.
MR. SHAWsaid that, as an old member of a cyclists' club, he knew that a large number of workmen had their homes on one side of the river and their business on the other, and that involved the constant use of their
cycles. He was glad to hear that there were no serious engineering difficulties in making the concession, and he marvelled at the modesty of the request, and that the railway company should refuse such a small matter.
MR. H. J. WILSONsaid he had hoped the House would have heard something on this question from the President of the Board of Trade.
(10.13.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 219; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 312.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Delany, William

Langley, Batty

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Devlin, Joseph

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Allen, Charles P. (Gloue., Stroud

Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Ambrose, Robert

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Leamy, Edmund

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dillon, John

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Donelan, Capt. A.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Arkwright. John Stanhope

Doogan, P. C.

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Arrol, Sir William

Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

Levy, Maurice

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lewis, John Herbert

Bain, Col. James Robert

Duke, Henry Edward

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (BristolS.

Baird, John George Alexander

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lowther, Rt Hn JW (Cum. Penr.

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Edwards, Frank

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

Farrell, James Patrick

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Bartley, George, C. T.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Lundon, W.

Bignold, Arthur

Fenwick, Charles

Macdona, John Cumming

Bill, Charles

Ffrench, Peter

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Boland, John

Fisher, William Hayes

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Bousfield, William Robert

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Artlmr, Charles (Liverpool)

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, SW.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Brigg, John

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Kean, John

Broadhurst, Henry

Gardner, Ernest

M-'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Bryee, Rt. Hon. James

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

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Bull, William James

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Burke, E. Haviland

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Butcher, John George

Grenfell, William Henry

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

Caidwell, James

Gretton, John

Mooney, John J.

Cameron, Robert

Hammond, John

More, Robert Jasper (Shropsh're

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Morley, Charles (Breconshire

Cawley, Frederick

Harwood, George

Morrell, George Herbert

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hayden, John Patrick

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Murphy, John

Channing, Francis Allston

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Charrington, Spencer

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Nanneiti, Joseph P.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hobhouae, Henry (Somerset, E.

Nichol, Donal Ninian

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nolan, Col. John P(Galway, N

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Horniman, Frederick John

Norman, Henry

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Howard, J. Midd., Tottenham

Nussey, Thomas Willams

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

O'Brien, Kendal Tipperary Mid

Corbett, P. L. (Down, N.)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

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

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Cullinan, J.

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Connor, T. P (Liverpool)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Joyce, Michael

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry W.)

Davenport, William Bromley-

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

O'Shaughnepsy, P. J.

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Kenyon, Hn George T. (D'nbigh

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Partington, Oswald

Roche, John

Tomkinson, James

Paulton, James Mellor

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Pemberton. John S. G.

Russell, T. W.

Tully, Jasper

Philipps, John Wynford

Scott, Chas. (Prestwich, Leigh

Valentia, Viscount

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Seton-Karr, Henry

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Webb, Colonel William George

Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

Purvis, Robert

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Randles, John S.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Rankin, Sir. James

Soaros, Erne-t.I.

Whiteley, H.(Asht'n und. Lyne

Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

Spear, John Ward

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Rea, Russell

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Reckitt, Harold James

Stroyan, John

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Roddy, M.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Wilson, Fred. W (Norfolk, Mid.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Sullivan, Donal

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

Reid, James (Greenock)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Renwick, George

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E

Wylie, Alexander

Richards, Henry Charles

Thomas, Sir Alf. (Glam'rg'n, E.

Rickett, J. Compton

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

Mr. Plummer and Mr.

Robertson. Edmund (Dundee)

Thornton, Percy, M.

John Wilson (Durham).

Robson, William (Snowdon)

Tollemache, Henry James

NOES.

Acland-Hood Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Round, Rt. Hn. James

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gunter, Sir Robert

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'ndnderry

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Anstrnther, H. T.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Atherley-Jones, L.

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Banbury, Frederick George

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. EdW. M.

Bond, Edward

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareh'm

Warr, Angustus Frederick

Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Chapman Edward

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

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

Colomb, Sir John Charles Realy

M'Killop, James (Stirling shire

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

Cremer. William Randal

Newnes, Sir George

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Carfit, William

Piatt-Higgms, Fredirick

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Mr. Crawford Smith and

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Mr. Corrie Grant.

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm nds

Robinson Brooke

*MR. SPEAKER: The next Amendment is, to insert after "parcels" the words "and bicycles." The word "parcels" is referred to in several Clauses of the Bill; to which is the Amendment to apply?
MR. PLUMMERsaid it was in Clause 63, page 48, line 10.
*MR. SPEAKER: There is no word "parcels" n that line.
MR. ROBSONsaid that the word appeared in that line in the copy of the Bill he had.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is reading from a different copy of the Bill to that which I have.
MR. PLUMMERsaid he would move the Amendment in Clause 59.
Amendment made—
"In Clause 59, page 40, line 5, after 'parcels' to insert 'and bicycles.' "
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 59, pige 40, line 5, to leave out '6d' in order to insert '3d.' "— (Mr. Plummer.)
*MR. PARKER SMITHasked whether the copy of the Bill which Mr. Speaker had was the latest copy, because before the Committee of the House oi Commons the line containing the word "6d" was struck out of the Bill altogether.
*MR. SPEAKER: The copy I have is the copy which was furnished to me. I presumed it was the proper copy; though what the hon. Member has just said makes it doubtful, certainly.
MR. HERBERT LEWISasked if, in the circumstances, the proper course would not be to adjourn the debate in order that Mr. Speaker and the House might be furnished with proper copies of the Bill. Although they were only dealing with one particular Bill, they were laying down precedents of great importance. He begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
*MR. SPEAKER: What I understand is, that in the copy of the Bill I have the Commons' Amendments have not been entered up; and, therefore, the last Amendment was perfectly in order, and in its right place. In the copy I have the word "sixpence" stands in Clause 59, page 46, line 5, but I understand that the Committee of the House of Commons struck it out altogether.
MR. PARKER SMITHsaid that the whole line was struck out.
*MR. SPEAKER: There has been a mistake, obviously, in this Bill; and I must call the attention of the House to it. The copy of the Bill placed on the Table corresponds with my copy, which therefore I assumed to be the correct Bill. It seems, however, that the Bill upon the Table is not the Bill as amended by the Committee. The Bill as amended by the Committee shows that the lines and figures of the hon. Members' Amendments are correct, and, therefore, Clause 63 is the Clause in which the previous Amendment stands. That need not affect the decision of the House as effecting the insertion of the words "and bicycles" after "parcels," if the House will allow the words to be

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Davenport, William Bromley-

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bull, William James

Dickson, Charles Scott

Anstruther, H. T.

