Sitting of 17 November 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

IMPRISONMENT OF A MEMBER.
Mr. SPEAKER in formed the House that he had received the following letter relating to the Imprisonment of a Member:—
Ennis, Co. Clare,
15th November, 1902.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that Mr. William J. Duffy, Member of Parliament for Galway County (South), has been arrested on a Warrant signed by me, and was on yesterday committed by me to H.M. Prison at Galway to be there detained until the 18th inst., when he is to be brought up at Mountbellew Petty Sessions, County Galway, before a Court constituted under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, to answer to charges of having at Caltra, in the County of Galway, in August last, taken part in a criminal conspiracy and with having incited to conspiracy.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
W. NEWTON BRADY,
Resident Magistrate.
The Right Hon.
The Speaker,
House of Commons.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Water Provisional Order Bill,
  Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Order Confirmation Bill,
  Dumbarton Corporation (Further Powers) Order Confirmation Bill,
  Wick Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill,
  Bexhill and Rotherfield Railway (Abandonment) Bill.
  Amendments to—
  Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill [Lords],
  Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill [Lords],
  Edgware and Hampstead Railway Bill [Lords]
  North-West London Railway Bill [Lords],
  Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway (New Lines, &c.) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Sheffield, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Little Woolton; Southampton; and Garston; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Copies presented, of two Orders dated respectively the 7th and 10th November, 1902, the former entitled the Bristol (Avonmouth Dock) Foreign Animals Wharf Order of 1902, and the latter revoking three Orders relative to the landing in Great Britain of animals brought from the Channel Islands [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 10th November, 1902, declaring that James Bowden, Royal Laboratory, War Office Department, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON WATER AREA.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th November; Mr. Rea]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 374.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SAMOA (No. 1, 1902).
  Copy presented, of Decision given by His Majesty Oscar II., King of Sweden and Norway, as Arbitrator under the Convention signed at Washington, 7th November, 1899, between the German Empire, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the United States of America, relating to the settlement of certain claims on account of Military Operations conducted in Samoa in the year 1899. Given at Stockholm, 14th October, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  South African War—Medals for Transport Officers.
  SIR CHAELES DILKE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the medal to be given for the conveyance of troops Is to be confined to the masters of chartered ships and refused to the masters of mail steamers, which have sometimes carried as many as 2,000 men in a single trip.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The reply to the Question is in the affirmative. The intention is to confine the issue of the medal to troop transports on time charter, which are entirely at the disposal of the Government for service in any direction, and the master and officers of which are for the time being practically the servants of the Crown.

  New Zealand Coal for the China Squadron.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give an analysis of Granity Creek coal as supplied to the China
  1106
  Squadron, i.e., the percentages it contains of fixed carbon, hydro-carbon, water, and ash; and also its evaporative power computed by the multiple most generally used.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) I am unable to give the information asked for in the first part of the hon. Member's Question, as it is not immediately available. It is not considered desirable in the public interest to give the details as to evaporative power.

  Education Bill—Position of Attendance Officers.
  MR. JOSEPH HOWARD: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in order to carry out more effectually the Compulsory Clauses of the Education Acts, the Government will assent to the insertion in the Education Bill of a Clause providing that in the ease of attendance officers devoting the whole of their time to the enforcing of such Acts they shall only be liable to dismissal from their office with the sanction and approval of the Board of Education.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Such a provision would appear to lie outside the scope of the present Education Bill.

  Education Bill—Clause 13—Audit of Municipal Accounts.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as the House has been deprived by the Order of the House of the 13th instant of the opportunity of considering the provision in Clause 13 of the Education Bill, requiring that the accounts of municipal cities and boroughs shall be made up and audited so far as education accounts are concerned by auditors of the Local Government Board instead of, as in the case of other municipal accounts, by auditors appointed under the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act or special local Acts, he will afford, on the Report Stage of the Bill, an opportunity for considering the objections entertained to the proposal of the Government.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am afraid that no preference can be given to this subject over any other on the

  1107
  Report Stage; but as the Clause stands early for consideration on Friday, 28th November, it is possible that an opportunity may arise for a discussion upon it.

  Non-payment of Rates (Scotland) Return.
  MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkhire, Mid): To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland will grant the Return which appears on the Paper relative to non-payment of rates.*
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Secretary for Scotland is prepared to grant a Return in continuation of the former Return of 1899, and if the hon. Member can make out a case for the issue of a Return containing the information asked for in Column 3 he will consider it.

  Port Ness (Lewis) Harbour.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that Sir John Wolfe Barry, C.E., has declined to visit the Island of Lewis for the purpose of making a report in regard to the condition of the harbour at Port Ness, will the Secretary for Scotland state whether the services of another engineer have yet been secured.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative.

  *The Return was as follows;—

  "Rates (Non-payment) (Scotland),—Return of the number of Rated Inhabitants in each parish in Scotland whose names were omitted from the Parliamentary Register in the year 1901 in respect of non-payment of Rates, under the heads of (1) relief through inability to pay; (2) failure to pay; and (3) being in receipt of parochial relief, in the following form:—

  County.

  Parish.

  Tenants with rentals under £4.

  Number of persons removed from the Parliamentary Register in the year 1901 in respect of non-payment of Rates, under the following heads:—

  Total.

  Remarks.

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  Relief through inability to pay.

  Failure to pay.

  Being in receipt of parochial relief.

  The Return to indicate the number of tenants in each parish with rentals under £4 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 376, of Session 1899).

  † See page 142.

  Island of Lewis—Landless Cottars.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will ascertain on what ground the Congested Districts Board are unable to open negotiations with the proprietor of the Island of Lewis for the purpose of acquiring land for cottars, fishermen, and others resident in the island.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I can only refer the hon. Member to my answer to his similar Question on 5th November,† and to the Special Report which is shortly to be issued.

  Cable Communication Committee—State Purchase of Cables.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster General whether the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the cable arrangements between Great Britain and all parts of the Empire, ascertained, or endeavoured to ascertain, what revenue was derived from cable messages to and from this country; if so, will be state what is the revenue; and, if not, will he take steps to obtain information as to the amount expended by merchants and all others in this country in cabling messages, with a view to considering the question of purchasing the cables at a fair price.