Cameron, Robert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire

Finch, George H.

Arrol, Sir William

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Chapman, Edward

Fisher, William Hayes

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Charrington, Spencer

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Atherley-Jones, L.

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

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christeh.

Colomb Sir John Charles Ready

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Banbury, Frederick George

Colston, Chas. Edw. H, Athole

Fuller, J. M. F.

Bartley, George C. T.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Gardner, Ernest

Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Cremer, William Randal

Garfit, William

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Cross. Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Bond., Edward

Crossley, Sir Savile

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

Brigg, John

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Gorst, Rt. hon. Sir John Eldon

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Goschen, Hon. Gyorge Joachim

inserted in Section 63 instead of in Section 59. It appears to mo that if this matter had been properly dealt with in the offices of the House, this difficulty would not have arisen. I will put the question now as it stands on the Paper, as that turns cut to be correct,
Amendment made—.
"In Clause 63, page 48, after line 26, to insert 'for every bicycle 3d.' "
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he begged to move the omission of "6d." in line 27, and the insertion of "1d." A passenger was to be carried for 1d, whereas 6d. was to be charged for a dog. It was a distinct insult to the man that a dog should be considered six times more valuable than he. They were all agreed that it was desirable to cultivate affection for domestic animals, and no animal was more companionable than a dog; but if 6d. was to be charged, the dog would very probably be left at home.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 48, line 27, to leave out the word 'sixpence,' and insert the words ' one penny '— (Mr. Keir Hardie)—instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the word 'sixpence' stand part of the Bill."
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid he hoped the House would not agree to the Amendment.
(10.43.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 10.4; Noes, 129. (Division List No. 313.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

Cray, Ernest (West Ham)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S. Edm'nds

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Seton-Karr, Henry

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Middilemore, Jno. Throgmorton

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Grenfell, William Henry

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Gretton, Jhon

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

Greville, Hon. Ronald

More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Morgan, David J (W'lthamstow

Spear, John Ward

Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nd'rry

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Stroyan, John

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Mount, William Arthur

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Grah'm (Bute

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Tollemache, Henry James

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Paulton, James Mellor

Trevelyan, Charles Philps

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Purvis, Robert

Webb, Colonel William George

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Randles, John S.

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE(Taunton)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Rankin, Sir James

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

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

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Rea, Russell

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Reid, James (Greenock)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Richards, Henry Charles

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

Long. Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Rigg, Richard

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

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Lowe, Francis William

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Wylie, Alexander

Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Round, Rt. Hon. James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Russell, T. W.

Mr. Plummer and Mr.

Macdona, John Cumming

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Robson.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Edwards, Frank

Lundon,. W.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Faber, George Denison (York)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Allen, Charles P. (Glone. Stroud

Farrell, James Patrick

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

Fenwick, Charles

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Ambrose, Robert

Ffrench, Peter

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Field, William

M'Kean, John

Bignold, Arthur

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Kenna, Reginald

Bill, Charles

Flower, Ernest

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Boland, John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mooney, John J.

Broadhurst, Henry

Grant Corrie

Morrell, George Herbert

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hall, Edward Marshall

Murphy, John

Caine, William Sproston

Hammond, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Caldwell, James

Harwood, George

Newnes, Sir George

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

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

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hayden, John Patrick

Norman, Henry

Causton, Richard Knight

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cawley, Frederick

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H,

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Channing, Francis Allston

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'raryMid

Clancy, John Joseph

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jones William (Carnarv'nshire

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Craig, Robert Hunter

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Cullinan, J.

Joyce, Michael

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

Davies, M. Vauglan-(Cardigan

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Delany, William

Langley, Batty

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Devlin, Joseph

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Partington, Oswald

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Leamy, Edmund

Philipps, John Wynford

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dillon, John

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Price, Robert John

Donelan, Captain A.

Levy, Maurice

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Doogan, P. C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Reckitt, Harold James

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lloyd-George, David

Reddy, M.

Duncan, J. Hasting

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

Redmond, William (Clare)

986

987

Renwick, (George

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Rickett, J. Compton

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk. Mid

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

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

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

Robinson, Brooke

Thornton, Percy M.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Roche, John

Tomkinson, James

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Tully, Jasper

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Valentia, Viscount

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Soares, Ernest J.

White, George (Norfolk)

Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr.

Strachey, Sir Edward

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Lough.

Sullivan, Donal

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he wished to move the omission of the concluding words of Clause 63. As at present drafted, it would appear that a person bringing home a parcel from market containing eight or ten separate articles might be called upon to pay 3d. for each separate package. The words he proposed to leave out were: "Provided always that articles sent in large aggregate quantities and so made up in separate articles, such as bags of sugar, coffee, meal, and the like, shall not be deemed small parcels, but that the term shall apply only to single packages in separate parcels." He did not understand the meaning of the words, and for that reason he would refuse to vote for the Bill until he had an explanation. If it meant that a woman returning from market was to be charged 3d. for each packet she had in her basket, such a provision ought not to be allowed to pass without a protest. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 48. line 28, to leave out from the word 'provided,' to the word 'packages ' in line 31, both inclusive."— (Mr. Keir Hardie.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
*MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid that the Amendment was more suited to the Committee stage. If the hon. Member would read again the proviso to which He objected, He would find that it actually carried out what he wished. For instance, if a grocer wished to send half a dozen parcels from North Shields to South Shields, instead of having to pay a certain sum for each parcel, he was entitled to have them weighed together and to pay one sum.
MR. KEIR HARDIEasked what rate would be charged on a small parcel. They wore told—
* MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member cannot address the House twice.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that after the explanation which had been given he would withdraw the Amendment, but he hoped that in future the Chairman of Committees would see that Bills were properly drafted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be read the third time.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 7:—
Amendment proposed—
"Inpage 2, line 39, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'shall, where the local education authority are the Council of a county, have a body of managers consisting of a body of managers not exceeding four appointed by that Council, together with a number not exceeding two appointed by the minor local authority.
'Where the local education authority are the Council of a borough or urban district, they may, if they think fit, appoint for any school provided by them such number of managers as they may determine.
'(2) All public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority shall have a body of managers consisting of a number of trust managers not exceeding four appointed as provided by this Act, together with a number of managers not exceeding two appointed—

'(a) Where the local education authority are the Council of a comity, one by that, Council and one by the minor local authority; and

'(b) Where the local education authority are the Council of a borough or urban district, both by that authority.

989
'(3) One of the managers appointed by the minor local authority, or the manager so appointed, as the case; may be, shall be the parent of a child who is or has been during the last twelve months a scholar in the school.
'(4) The "minor local authority" means the Council of any borough or urban district, or the Parish Council, or (where there is no Parish Council) the parish meeting of any parish which appears to the County Council to he served by the school. Where the school appears to the County Council to serve the area of more than one minor local authority, the County Council shall make such provision as they think proper for joint appointment by the authorities concerned.'"— (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, in the absence of his hon. friend the Member for East Northamptonshire, he desired to move the Amendment standing in his name. It raised the question of the management of schools provided by the local authority, and provided that that should be delegated entirely to the minor local authority, which was explained as the Council of a borough or urban district, or a Parish Council. With regard to the Council of a borough or urban district, what would happen would be that the Council would appoint a Committee, called the Education Committee; and all the Amendment proposed was that that Committee should practically be the Board of Management of the district. There was a great deal to be said for it. It would be absurd to have one Committee controlling education and another Committee managing the schools, as the work would be practically the same. The most serious part of the question was the handing over of the management entirely to the Parish Councils. The Amendment proposed that the Parish Council should be the sole managing body, and he thought that in many districts that would be a most valuable provision. It would at any rate have the advantage of obviating the composite boards which had been proposed, and which would have no direct responsibility to the ratepayers. That was certainly an advantage in favour of the Amendment. Under the composite Board of Management suggested by the Prime Minister, what would happen? First of all, the County Council would appoint a Committee. That was two
990
removes from the electors. Next, that Committee would appoint a Board of Management, which was three removes from the electors; and then some other body would also be called in. It was perfectly true that if there was any complaint with regard to the management of a school, the only way in which the parents could get at the managers would be by lodging a complaint with the County Council. The local County Councillor would have to be got at in the first instance, and then he would have to get up in the County Council, which met only once in every three months, and complain of a body which was not present. The only way in which he could get at the management would be to wait until the meeting at which the Committee was appointed; but there was nothing in the Bill providing for the period for which such Committees should be appointed. They might sit in perpetuity; they were to be the absolute arbiters of the situation; they would be life tenants of the post, unless words were introduced making it clear that they went out of office with the County Council. But assuming they were to be re-appointed whenever a now Council was elected, they could be called to account only once in three years. That was surely a very indirect way of bringing home responsibility for a local complaint. Whether the whole thing should be handed over to the Parish Council was an arguable question; his hon. friend, at any rate, suggested that the Parish Council should manage its schools, and he was not at all sure whether in some districts that ought not to be done. He would rather the County Council was given an option on that point. It was certain, however, that if the parents and ratepayers were to be interested they must be given some direct responsibility. In these districts practically the whole responsibility would be on the Board of Mangers, as the County Council, having no local knowledge or other local information, would very rarely throw over the suggestions of the Board; if they did so, it would amount to a vote of want of confidence in the managers. Supposing it was necessary to make some addition to the fabric of the

991
school, to make the building more commodious, or to incur expenditure on apparatus or equipment, that would be a purely parochial charge, and it would be much better that the Parish Council, in such a case, should have the control and responsibility. The representative of the ratepayers would then consider the matter from the point of view, not only of the expense, but also of the advantage to the locality. In that way there was much to be said for the Amendment of his hon. friend, winch he now begged to move.
Amendment proposed- to the said proposed Amendment—
"After the first word 'county,' to insert the words 'shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be managed by the minor local authority, and shall.' "— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
MR. A, J. BALFOURthought this would be a very unfortunate Amendment. By an earlier Clause the Bill declared that the local authority should be responsible for, and have control over, secular education. If they put, in as the managers of the school in which that secular education was to be provided, a body of gentlemen representing the parish in which the school was situated, they might conceivably have a conflict of opinion between the locally elected body and the central body. That would be very unfortunate, and militate against the whole success of the Bill. He thought that it would be far better, as they had given responsibility to the central authority, to give them, the machinery by which that responsibility could be carried into effect. The representation of the minor local authority was provided for by the Bill and by the Amendment now under discussion, and he thought the machinery there provided was far more workable than that suggested by the hon Member.
MR. CHANNINGsaid that the object was to secure efficiency in the local machinery. The right hon. Gentleman had not fully considered the question of local delegation of the duties of the county educational authority, and also the formation of Committees with the same
992
power as the central county Committee in respect of certain areas. The fact that such delegation was contemplated, greatly strengthened the case for imposing on the localities a responsibility for the effective management of the schools. By means of this local responsibility under the control of the central county authority, they were not vitiating that authority, but really associating with it the local life and interest in the work of education in the most effective way. They would thus secure all that could be effectively maintained under the present Bill of the chief merit of the School Boards in the past with regard to the detailed ad ministration of education. The Amendment was really a limited adaptation of the principle of Clause 10 of the Bill of 1896; it simply concerned the question of administration, and in no sense touched the question of the denominational schools. The best way to work this educational machinery was strongly to support the central authority in the county areas, but it was obvious that that authority could not effectively attend to all the details of management without the enthusiastic and interested assistance of the localities themselves. He did not attach so much importance to the Parish Councils as his hon. friend; he thought the Amendment could be worked by the management being placed in the hands of the councils of the small boroughs and urban districts, and also of the joint councils of united parishes—the union being effected on somewhat the same lines as under the Act of 1870. He was strongly in favour of the central authority exercising a power of co-ordination and regulation over the whole education of the county, subject to local responsibility" for the management under their direction, and he failed to see how his proposal would lead to any conflict with the general controlling power of the central county authority.
MR. BRYCEsaid he could not feel the force of the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman to this Amendment. Upon the First Lord's own showing, there could be no conflict between the minor authority and the County Council, because the managers were entirely at the mercy of the local education authority. When Clause 6 was under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman assured the Committee that the local authority would be