  1109
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I was not a member of the Committee to which my hon. friend refers, but their Report and Minutes of Evidence have been published as a Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 1056] of 1902. On reference to this Paper my hon. friend will see the scope of their inquiries. The Committee reported strongly against any scheme for the general purchase of cables by the State, and I am not prepared to advise that His Majesty's Government should enter upon such an operation.

  Irish Trunk Telephone System.
  THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON:: To ask the Postmaster General if he will say how many, and what, towns in Ireland have been connected by the trunk telephone system; whether in all cases the trunk system has been established without any grant from the cities and districts concerned; and, if so, will he explain why the Post Office authorities have required a guarantee of over £500 per annum for the establishment of a trunk telephone from Belfast to Londonderry.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberblain.) The following thirteen towns in Ireland have been connected with the trunk telephone system: Dublin, Belfast, Balbriggan, Drogheda, Dundalk, Newry, Banbridge, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and Arklow. In two cases, namely Newry and Banbridge, the connections have been established under guarantee. An extension to Naas is now being carried out under a guarantee. The ordinary rule in; ill cases of proposed extensions is to require a guarantee where there is reason to suppose that the revenue will not cover the maintenance and working expenses. When the working of the trunk system was transferred to the Post Office a number of extensions were made in Ireland without guarantee. Experience has shown that none of the Irish trunk lines, except those between Dublin and Belfast, are remunerative, and there is no reason to think that a Belfast-Londonderry line, which would be costly, would be any exception to this rule.

  Telegraph Service—Male and Female Clerks.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster General
  1110
  whether he is aware that at times in the Central Office, London, and in other places, male clerks senior in age and receiving higher pay than the women supervisors are placed under their control; and whether steps will be taken to abolish the practice in accordance with the desire of the Tweedmouth Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Such an arrangement occasionally obtains, especially at times when male telegraphists are voluntarily performing extra duty on sections of circuits which are under the immediate supervision of women; but I am assured that the expressed desire of the Tweedmouth Committee on this subject is duly observed, and that men are placed under the supervision of women as rarely as possible. I may add, as regards the Central Telegraph Office, that female supervisors are themselves under the control of male superintendents and assistant controllers.

  British Post Offices at Jerusalem and Peking.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that there are French, Russian, German, and Austrian post offices at Jerusalem and at Peking, and no British post offices at these important places; and whether he will make inquiries as to the business done at those places by British subjects and traders with Great Britain, with a view to opening post offices under England's management.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is the same as was given to him in reply to a similar Question asked on the 5th of May last.† I am aware that the Governments of certain foreign countries have established post offices at Jerusalem and Peking and that there are no British post offices there. Inquiries have already been made whether any exceptional circumstances rendered it advisable to establish a British post office at Peking and I am satisfied that it is not necessary. In the case of Jerusalem I know of no demand for a British post office; and I do not propose to take any steps in that direction.
  †See (4) Debates, cvii., 619.

  India—Acreage of Cultivated Lands.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is possession of any agricultural statistics which will enable him to compare the acreage of land cultivated in the several provinces of India at the present time with the acreage cultivated in any year subsequent to 1890; and, if so, will he quote the figures.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The cropped acreage for surveyed tracts in the several provinces was returned in 1890–1891 and 1900–1901, respectively, as follows:—

  1890–91.

  1900–01.

  Burma

  7,942,000

  11,835,000

  Bengal

  63,121,000

  62,098,000

  United Provinces

  42,416,000

  42,036,000

  Punjab

  23,536,000

  31,770,000

  Bombay and Sindh.

  28,701,000

  25,468,000

  Central Provinces

  16,741,000

  16,210,000

  Madras

  26,096,000

  27,850,000

  Minor Provinces

  2,365,000

  5,276,000

  Uganda Railway.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that an order was given to an American firm for thirty viaducts for the Uganda Railway in October, 1900, and that it was a condition of the contract that they should be erected complete in forty-six weeks, that is, by September 1901; whether, seeing that the first viaduct was completed by the 31st March, 1901, and seven more by the 31st March, 1902, he can say when the remaining twenty-two will be finished and whether in future he will insert penalties sufficient to prevent delay in fulfilling contracts.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) An order was given for twenty-seven viaducts in December, 1900, to an American firm which had offered to construct and deliver them in forty-six weeks. The contract provided that actual erection was to be completed within seven months from the date on which the chief engineer should report that he was ready for the contractors to begin work. This he did on the 20th December, 1901, and the viaducts should therefore have been completed by 19th July, 1902. Thirteen of these viaducts have already been taken over
  1112
  from the contractors. Penalties to prevent delay were provided in the contract in the usual manner, but no decision can be come to in regard to enforcing them until the works are finished, and the circumstances under which the delay occurred fully considered.

  Naval Ordnance Department—Promotions.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the assurances given, that positions in the Naval Ordnance Department which could be taken by gunners and boatswains as they became vacant should be filled by men of the rank of naval warrant officers, he will explain why none of the ten vacancies for assistant naval ordnance officers that have occurred since 1899, have been filled by the appointment of a naval warrant officer.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The course that has been adopted in regard to the filling of vacancies for assistant naval ordnance officers is in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee which dealt with the reorganisation of the Naval Ordnance Store Department. If the noble Lord will refer to the reply given to his previous Question on this subject, on the 2nd June last,† he will find a statement as to the scope of this Committee's recommendations so far as they dealt with the employment of retired warrant officers.

  MSS Ordnance Survey Memoirs of Ireland.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland where and in whose custody are preserved the MSS. of the Ordnance Survey Memoirs of Ireland; whether, seeing that the only volume printed by the Government was Volume I., relating to the city of Londonderry and parish of Temple more, the Irish Government will consider the advisability of preserving these memoirs by having them printed; or, if the County Councils undertook the same, whether the Government would afford facilities there for and give a grant in aid thereof.
  † See (4) Debates, cviii., 1110.