993
supreme, that the management would have no independent powers of volition, and that they would be bound to carry out every direction of the local authority. Under those circumstances, what possible conflict could there be? Without expressing a very decided opinion as to details, the proposal had, at any rate, one recommendation, viz., that it would enable groups of schools to be at once dealt with, and there would be no necessity of introducing special provisions so far as the boroughs and urban districts were concerned, because the minor authority would at once have all these schools placed under it. In the case of boroughs and urban districts, whore the School Boards had been very effective authorities, and had not been open to the objections urged against rural School Boards, the Amendment would practically restore such merits as the School Board system had. It would bring back a local body to manage small groups of schools in boroughs and urban districts, and we should have the advantage of one rating authority. Therefore, from the point of view of the Bill itself, he would have thought there was something to be said for the Amendment, and he was rather surprised the right hon. Gentleman should have dismissed it in so cavalier a fashion.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEhoped the Government would not accept the Amendment, which would destroy all links between the controlling authority and the Board of Managers. He attached supreme importance to those links being maintained. If there were representatives of the local education authority on the Board of Management, the other managers were far more likely to understand the directions given to them by the county authority, and there would not be that danger of friction and misunderstanding that there otherwise would be. The fact that a power of delegation was to be given was rather an argument against the Amendment. If the county authority thought they could secure better management by delegating their powers, they could do so under the Bill. But the body to which the powers were delegated would not be in the position proposed by the Amendment. It would not be in an
994
independent position: it would be simply in the position of a delegate, and would j therefore be far more likely to carry out the directions of the authority from ! which it received its powers.
MR. HUMPHREYS - OWENsaid that, as one who expected to have a good deal to do—as a member of a County Council, as a manager I of a voluntary school, and in other respects —with the organisation of education under this Bill, he had every confidence that if they took care to limit the spheres of action of the two bodies—of the local education authority on the one hand, and of the smaller and minor authority on the other—not only would there be no danger of their clashing, but, on the contrary, they would get the wider outlook of the larger authority and the closer and minuter attention of the minor authority. In his own county, a large and sparsely populated district, there were ninety-three elementary schools, scattered over nearly 500,000 acres; and obviously it would be quite impossible for the County Council to manage the details of each individual school. It would be necessary for the county authorities to delegate their powers to smaller bodies, and those smaller bodies should be given a distinct status in order to get the best people to serve on them, and also a certain local rating power, so as to create that interest in the schools which only pecuniary responsibility would give. In many places, elementary education had suffered, and was suffering, from want of local interest. A certain number of School Boards were doing their work very well, according to their lights and opportunities. Voluntary schools were not worked as they should be, and they did not command the confidence of the people who sent their children to them, because the great majority of the scholars were the children of Nonconformists, while the schools themselves were entirely carried on by Church people. He was not saying one-word against the spirit in which the members of the Church of England carried on their schools, but he thought those schools should be guided by the central authority.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have already resolved that the whole responsibility for the control of these schools should be in the hands of the central authority.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENreplied that the machinery they had hit upon carried out that control in a very ineffectual way. It was all very well to lay down general theories and say that they should have local control, but when they found the machinery for giving that control was inadequate and imperfect, then they did not gain their object at all. Unless this was provided for in the Act itself, they would not arouse local interest in this matter. He agreed with what had been said by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, that the local education authority should have some of its members on the governing body of the managers of the school.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he did not think that there was the least fear of the local authority not having complete control, and if there was any doubt about it later on they would have it made stronger still by the Government proposals. The hon. Member for East Somersetshire had gone so far in his advocacy for County Councils in their work that he had really forgotten the interests of education in his anxiety to support County Councils. The first point to be gained in all educational work was to make education popular. He knew it would not be popular with the boys who went to school, but it would be made popular with the parents if they had something to do with the education provided. If the electors were connected with the education given in the schools in their district, there would be more interest taken in education, and more inclination on the part of parents to see that their children attended regularly. What they were all working for was to get a more efficient education, and the Amendment they were considering did not in any way affect the religious question. He hoped some little allowance would be made for the popularity which education would require to gain, more especially in country districts, where it was most unpopular at the present time, and where they were most likely to regard education as a tiresome thing. There was another reason which appealed very strongly to him,
996
and it was that they brought the managers of the schools much nearer to the directly-elected representatives of the people. He hoped this Amendment would be fairly considered, and not brushed aside as something which was quite unreasonable. It did not touch any of the principles of the Bill, and he believed it had been of very great assistance to education in the country generally.
MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire had had much experience in every grade of education from the lowest to the highest, and he received anything he might say upon this subject with great respect. If this Amendment were adopted, it would put an immense amount of life into the small parochial schools; and to have a directly-elected body instead of a nominated one would ensure the earnest co-operation of the people. The Royal Commission which inquired into the schools some thirty years ago declared that no skill in organisation was of so much value in education as the earnest co-operation of the people. According to the report of this Commission, the American schools appeared to have no great excellence of method, but the schools were in the hands of the people, and from this fact they derived an educational force which made up for all their deficiencies in that respect. If, under the Government's scheme, some fifteen or twenty gentlemen were nominated for the various boards of management, probably with extremely imperfect knowledge of the circumstances of the neighbourhood, it was true that that would place a large amount of patronage in their hands, but he could see no earthly reason why that patronage should not be in the hands of the general body of the community, for this would add very greatly to the interest which the people would take in the schools. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen would bear him out that in Scotland the fact that the people wore so closely associated with the government of the schools added very largely indeed to the effectiveness of those schools, and had had a large effect in producing a result of which Scotsmen

997
all the world over were proud. In Switzerland—which had done so much for the education of the people—the communal schools were, in the hands of the locality, and were practically managed by the parish council. He believed that the complete success of the Swiss educational system was largely to be ascribed to this particular fact. He agreed with the Royal Commission that in England even inferior management, if backed up by the hearty sympathy and interest of the people, would often succeed better than much greater skill without such support. The whole object of the right hon Gentle-
man appeared to be to give the power of nomination of these gentlemen, who would, no doubt, hold broad views and large sympathies: but no amount of skill in organisation could make up for the cordial popular sympathy which could only be secured in education by directly enlisting the people in the management of their own schools.
(11.48.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 80; Noes, 230. (Division List No. 314.)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Keswick, William

Plummer, Walter R.

Doogan, P. C.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Power Patrick Joseph

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Duke, Henry Edward

Lee. Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Purvis, Robert

Faber, George Denison (York)

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S

Pym, C. Guy

Farrell, James Patrick

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Randles, John S.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Rankin, Sir James

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

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Ffrench, Peter

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Reddy, M.

Field, William

Lowe, Francis William

Redmond, William (Clare)

Finch, George H.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Reid, James (Greenock)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Remnant, James Farquharson

Fisher, William Hayes

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Renwick, George

Fison, Frederick William

Lundon, W.

Richards, Henry Charles

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lvttelton, Hon. Alfred

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Flower, Ernest

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Roche, John

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

Macdona, John Cumming

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Garfit, William

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

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

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

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

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

M'Kean, John

Seton-Karr, Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry SEdm'nds

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Spear, John Ward

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Grenfell, William Henry

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Stroyan, John

Gretton, John

Morrell, George Herbert

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morrison, James Archibald

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Sullivan, Donal

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Mount, William Arthur

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Murphy, John

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

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Mid'x

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Thornton, Percy M.

Hamilton, Marq of L'nd'nderry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hammond, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Tully, Jasper

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Valentia, Viscount

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

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

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Nolan, Joseph (Loath, South)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'ry, Mid

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Heath, Arthur-Howard (Hanley

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

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Henderson, Sir Alexander

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Hope, J.F (Sheffield, Brightside

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

Wills, Sir Frederick

Howard, Jno. (Kent, F'versham

O'Malley, William

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

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

O'Mara, James

Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart-

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Wylie, Alexander

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Jordan, Jeremiah

Pemberton, John S. G.

Joyce, Michael

Penn, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Percy, Earl

Sir William Walrond and

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Mr. Anstruther.

It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

EDUCATION ACT, 1901 (RENEWAL) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported,
1000
without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed.

MEAT MARKING (IRELAND) BILL.
Order [17th June], That the Meat Marking (Ireland) Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc., read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

1. Finance.

2. Royal Naval Reserve Volunteers.

3. Cremation.

4. Wild Birds Protection Acts Amendment.

5. British Museum.

6. Immoral Traffic (Scotland).

7. Police Reservists.

8. Prison Officers (Pensions).

9. Labour Bureaux (London).

10. University of Wales (Graduates).

11. Musical Copyright.

12. Pauper Children (Ireland).

13. London Government Scheme (South wark).

14. Pilotage Provisional Order.

15. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).

16. Oyster and Mussel Fishery Provisional Orders.

17. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).

18. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).

19. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5).

20. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8).

21. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9).

22. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11).

23. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13).

24. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14).

25. Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15).

26. Local Government Provisional Order (Gas).

27. Local Government Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes).

28. Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law).

29. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1).

30. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2).

878

31. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3).

32. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4).

33. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Gas).

34. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes).

35. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) (No. 2).

36. Paisley Gas Provisional Order Confirmation.

37. London (Poplar) Provisional Order.

38. Buckie Burgh Extension and Buckie (Craigenroan) Harbour Order Confirmation.

39. Irvine Corporation Order Confirmation.

40. Stonehaven Town Hall Order Confirmation.

41. Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1).

42. Rothesay Tramways (Extension) Order Confirmation.

43. West Hampshire Water.

44. Kingscourt, Keady, and Armagh Railway.

45. Bedford Corporation Water.

46. South Metropolitan Gas.

47. Belfast Corporation.

48. Broadstairs Gas.

49. Rickmansworth Gas.

50. Great Northern Railway (No. 1).

51. Bradford Corporation.

52. Northumberland Electric Tramways.

53. Rusthall Manor.

54. City of London (Public Health).

55. Kent Water.

56. South Wales Electrical Power Distribution.

57. West Ham Gas.

58. Tieehurst Water.

59. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Tramways.

60. Knaresborough Improvement.

61. North British Railway (Steam Vessels).

62. Halifax Corporation.

63. Buxton Urban District Council.

64. Great Northern Railway (No. 2).

65. Kent Electric Power.

66. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels).

67. Leamington Corporation.

68. Bristol Water.

879

69. Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power.

70. Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads.