  1113
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The MSS. referred to are in the custody of the Royal Irish Academy. The publication, at the expense of the State, of the single volume mentioned, which dealt with one parish only, cost £1,705. The publication of the remaining MSS., of which there are a large number, was not continued, mainly on the ground of expense. I understand they are in excellent preservation and order, are freely accessible to the public, and have been largely utilised in various works bearing on the history and antiquities of Ireland. Any proposals by County Councils in the direction suggested, if made, would be considered by Government.

  Historical Relics at Greenan, Londonderry.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken by the Irish Government for the preservation of the ancient buildings on the hill of Greenan, near Londonderry; and, seeing that this historical and ancient monument has been preserved from destruction by the action of a local antiquarian who had the buildings thereon renewed, will he state whether steps will be taken by the Board of Works to have the existing buildings vested in them, and thereby preserve one of the most historic and ancient monuments of Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Board of Works is precluded from making any expenditure on ancient monuments unless their custody is vested in the Board by deed. The Department will endeavour to ascertain if the proprietor of the monument in question is prepared to execute such a deed.

  Road Labour Scheme for County Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the lack of employment for agricultural labourers in County Limerick, he will see, now that the Limerick County Council have done their part by direct labour, that the Local Government Board put the scheme in regard to the repairs and maintenance of the public roads into operation as soon as possible.
  1114
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) One Rural District Council has appealed against the scheme proposed by the County Council. A local inquiry must in consequence be held before the Local Government Board can sanction the scheme or any modification of it. When the views of the remaining District Councils have been received the inquiry will be arranged for, and no unnecessary delay will be allowed to elapse before the Board gives its decision.

  Dungannon Extra Police.
  MR. MACARTNEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say upon whose authority extra constabulary were drafted into Dungannon on the 5th instant; whether there was any breach of the peace on that date; whether he is aware that the sixty men of the Royal Irish Constabulary only arrived late on the evening of the 5th instant; and will he say upon whom it is proposed to charge the expenses of these additional men, seeing that the opinion of the local authorities that additional police were not required was right; and will he state if there is any precedent for the sending of such a force on that date in previous, years.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) An extra force of sixty men was drafted into Dungannon on the 5th instant upon the recommendation of the officers locally responsible for the preservation of the peace. The local magistrates concurred in the opinion that an extra force was necessary; they only differed from the police authorities in their estimates of the number of men required. The occurrences in view of which the force was sent did not take place until the evening of the date mentioned, consequently the men did not arrive until a few hours previously. No breach of the peace occurred, I am happy to say. On two occasions this year rioting took place, when a small force was drafted into Dungannon; on two other occasions, when a large force was brought in, everything passed off peaceably. A force of ten men was sent on 5th November, 1901. A charge amounting to £6 2s. 6d. will be made against the urban district in respect of the men employed on the 5th instant.

  Licensing Case at Sneem, Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mary Doyle, who holds a licence in Sneem, County Kerry, caters for the public, that she has kept no drink on the premises for twelve months, and that the police authorities opposed her licence on those grounds; and, seeing that Mr. Warden, of Derryquin, got an assignment of her licence over twelve months ago, will he say who pays the licence money to the excise authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The police did not oppose this licence, nor is it the fact, as alleged, that Mr. Warden obtained an assignment of the licence. I cannot say by whom the licence duty is paid.

  Army—Lodging Allowances for Officers and their Servants at Hong Kong.
  SIR JOHN TUKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether any steps have been

  First Class.

  Second Class.

  Troops.

  —

  —

  —

  Accommodation

  88

  6

  1,084

  Numbers embarked Composition:—

  85

  4

  1,002

  Australian Commonwealth Horse

  38

  —

  24

  8th New Zealand Contingent

  43

  4

  891

  10th New Zealand Contingent

  2

  —

  82

  Details

  2

  —

  5

  Two deaths took place on the voyage and thirteen on shore from illness contracted on board or in South Africa; five others died from illness developed on shore.

  Education Bill—Trust Endowments.
  MR. JOHN HUTTON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the new Clause with regard to endowments will apply to endowments administered under a Charity Commission scheme; if so, in what way it will affect schools entirely maintained by the endowment, but on the lists of schools supplying elementary education to the district and inspected by His Majesty's inspectors; and how will it affect schools in which the endowments are used partly for elementary and partly for secondary education but which receive the Parliamentary grant.
  1116
  taken, in view of the representations addressed to him from the General Officer commanding at Hong Kong, in November, 1901, to increase the lodging allowance and allowances for servants granted to officers of the garrison, in view of the house rent and rates of wages charged in the Colony.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The rates of lodging allowance have been increased from the 1st April, 1902. As regards the servants' allowance it was considered that there was no sufficient reason for any increase of rate.

  Transport—the "Britannic."
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War, can he state the number and composition of the troops embarked on board the "Britannic " from South Africa on 7th July for Australia, and the number for which she was fitted; how many men died on the voyage; and how many have since died in hospital both in Australia and New Zealand.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The figures were as follows:—
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The new Clause referred to will apply to endowments under schemes in the same manner as to endowments under ordinary trusts. The schools referred to in the second paragraph of the Question would appear not to be public elementary schools, but merely certified efficient schools; such schools will not be affected by the Clause. The answer to the third part of the Question must depend in each case upon the terms of the trust or scheme.

  London Traffic and Communication—Proposed Royal Commission.
  MR. BONDTo ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of an inquiry being promoted by the Government, by a Royal Commission or otherwise, as to the best

  1117
  means of facilitating traffic and improving the means of communication in London, he would consider the advisability of including in such inquiry the question of obviating, by the provision of subways or otherwise, the necessity of impeding the traffic by breaking up the streets for the purpose of laying and repairing pipes, wires, and sewers.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) In the event of an inquiry being instituted my hon. friend's suggestion will be considered.

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Unemployed Reservists.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of unemployed reservists referred to in the letter recently issued by himself and the Commander-in-Chief.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): No, Sir; no record of the figures is available.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: None at all?
  MR. BRODRICK: No record is available.