71. Chard Gas.

72. Commercial Gas.

73. Great Central Railway.

74. West Gloucestershire Water.

75. Huddersfield Corporation.

76. Manchester Corporation (General Powers).

77. Imperial Institute.

78. North British Railway (General Powers).

79. Nottingham and Retford Railway.

NEW PEER.
SIR FRANCIS WALLACE GRENFELL, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., Lieutenant-General in the Army, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the forces, with the rank of General, in Malta, having been created Baron Grenfell of Kilvey, in the county of Glamorgan—was (in the usual manner) introduced.
SAT FIRST.
  LORD TENTERDEN.
  Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  EASTBOURNE CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  MEDWAY AND THAMES CANAL BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  COLWYN BAY AND COLWYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  FINCHLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  FLEETWOOD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHAT HAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
  NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 14th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a (The Earl of Dudley); agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order) and passed.
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  COMMONS REGULATION (SODBURY) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT. 1896.
  Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of—

  I. A light railway in the counties of Kent and Surrey, from Orpington to Tatsfield.

  II. Light railways in the rural district of Halesowen, in the county of Worcester.

  III. A light railway in the West Riding of the county of York from Holmfield to Southowram.

  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MIDWIVES BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMEND MENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, the object of this Bill is to place the conditions under which money may be borrowed by municipalities in Scotland for electric lighting purposes upon a more convenient and logical basis. Up to the present, time many burghs have been limited by the amount which they are allowed to borrow under their local and other Acts for lighting by gas. This, in practice, has been found to be extremely inconvenient, and, as time goes on, it will altogether unduly limit the powers tit some of these thriving municipalities to light their towns by electricity. The way in which it is proposed to proceed in future is to give burghs power to borrow, subject to the consent of the Secretary for Scotland. That is a method which has been found convenient in other matters, and for which there is ample precedent. The passage of this Bill is ardently desired by municipalities in Scotland, some of which have had to obtain private orders and private bills to relieve them of the restrictions under which they are placed, and the Scottish Office think it would be better to place the matter once and for all upon a more logical and permanent basis. I do not anticipate any opposition to the proposal; on the contrary. I have had many representations which lead me to believe that the passage of the Bill is ardently desired, and I hope your Lordships will agree now to read the Bill a second time.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS— TREFOR TRAIAN BENEF1CE.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in rising "To call the attention of the House to the estimate of the Diocesan Surveyor of St. Asaph of £1,586 for the repairs of the buildings of three farms of sixty, forty, and twenty acres respectively, belonging to the benefice of Trefor Traian,

  883
  Denbighshire, now in course of sequestration, and to the action of other surveyors; and to move for Papers"—said: My Lords, I have felt it necessary to bring this case before the House, because it is one of great and undeserved hardship, and also because it shows the necessity of altering the plan upon which these surveyors are appointed, and how desirable it is that the glebe lands of farms should be sold as soon as possible. In the present state of agriculture, things are not as they were in former times. The Rev. H. F. Owen, the incumbent of Trefor Traian, is near seventy years of age, and has a wife and five children still dependent upon him. His only fault is that he is old, and has had as many as eleven children, one of whom is in the Denbigh Asylum; and that having had to bring them up upon £95 a year, and whatever he might get from tourists during the summer for showing Vale Crucis Abbey, which he rents from its lay owner, he has not been able to prevent three farms from becoming dilapidated. I have no doubt that the bishop thought he was too old, and that it would be a good thing to get rid of him. Still, he ought to have waited until, in the natural course of events, he died, instead of endeavouring to force him to resign. The three farms that are dilapidated are of sixty, forty, and twenty acres respectively, and give the incumbent a rent of £71. He also receives £24 per annum from the Bounty Office.
  The bishop has sequestered the benefice, and offers the incumbent only £30 a year to live upon. If the incumbent will resign his cure, he offers him £70 a year, but that would be insufficient to live upon, especially as he has been deprived of some clerical charities amounting to about £50 a year; besides which, if he resigned his benefice, the creditors would take his pension. As far as I am aware, up to the present time, no attempt has been made to sell these farms, two of which adjoin the property of a large landowner, and the other that of another landowner. I know that in the case of the two farms no attempt has been made to approach the landowner, nor has the incumbent's suggestion been acted upon to let the farms as bye-takes or accommodation
  884
  land, irrespective of buildings, to adjoining farmers. I know that the incumbent is correct in saying that if they were let in that way they would bring in nearly as good a rent, because my agent recently visited a church farm of forty-seven acres, without any house or buildings other than some old cow-sheds, which is let for £45—a good rent for Anglesey, especially as some of the land is on the shale. If the Trefor Traian farms could be let in the same way, there would be no need to trouble about rebuilding. In any case, however, speaking from my own experience in Anglesey, I say that £1,586 far exceeds what would be necessary for new farm houses and new buildings for three farms of the size of these. I have built a new house and buildings for a farm of 80 acres for £370, and others for farms under 40 acres for £280, so that £930 should have been sufficient for these three farms. But why did not the bishop wait until this incumbent disappeared in the course of nature? Why this precipitate haste, thereby incurring the accusation of tyranny, and of driving an old clergyman and his family into the workhouse? I should have thought that the Right Rev. Prelate would have wished to give some explanation with regard to these matters, but in reply to my inquiry when it would be convenient to his Lordship that I should put the Question—which has been for some time on the Minutes—he sent me a postcard to say he did not intend coming to London at present. I presume, therefore, that if he thinks any explanation necessary he will make it through the Press. I do not, however, believe that the undue pressure put upon the incumbent of Trefor Traian to induce him to resign his benefice is entirely owing to the Right Rev. Prelate. The diocesan officials, registrars, and surveyors are said to exercise too much influence—some say pressure—over the North Wales bishops, and I believe there are some similar cases on this side of the Dee. No good can be expected from these officials so long as they are paid by fees instead of by fixed salaries. This point was fully brought out before the Joint Committee; but no notice of this matter or of the question of dilapidations has been taken in the

  885
  Bill brought in by Mr. Hanbury. The best test of the cost of repairs of dilapidations is what builders of good repute state in their tenders. A greater number of respectable builders, instead of architects, ought to be appointed as surveyors. If there were a sufficient number of surveyors, the bishops could control them by not again nominating for a survey a surveyor against whom a just complaint has been proved. Ten or eleven dioceses have only one surveyor. St. Alban's and Southwell have six; Lichfield and Lincoln, five; York, Ely, Exeter, and Ripon, four; Bath and Wells, Carlisle, Norwich, and Peterborough, three; London, Winchester, Hereford, Newcastle, Durham, Rochester, St. David's, Salisbury, Truro, Wakefield, Worcester and Bangor, two each.
  I think that the right rev. prelate might have come here. I was told by a North Wales clergyman that he had recently made a voyage to Oporto. I must suppose that this was for the purpose of consulting Portuguese authorities on the treatment of clergy, and as to whether those lines of Camoen's do not apply even more to a bishop in his treatment of the clergy than to a commander in the field—
  "More stanzas had the siren in the praise
  Of the illustrious Albuquerque sung;
  But she remembers one harsh act, which weighs
  Him down, though through the world his fame be rung.
  A great commander (who to crop bright bays
  On precipitious cliffs his fate hath hung)
  Should to his men a comrade rather be
  Than a judge made up of severitie."
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not know whether the noble Lord gave any notice of his intention to bring this matter before the House to the Bishop of St. Asaph, but he appears to be the only Member of your Lordships' House who would be at all likely to be able to give any information on the subject. Certainly I have no knowledge of the circumstances to which the noble Lord has referred, and I do not believe it is within the functions of any member of the Government to have such knowledge. I understand that the proper course in cases of this description would be in the first instance to address the Bishop and invoke his assistance in the matter. Under certain contingencies
  886
  the subject might then come before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in which case it might become the duty of some member of the Government to make himself acquainted with the facts of the case. At present, however, neither I nor any of my colleagues on this Bench can give the noble Lord any information on the matter. I see by the Paper that the noble Lord has given notice of his intention to move for Papers. I was not able very accurately to follow the observations of the noble Lord, but I rather gathered that his concluding remarks were in the nature of the recitation of a piece of poetry, and not a Motion for Papers. I do not know what the Papers are for which the noble Lord intended to move, but if he puts a Motion on the Paper we will see whether it would be possible to give them.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Duke for the reply he has given. I may say that I have written several times to the Bishop, but without effect.

  TEACHERS' CERTIFICATES.
  *LORD REAY, in rising "To ask the Lord President of the Council—
  1. When the Board of Education recognised the certificates issued by the City and Guilds of London Institute, mentioned in page 2 of their regulations, for the award of teachers' certificates in different branches of domestic economy, session 1902–1903, and whether any Papers on the subject will be communicated to Parliament.
  2. Whether the attention of the Board of Education has been directed to the serious reduction, in the qualifications required, from the standard now demanded for the limited diploma under the existing regulations dated March, 1902.
  3. Whether representations have been made by those engaged in the work of training teachers in domestic subjects, urging that the granting of the new certificates will unduly lower the standard desirable for this class of teachers, and whether the Lord President will further consider the expediency of lowering the standard hitherto required by the Board of Education,"

  887
  said: My Lords, the Code of Regulations for day schools imposes certain qualifications upon the teachers in regard to the subjects to which my Question alludes. The system of the Board of Education with regard to cookery is to grant, on examination, a full or a limited diploma; it also recognises certain training schools for cookery, and certain certificates for teaching cookery granted by recognised training schools. With regard to laundry work, the Board of Education does not itself undertake any examinations; it simply recognises training schools and the certificates granted by those recognised training schools. The list of institutions recognised by the Board of Education is given on page 44 of the Day School Code. That Day School Code is as recent as last Spring, and on that list of recognised institutions the City and Guilds of London Institute, to which I refer in my Question, does not appear. The regulations for the granting of cookery diplomas by the Board of Education are as recent as March of this year.]t was natural to suppose that the regulations contained in documents issued by the Board of Education in March last, and issued in the Day School Code, would not be disturbed. Contrary to this expectation, however, certificates to be awarded by the City and Guilds of London Institute have been recognised. Those certificates are three in number—the evening school teacher's certificate, the elementary day school teacher's certificate, and the teacher's diploma in domestic economy. A document issued by the City and Guilds of London Institute gives the conditions under which these certificates are granted, and there is a material difference between the conditions imposed by the City and Guilds of London Institute and those imposed by the Board of Education. I wish briefly to allude to the difference which exists in the two cases.
  As regards the elementary day school teacher's cookery certificate of the City and Guilds of London Institute, the hours of instruction required in day or evening classes registered by the institute amount to 200, or 400 at a recognised training school. The qualification required for a cookery certificate
  888
  under the Board of Education is 840 hours training in a training school recognised by the Board. The difference, therefore, is very considerable. There is the further condition in the case of the City and Guilds of London Institute that evidence must be produced of having taught, or assisted in the teaching of, the subject for a period of not less than one year to the satisfaction of His Majesty's Inspector or the Inspector of the local authority; or the canditate must have received, as certified by the Principal, adequate instruction and practice in class teaching in a recognised training school. That, of course, does not entail any examination, and does not account for the difference of 400 and 840 hours training.
  With regard to laundry work, the City and Guilds of London Institute require for the elementary day school teacher's certificate 200 hours instruction in day or evening classes registered by the institute, or 400 hours instruction in a recognised training school, and there is the same proviso as in the case of cookery in regard to practice in teaching the subject. The difference here, again, is very material, as the Board of Education requires 512 hours training in a training school recognised by the Board.
  With regard to the diploma in house management, which is an entirely new expression—I suppose it is what has hitherto been called housewifery—the City and Guilds of London Institute's condition is that a separate certificate will not be issued, but candidates for the teacher's diploma in domestic economy, Group A, will be required to satisfy the examiners as to their knowledge of the subject. Again, the condition imposed by the Board of Education is much more stringent, viz., 250 hours training in a training school recognised by the Board, out of which time forty hours must have been spent in teaching classes of children.
  How does the matter stand with regard to the diploma for teaching all three subjects? The qualification of the City and Guilds of London Institute is fifty weeks of twenty hours a week—equal to 1,000 hours instruction—at a recognised training school for domestic economy, and to produce evidence of having