  South African War—Honours for War Office Officials.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what number of officers and civil servants connected with the War Office have been rewarded for good service at home in connection with the late war in South Africa, and what form such rewards took.
  MR. BRODRICK: The following have been the honours conferred on officers and civil servants connected with the War Office for good service at home during the war—two G.C.B.'s: four K.C.B.'s; sixteen C.B.'s; one Knighthood; one C.M.G. In addition, four clerks have received the Imperial Service Order, and His Majesty has conferred the Victorian Order on eight officials of the War Department during the past two years.

  South African Medals.
  MR. BUTCHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that under the existing regulations for the distribution of the Queen's South African medal and the King's South African medal, those officers and men who served during the earlier period of the war will receive but one medal, while those who served for the same time during the later period will receive two medals; whether the effect of these regulations will be to exclude the whole or the greater part of the Colonial troops from the possibility of receiving more than one medal: and, whether under these circumstances, he will reconsider the regulations as to the issue of these medals.
  MR. BRODRICK: The regulations for the issue of these medals were only decided upon after very careful consideration of all the interests involved. My hon. friend must recollect that the Colonial troops are not alone in being affected in respect of the dates of service to which the issues apply, and the intention was that regular troops should receive special consideration as compared with those serving for shorter periods at a higher rate of pay. There is no intention of reconsidering the regulation.

  Robert Leonard, 6th Dragoons.
  MR. GEORGE FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to further investigate the case of Robert Leonard, late sergeant in the 6th Dragoons, who was recently degraded to the ranks, by a sentence of court-martial at York, for having written a letter to the Secretary of State for War, complaining of the harsh way in which recruits in the regiment were treated and making complaints against his squadron commander.
  MR. BRODRICK: The General Officer commanding the district was recently instructed to make an investigation into this matter. A Report of the proceedings has not yet reached the War Office.

  H.M.S. "Diadem.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the

  1119
  Admiralty whether the repairs to the boilers of H.M.S. "Diadem" are completed at Glasgow, and when will she be under steam; and can he state the total cost involved in these repairs.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): The repairs to the boilers of H.M.S. "Diadem" are not yet reported as having been completed. The main engines have, however, been under steam in the basin at the contractors' works, and it is expected that a full power trial will be carried out in about ten days time. As the "Diadem" is being repaired on the basis of a schedule of prices, and the work is not yet completed, I am unable at present to Dive the actual cost.

  H.M.S. "Terrible."
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a statement of the repairs required to be done to the boilers of H.M.S. "Terrible" has been sent to the Admiralty; and, if so, whether he will lay the list upon the Table of the House.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The list of boiler repairs and alterations which it is considered desirable to carry out in H.M.S. "Terrible" has been received from the dockyard. There is no objection to the list being laid upon the Table if there is any desire that such a course shall be taken.

  India—Conduct of 9th Lancers at Sialkote—Indiscriminate Punishment of the Regiment.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to give the House any information with referent to the reported punishment of the 9th Lancers, now quartered at Sialkote.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The punishment inflicted on the 9th Lancers was (1) recall from leave (other than leave on medical certificate) of all officers and men, and stoppage of all leave until 1st June, 1903; (2) imposition of additional sentry duty while the regiment is in cantonments until 1st June, 1903. It may be well that I should
  1120
  add that I am informed by the Government of India that this punishment was inflicted by them because a native was assaulted and died of his injuries under circumstances which made it reasonably certain that his assailants were men of the 9th Lancers, and because, subsequently, no serious attempt to discover the offenders was made by the regimental authorities, on whom, as well as on the men of the regiment, the responsibility for the failure to bring them to justice is considered by the Government of India to rest.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: May I ask whether that has been done with the full sanction of the officer commanding and the military authorities?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The punishment has been inflicted on the regiment with the full approval of the military authorities.
  COLONEL LEGGE (St. George's, Hanover Square): Will a full and independent inquiry be made into all the circumstances of the case?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No, Sir. This is a matter of military discipline with which I do not feel called upon to interfere.

  Indian Native Army Colonels.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state why no colonels of the Native Army in India have been promoted to the rank of Major-General since October, 1900.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: By Royal Warrant of 5th November, 1899, it was laid down that "from 1st January, 1901, no promotion shall be made to the rank of Major-General or Lieutenant-General, except by selection, to fill an appointment, or as a reward for distinguished service." From the 1st January, 1901, therefore, promotion by seniority to the rank of Major-General ceased; and the question what Indian appointments should carry that rank is now under consideration by a joint War Office and India Office Committee, whose final report is expected shortly.

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Pontefract, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the injuries recently inflicted upon an attendant by a patient in Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum; and if he can say whether precautions were taken to ensure the safety of the attendant in question while in the execution of his duty.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I have had a Report made to me on this occurrence, and find that for some days previously special precautions had been taken to prevent danger from this particular patient, but that the attendant in question (though specially warned a few hours before the attack) failed to exercise the necessary caution. I am satisfied that very great care is used at Broadmoor to prevent injury being caused by the patients to themselves or their attendants, and the occurrence in question must be regarded as one which no possible care could altogether preclude in an asylum such as Broadmoor.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: May I venture to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the special claim of this man to a suitable pension is favourably considered?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Sunday Trading Prosecutions at Dartmouth.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of convictions and the amount of the fines obtained against Mr. Joseph Scannell, tobacconist, Dartmouth, under the Lord's Day Observance Act of Charles II.; whether the police will be directed to enforce this Act against publicans as well as tobacconists; and. if not, when it is proposed to repeal it.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I have no information which would enable me to answer the first part of this Question. As regards the latter part, it is not a
  1122
  matter in which I feel called upon to issue any directions such as are suggested, even if I had the power to do so, nor can I express any opinion as to the repeal of the Act in question.
  MR. TULLY: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to inquire?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The matter is one for the police.
  MR. TULLY: And have you no supervision over the local police?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Not in this matter.