  889
  received, during training, adequate instruction and practice in class teaching, and to have passed the examination in hygiene, elementary stage, Section I, and to pass the examinations for the day school teacher's certificate in the subjects included under Group A or Group B; whereas the Board of Education requires l,573 hours training in a training school recognised by the Board, and the recognised diplomas of cookery and laundry work.
  I think I have shown that the result of the recognition given to the certificates of the City and Guilds of London Institute involves a reduction of the standard hitherto required — a standard which, I may say, was being gradually raised with very good results to those who were taught. I am anxious to know what has induced the Board of Education to make this change, and especially why the change has been made when what I may call the issue of the standing orders for the year—both in the Code and in the Regulations issued by the Board of Education—had led all those engaged in this department of educational work to think there would not be an invasion by another body into the circle of institutions recognised by the Board. I believe the Board of Education has received some complaints, which I think are very legitimate, from those whose teaching was organised with a view to satisfy more stringent requirements. I trust the noble Duke may find it possible to communicate some Papers with reference to the correspondence which has taken place between the Board of Education and the City and Guilds of London Institute on the subject.
  I must add that I have not alluded as yet to the evening school teachers certificate, mentioned on page 2 of the Regulations of the City and Guilds of London Institute. It is the most extraordinary part of the scheme. It appears to be the fact that it is proposed to issue this entirely new certificate. Hitherto, no separate "evening school teacher's certificate" was known. In these evening continuation schools we may pre-suppose a certain amount of previous knowledge acquired in the day schools by those frequenting them. The qualifications of the teachers should be higher, instead of which they are
  890
  lower. For this certificate all that is required is that a candidate should have passed in hygiene, elementary stage, Section 1, and produce evidence of having received, in the year preceding the examination, at least 100 hours instruction, including practical lessons, in a class registered by the institute. The alternative is to have regularly attended a course of instruction at a recognised training school. That means that a candidate could qualify for this certificate by spending 100 hours in a training school—that is to say, four or five weeks special instruction—besides passing in hygiene, elementary stage, Section 1. That seems to me to be not the least surprising result of this unexpected interference of the Board of Education with existing rules. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): The City and Guilds of London Institute applied, in March last, for the recognition by the Board of Education of three classes of teachers' certificates proposed to be granted by the institute to teachers in certain branches of the subjects which are commonly known as "domestic economy." The certificates proposed for teachers in evening schools, and the teacher's diploma, so far as it related to teachers in secondary schools, presented no difficulty, and they were recognised by the Board of Education in April last; the recognition has been announced in the supplementary regulations for secondary day schools and for evening schools issued by the Board last month. The certificates for teachers in elementary day schools and "teacher's diploma" in the above named subjects taken in groups for teachers in those schools were the subject of some correspondence, and in the beginning of June the Board stated that they were able to "give a general approval to the regulations and examinations for certificates in the various branches of domestic economy proposed to be issued by the City and Guilds of London Institute," and that they were "prepared to recognise those certificates for the purpose of Article 101 (g), (h) and (m) of the Code." This recognition was announced in the regulations recently issued by the institute. At the same time the Board pointed out that it might be necessary to have further discussion as

  891
  to the details of the conditions of training and examination. With this object, a discussion took place about three weeks ago between Sir Philip Magnus and some of the officers of the Board, including the Inspectress of Cookery, at which a fear was expressed—which I think has been repeated by the noble Lord—that as the minimum number of hours training required by the institute was much lower than that required by the regulations of the Board, there would be a falling off in the standard of qualifications required in teachers of these subjects. To meet these objections, the institute drew up the instructions of 11th July, and in forwarding them to the Board of Education, Sir Philip Magnus said—
  "You will see from these instructions that it is by no means the intention of the institute to grant certificates on easier terms than those on which they have been hitherto obtainable from the Board. On the contrary, I think the examinations will be found more difficult. At the same time it has been the object of the institute to relax somewhat the regulations with respect to the distribution of the hours of instruction, and you will also note that the institute is desirous of throwing upon the Principal and the teachers more responsibility, and of relying upon their interest in their students' work to make the instruction as thorough as possible. Certainly in the future schools will not continue to be recognised unless the Principal can be trusted to organise the teaching on satisfactory lines.
  "Some misapprehension appears to have existed with regard to what is meant by the minimum number of hours to be devoted to instruction in any subject. You will see from the enclosed that it is certainly not intended that the institute's minimum should be taken as the school's maximum. The instructions will, I hope, show the importance which the institute attaches to the practising lessons to be given in the training school, and you will note that in no case can any candidate obtain a day teacher's certificate who does not produce adequate and satisfactory evidence of ability to teach."
  These statements appear to the Board to be satisfactory, as showing that the institute does not aim at any lowering of the standard; but before next year's regulations are issued by the institute and before any notifications of recognition of the certificates, so far as they relate to teachers in public elementary schools, is inserted in next year's Code, very careful consideration will be given to the question of the practical effect of these certificates, and of how far they have tended, or may tend, to alter the standard which the Board
  892
  consider necessary for teachers in these subjects. Representations have been received, and will doubtless continue to be received, from institutions carried on under the Board's regulations, and fears have been expressed which the Board at present consider to be groundless. I need not go into specific points, but I should like to observe that it does not appear to have been generally noticed that the instructions of July 11th lay down that the only schools recognised by the institute as affording the training necessary for these certificates should be those at present recognised by the Board of Education. I have, moreover, the authority of Sir Philip Magnus for saying that the institute are ready at any time to alter or amend any details in accordance with the wishes of the Board, and I can assure the noble Lord that the Board of Education will watch very carefully the practical working of the institute's scheme, and its effect on the teaching of these important subjects.
  At present the Board believe that, while substantially preserving the standard, the institute's certificate system is based on principles of elasticity and freedom which will re-act beneficially on the qualifications of these teachers.
  I hope the statement which I have obtained from the principal secretary for the secondary branch of education will substantially answer the Question of the noble Lord.
  I do not think that there would be any advantage in laying the correspondence on the subject upon the Table, as a great part of the negotiations, if I may call them so, have been carried on by means of interviews, without a knowledge of which the letters would not afford much information.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.