  Islington Parish Church Bells—Cost of Ringing on King's Birthday.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL TUFNELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will explain why the Local Government Board auditor has disallowed the amount paid hitherto for the ringing of the bells of the parish church, Islington, on the King's birthday, which prevented the hells being rung on Sunday, 9th instant; and whether he is aware that the ringing of the bells on this occasion has been done for many generations.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): The question which the auditor had to determine was whether this expenditure could legally be defrayed by the Borough Council out of the rates. In his opinion it could not, and hence it was his duty to disallow the charge. He has stated his reasons for the disallowance in the book of account, and it is competent for any person aggrieved by his decision to address an appeal to me against it. The validity of these reasons would then be carefully considered, and if it was found that the disallowance had been lawfully made it would be competent for me to remit it on equitable grounds. I should be quite ready to give favourable consideration to any such appeal.

  New Street from Charing Cross to the Mall.
  MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the First Commissioner of

  1123
  Works, if he can state when the new street from Charing Cross to the Mall will be begun, and when it will be open for traffic.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES (Hunts, Ramsey): The matter is being carefully considered by the First Commissioner, but he is not in a position to make any statement about it at this moment.

  Glasgow Corporation and the Clyde.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will lay upon the Table the Report of Sheriff Jameson upon the application by the Corporation of the City of Glasgow to be constituted the port local authority for the Clyde.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): When the draft Order constituting the port local authority is issued, the Secretary for Scotland will consider the propriety of complying with the hon. Member's suggestion.

  Education Bill—Provided Schools.
  MR. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if the local education authorities will have power to treat as provided schools schools that, originally founded as undenommational schools, have become denominational by the connivance of the trustees.
  THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): The denominational or undenominational character of a school does not affect the question of provision. Unless a school is provided by the local education authority it cannot be treated by the authority as a provided school.

  Return of Schools Charging Fees.
  MR. BATTY LANGLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will state how many elementary, voluntary, and board schools are now charging fees; what is the annual amount received by Church of England, Wesleyan, Roman Catholic, British and other schools, also board schools; and how is the amount received applied.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: According to the latest Returns (1900–1901) the number of schools charging fees was as follows:—Church of England schools, 1,756; Wesleyan, 307; Roman Catholic, 113; British and other, 330; Board, 153; total, 2,659. The amount received from fees was—Church of England schools £121,815; Wesleyan, £29,981; Roman Catholic, £7,163; British and other, £31,161; Board, £41,161; total, £231,281. The amount received in fees is entered in Form 9 and applied to the maintenance of the schools.

  Roscommon County and District Council Elections.
  MR. SLOAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Belfast I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if he is aware that at the last elections for county councillors and district councillors in Roscommon a number of county and district councillors who were re-elected without opposition acted as paid presiding officers and poll clerks at contested elections in the same county; and will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): I am aware that this objectionable practice prevailed at some of the elections in County Roscommon. The question of its legality, which is doubtful, can be raised, I think, either on the audit or by election petition. But I do not at present see what independent action the Executive can take in the matter.

  Belfast Winter Assizes.
  MR. SLOAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Belfast I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether, in view of the desire expressed by the commercial people of Belfast, Down, and Antrim, that the winter assize should be held in Belfast for criminal business, as at present it generally is, and that a court for trying civil cases and appeals should sit at the same time, he will take steps to establish such a court.
  MR. ATKINSON: There is a good deal of difficulty in holding winter assizes permanently (which the suggested change would necessitate) in any particular town, but the matter is under consideration. I cannot, however, give the undertaking asked for.

  Longford Registry of Titles.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state why the Local Registrar of Titles in Longford issued a circular to the tenant purchasers calling on them to re-register their titles; and will the Government defray the cost which this second registration has imposed on the purchasers.
  MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No circular has been issued requiring re-registration, nor has any re-registration taken place. The precise nature and legal effect of what has been done were described by me in a reply to a Question addressed to me by the hon. Member for North Long ford on the 5th of July of last year,† to which I beg to refer the hon. Member.

  Prosecution of Herbert Lindsay at Belfast.
  MR. SLOAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Belfast I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been called to the ease of Herbert Lindsay, who was arrested on 9th September last by a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary for an assault; and seeing that, at the trial before the presiding magistrate, the sergeant admitted that he received from Lindsay his name and address and stated he had no reason to doubt his genuineness, and that the presiding magistrate characterised the arrest under the circumstances as an error of judgment, can he take immediate steps to prevent the recurrence of similar cases.
  MR. ATKINSON: In this case the complainant was willing and anxious to proceed to the Station House and charge Lindsay with an aggravated assault. The sergeant who, by the way, was himself a Presbyterian, on the information he was then able to obtain, came to the conclusion that the assault was of an aggravated character. Under those circumstances he was, by the provisions of the 229th Section of a Local Act (8 & 9 Vict., cap. 142) justified in arresting the accused and bringing him to the police station. The resident magistrate, on all the facts brought out at the hearing, took a
  † See (4) Debates, xcvi., 1003.
  1126
  different view as to the nature of the assault, merely observing that it might have been better to have proceeded by summons, but that the best official might be guilty of an error of judgment. The police are fully aware of the rules which should guide them in the discharge of their delicate duties in Belfast. No action by the Executive appears to be called for.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Herbert Lindsay, who was convicted in Belfast and ordered to pay forty shillings and costs, or in default to be imprisoned for one calendar month for alleged assault; if his attention has been called to the evidence given on appeal at the Belfast Recorder's Court, where the decision of the magistrate was reversed, and will he state on what ground the evidence of character was refused by the stipendiary; will he cause further inquiry to be made in this case; and can he arrange that in future eases of criminal prosecution, where evidence of character is tendered, magistrates will receive such evidence before the determination of a case.
  MR. AKINSON: The evidence given before the Recorder was not the same as that given before the resident magistrate, in as much as there was a cross case before the latter, on the hearing of which Lindsay wade some important admissions touching his own conduct on the occasion. Evidence of character was tendered, but the resident magistrate said it was unnecessary, as he would assume that Lindsay was a man of excellent character, and that in forcing his way into the house of the complainant, who was a Roman Catholic, and endeavouring to sell to her a work treating of the worship of the Virgin Mary, which was offensive to Roman Catholics, he acted from conscientious motives. The Executive cannot dictate to resident magistrates or other judges how they are to decide cases which come before them. It magistrates fall into error, their mistakes can be corrected by due process of law.
  MR. TULLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to prevent a

  1127
  man like Lindsay causing disturbances in Belfast by shoving his religious views under people's noses?
  MR. ATKINSON: Proper steps are taken by the police.

  Rock Angus Lights.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will recommend the Irish Lights Board to send an inspector to make local inquiries as to the necessity for lighting Rock Angus at the entrance of Strangford Lough.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that their Inspector has already visited Rock Angus, and reported to the effect that it is undesirable to light the rock except in connection with an extensive system of leading lights up Lough Strangford.

  Irish School Teachers' Salaries.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, the salaries of teachers in Ireland having now been consolidated, there is any objection to their being paid in future monthly instead of, as at present, quarterly.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The present system of quarterly payments necessitates the continuous employment, for a fortnight, of almost the entire staff of the Education Office. Monthly payments would entail a very largely increased staff. On this ground alone the suggestion of my hon. friend could not be adopted.

  Inspection of Irish Poor Law Boarded-out Children.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received resolutions from several poor law boards refusing permission to the present lady inspector to examine the children boarded out at nurse; and whether he can state when it is proposed to appoint a Roman Catholic lady as an additional inspector, and what will be the conditions of the appointment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: On June 26th I stated that the fist requisite of a case in favour of appointing a second lady inspectress was that all parties should co-operate to make the first a success. Some resolutions have been received and are to be regretted. But the general attack on the first appointment has ceased, and a second lady inspectress, Miss FitzGerald Kenney, who is, I understand, a Roman Catholic, has been appointed.

  Tallow Conspiracy Trial.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the charge of the Lord Chief Baron in the case of O'Keeffe v. Walsh and others, of Tallow, in which certain officials were alleged to have been guilty of a breach of public trust; and if he can state what proceedings he proposes to institute against the officials so referred to.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have read a newspaper report of this important judgment. I respectfully decline to debate the course pursued by the Executive more than three years ago.
  MR. TULLY: Why don't you prosecute them?

  Irish Court Houses.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many County Councils have refused to vote money for the maintenance of the Assize and Sessions Court-houses; and how many court-houses have, in consequence, been left derelict on the hands of the sheriffs for those counties.
  MR. WYNDHAM: One County Council only, namely that of Mayo, recently refused to provide funds for the maintenance of three court-houses within the county. Under the Local Government Act, 1898, it is the duty of the County Council to maintain these buildings in good condition and repair. If the Council fails in its duty in this respect, adequate remedies are provided by the Act. The contingency contemplated in the second part of the Question could never arise.

  Irish Intermediate Education.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any of the inspectors appointed by the Board of Intermediate Education have any knowledge of Irish; .and, if not, whether inspectors who are capable of examining the pupils in Irish will be appointed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are no inspectors in the service of the Intermediate Education Board.

  Irish Land Bill.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to indicate the material points in which his proposals for dealing with the Irish land question will differ from the Bill which he introduced this year.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have nothing to add to the statements I have made in this House and out of it. I believe them to be intelligible, and, in any case, I deprecate a piecemeal anticipation of a First Reading speech.

  Irish University Education Commission.
  MR. CAREW: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Monaghan, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say when it is expected the Royal Commission on Irish University Education will issue its Report.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I am given to understand that the Report will probably be laid before Easter.

  Municipal Trading—Suggested Royal Commission.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that the Select Committee of this House on Municipal Trading, appointed on the 6th April, 1900, has not been re-appointed, and in view of the increase in municipal debt and rates occasioned by municipal trading and other causes, he will consent to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the question of municipal trading,
  1130
  and into the causes which have resulted in the increase in municipal debt and rates.
  MR. LOUGH: I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts the statement twice made in the Question that what is called municipal trading raises the rates; and, if not, whether he approves of such a suggestion in the form of a Question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Really, it is not my business to criticise Questions. I am their victim, and not their critic. Any Gentleman who has any views on that point should address the Chair. As regards the Question put on the Paper by my hon. friend, I have to say that it is, I think, to be regretted that the Joint Committee was not re-appointed, and I hope there will be a possibility of reappointing it at no distant date. His suggestion for a Royal Commission might be entertained in the absence of the other alternative, but I should not like to give any definite answer to that question without more consideration than I have been able to give to the subject.
  MR. LOUGH: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is in order to make a statement that municipal trading raises the rates, in the form of a Question?
  MR. SPEAKER: As a rule, argumentative statements of that kind are not admitted in a Question. I have not had my attention called to this Question, or considered its form.

  Education Bill—Leased Schools.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will place on the Paper an Amendment to Schedule 4, to include on the repeals Section 24 of the Act of 1870, with a view to carry out his undertaking to preclude in the case of schools which have been transferred to School Boards the retransfer of such schools to the managers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that the general principle which should govern the ease referred to by the hon. Gentleman is that which I have already more than once described as applicable to leased schools. If a local authority should voluntarily give up, under its powers, a school which

  1131
  has been transferred to it, I think that case would have to be considered, subject to the provisions of Clause 9. I have already indicated that that is my view with regard to schools which are leased to the authority, and of which the lease has terminated.
  MR. CHANNING: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a passage in a speech he made on the 14th July, in which he used very strong words in reply to the appeal made by the hon. Baronet who is now Secretary to the Board of Education to withdraw this Clause—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CHANNING: I will put a further Question on the Paper.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR. H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the business will be on Friday next?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman will kindly repeat the Question tomorrow I shall be prepared to give all answer.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) [GRANTS [14TH NOVEMBER]—REPORT.
  Resolution reported: "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of certain annual grants to local education authorities in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to education in England and Wales."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsuggested that it would be for the convenience of the House that these proposals should not be debated at this stage. On the Clause that was coming on they would he governed in their discussion of these proposals by the Rules of Committee, and not by the more stringent Rules of Report.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he would like to make the observation that it was rather an odd procedure to invite the House of Commons to consider on Monday a Clause which was only put upon the Paper on Friday night, and a proposal which affected so closely not
  1132
  only the interests that the House had to guard, but the interests and concerns of so many local authorities throughout the country.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! It would be irregular to discuss the Clause on Report of the Money Resolution.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he was going to conclude by saying that he did not see any objection to the course proposed. He had no desire to do anything that was in the least degree irregular. It was only by way of obiter dictum that, while agreeing to the particular course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, he put in a little protest against the way in which the matter had been laid before the House by the Government.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there was another complaint they had to make. Perhaps he might be allowed to put it in the form of a Question. They could not thoroughly understand the working of the financial proposals of the Bill without the figures showing the operation of the Bill financially throughout the country. He understood that the Duke of Devonshire had promised to give those figures, and he wished to know why they had not been given to the House. With regard to the appeal which had been made, he thought they ought to have some opportunity of discussing the Clause in its double aspect, and he therefore hoped that any Motion not intended to make nonsense of the Clause would not be too strictly viewed.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that from a purely financial point of view he thought the appeal made by the First Lord of the Treasury was, to say the least of it, somewhat cool. This enormous financial proposal, which in accordance with the invariable Rule of the House had been brought in first in Committee, was closured, and no one had an opportunity of saying a single word about a scheme which he understood involved from one and a half to two millions. Surely it was cool for the right hon. Gentleman to ask the House to forego its undoubted right to discuss this matter. I Let it be observed that from a financial point of view this was absolutely the

  1133
  only occasion which the House would have of discussing it. What the House would discuss when they came to the Clause would be particular circumstances and conditions under which the money already authorised should he handed out. The House was not in such a position that it could dispense with any of the securities with which the wisdom of their predecessors had surrounded their financial operations. It behoved the House to stand up for every power it possessed in connection with the authorisation of any charge upon the public purse. It was extremely unfortunate that the Government had found it necessary to prohibit any discussion on the financial operation of the Bill.
  MR. ROBSONsaid he wished to attack the principle of the Clause because it contained the element of pure sectarian endowment, which it had hitherto been the policy of the House to avoid. The policy of the Government was to abrogate once for all the principle emphatically laid down in the Act of 1870 that no State money should be given to denominational bodies except under conditions which would make it clear that none of the money should he applied to the cost of religious instruction. That principle was laid down by Mr. Gladstone, and accepted by the Church party, but Parliament was asked to found a new order of lay dogmatic teachers, to be paid entirely by the State. It was said that the Church provided an equivalent in giving the use of its schools. But that was a gift which the Church could not withhold; for, literally, thousands of these schools were built, to the extent of 50 per cent. of the cost, out of State money. The Church had broken down under "the intolerable strain" of maintaining these schools; and now it transferred all the secular obligation to the State, still claiming the right to use the schools for all its own denominational purposes. For all these advantages the Church in return was only to hear the cost of repairs. The Church had got the best of the bargain, and, in some cases, it would make a small pecuniary profit, because the commercial astuteness of the Prime Minister had arranged that the Church was to retain, for denominational
  1134
  purposes, not only the schools, but the teachers' houses, which, under the Act of 1870, were to be taken as part of the school-house, although many of them were partly built at the expense of the State. How did the Prime Minister justify that misappropriation of State money? He should not oppose this grant if it were a grant to secular education only. It was not certain, however, that the funds available for secular education would be increased by the Resolution in its new form. Why should the localities proceed to increase the salaries of the teachers and improve the efficiency of denominational schools? They would be apt to leave these schools where they found them, and not to raise the salaries of men whom they did not appoint and could not control, for the benefit of schools which they were not allowed to manage. There was to be established a new order of lay ecclesiastical teachers. Henceforth the teachers in denominational schools would be ecclesiastical officers, ecclesiastically appointed, and ecclesiastically controlled, performing among their other duties functions which were strictly ecclesiastical; and that system was devised, not because it was necessary to the maintenance of religious education, but for the endowment of religious education. The Bill was only in favour of religious education because it sought to put the religious education of a particular Church on a basis of religious endowment. Contempt was often cast upon the "Nonconformist conscience," but did not the policy the House was now asked to adopt afford a singular illustration of the "Anglican conscience"—at any rate, as that conscience was put forward in Parliament, but not, he believed, as it prevailed among the lay members of the Anglican community. Nonconformist communities, by continuous effort and self-sacrifice, which commanded the greatest possible respect, supported their own ministry and carried on the religious work far beyond the bounds of their own people and churches. The sacrifices made by them for the maintenance of their faith were very real, and often touched personal comforts and even the necessities of life. Those sacrifices were to be increased in order that a far wealthier community might be

  1135
  relieved of a much smaller sacrifice. How were they to be increased? The Church was "coming on the rates!" That phrase was usually held to indicate a rude fall in social status, but he really thought it was not so bad as coming on the bread, sugar, and tea of the poorest of the community. They could now begin to see why the corn tax was imposed. In a time of peace, and with every prospect of a surplus, that tax was imposed as an immediate preliminary to this Bill. Supporters of the measure doubtless regarded these proposals as high State policy, with a fine flavour of religious enthusiasm, but Nonconformists and the people at large—whose affections the Church of England desired to win, but whose taxation was to be increased for the purposes of the Bill—would regard the policy as one of simple meanness. Was that the light in which the Church of England desired to appear either to its Nonconformist brethren or to those whom it wished to win to its fold?
  But to pass to another question. A new order of dogmatic teachers to perform really clerical duties was to be founded. Was that what the Church intended In addition to its other disadvantages, the grant was in direct contravention of one of the most important but most neglected rubrics of the Church. The Prayer Book stated—
  "The curate of every parish should diligently, upon Sundays and Holy days, alter the second lesson at Evening Prayer, openly in the church, instruct and examine as many children of his parish sent to him as may be convenient, in some part of the Catechism."
  That was how the Church directed its catechetical teaching to be conducted, and it was almost the method adopted by Nonconformists. The latter were content that the basis of morality and religion—common to all Christian sects and forms of faith—should be taught in the State schools, but when an advance was made to the catechetical teaching of specific doctrines, they were not only willing to teach their own children, but insisted on so doing. Nonconformists had no desire to avoid that paramount duty, and the Church of England had no right to get rid of it. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich was quite right when he maintained that the proper persons to teach the young of the Church of England were the
  1136
  clergy. What was to be said of the vagaries of the Anglican, or rather the ecclesiastical conscience, which was shocked at the suggestion that laymen should control clergymen in the management of a school, and yet insisted that somebody else should provide the money to enable laymen to do the duty of the clergy?
  There had appeared on the Paper, as a Government Amendment, the suggestion that in a school where fees were paid, a part of the fees should be given to the denominational managers towards the cost of religious instruction. That proposal was an evidence of the business-like astuteness of the Prime Minister in the interests of denominational teaching. Why should not that commercial astuteness be devoted in another direction? If the Church was to part with the teaching of its young, and to throw the charge on the State, ought it not to sacrifice some portion of its vast endowments? If the Prime Minister allocated the fees with such precise justice, let him allocate the endowments also. A fair application of that principle would make the right hon. Gentleman a little less eager in his raids on the public purse for the benefit of a particular denomination. Those raids were now made with much apparent success, but the Church of England would probably pay dearly for them. The strength of Nonconformity lay largely in the sense of personal responsibility felt by all Nonconformists in the maintenance of their faith, and that moral quality was shown by results to be worth more, even from the financial point of view, than all the endowments of the Church. The Prime Minister might or might not succeed in his efforts to squeeze out Nonconformity, but he would certainly succeed—although it was not his object—in weakening the sense of personal responsibility in the laity of the Church of England. Every session the right hon. Gentleman came forward with a measure to give further relief. In the long run the Church would probably not thank him for his efforts, and certainly those efforts would meet with the hostility of the people at large, when they understood how the richest branch of the Church of Christ in the world could or would live and do its work only out of taxation, which fell on the poorest of the poor.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend the Member for Kings Lynn said he had never heard so cool a proposition as my suggestion, that we should not waste our time—"waste," I think, is strictly the word—over the Report stage of this Resolution, but proceed at once to the discussion of the Clause in Committee, under the less rigid Rules which then govern our debates. My hon. friend is a far better judge of coolness than I can pretend to be, and if, after consideration, that is his verdict, I do not intend to defend myself against charge. But I would point out to the Committee that, if my hon. friend's objection was simply regard for the public purse and to secure a strictly financial debate on, the Report of the financial Resolution he must have been singularly disappointed by the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. and learned Member told us of a great many things. He told us of the demerits of the Church of England, the demerits of the First Lord of the Treasury, and the demerits of the Bill at large, but however they have really nothing to do with the financial proposals of the Bill considered as financial proposals. When I listened the hon. and learned Member's speech I confess that I could not feel in my heart to blame him, because I felt that this must have been some belated specimen of a Second Reading speech which the unfortunate accidents of debate had prevented him delivering earlier. The hon. and learned Member has told us that this Bill is an extraordinary and a generous gift to the Church of England, and he has told us that in so far as it relieves the ratepayer, it relieves him of a charge which he ought to bear. I am glad he has made that statement, because I find that some of my friends think this proposal very hard upon them. The hon. and learned Member has treated this Resolution throughout as if it referred to a contribution from the taxpayer to denominational education and denominational schools. It is nothing of the kind. It is a contribution to the general education of the country, which affects provided schools as much as unprovided, and which affects unprovided as much as provided schools, and for the hon. and learned Member to come down here and talk about it as if it was a contribution from the poorest of
  1138
  the poor, is to make a travesty of the facts which I am surprised at coming from an hon. Member holding the position which he does in this House, and I am surprised that he should have condescended to this. The hon. and learned Member was not only wholly and utterly inaccurate in his conclusions, but he was absolutely inaccurate as to the principle which underlies this proposal. He said that it was a new principle, and that for the first time we are breaking through an old and well-established canon that there should not be any contribution from public funds to denominational education. The hon. and learned Member must have known that he was talking something nearly approaching to nonsense when he made that statement. He must know that the State has constantly contributed to denominational teaching, both in England and Scotland, and he must know perfectly well that whatever may be said about the novelty of giving rate-aid in England, however novel that principle may be, there is absolutely no novelty whatever in the principle of giving money out of the Exchequer towards schools in which denominational teaching takes place.
  Me. ROBSON: I never, of course, said it was a novel principle for the State to give money to schools in which there was denominational teaching. What I said was that in giving that money the State had always taken care that no part of the money should be allocated to the cost of religious teaching. That was the principle which I laid down.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong, and it is perfectly easy to show that no public money goes to denominational teaching in those schools now. It is only a question of going through the accounts of the schools. I venture to say that the hon. and learned Member's theoretical principle is as much preserved, if it ever had any existence, under this Bill as it was before. This Resolution deals with a contribution which is a contribution by the Exchequer, not to one class but to all classes of schools, or, more correctly speaking, it is a contribution from the Exchequer not to schools at all of any sort or kind or distinction, but to

  1139
  the ratepayers upon whom rests the obligation of providing schools. If the House agrees with my contention, they will draw, as I do, two conclusions. One is that the hon. and learned Member's speech was irrelevant from beginning to end, and the other that the sooner we get into Committee upon the Clause the better. I do not know what the promise of the Duke of Devonshire refers to, but I do not think it is possible to give the figures yet, and there must be an element of conjecture about them.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid that although he approved the amalgamation of the two grants of 1897, a suggestion which he himself had made, he most cordially supported the general contention of his hon. and learned friend who had just spoken. He traversed the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that the speech of the Member for South Shields was in any sense irrelevant to the financial issues raised by the Resolution. The whole of his speech was based upon the provision of public money and its expenditure upon the objects proposed, and upon both those points he thought his hon. and learned friend had established an unanswerable case for the criticism he had levelled against the Bill. They perfectly recognised the purpose and the policy of this Bill. Step by step in the course of the Committee on this Bill concession after concession had been made to the denominational interests, and no protection was given to the public, no guarantee was given that these grants would be expended in the way the nation had a right to demand, namely, in the development of secular education. There was nothing to restrain sectarian bodies in their efforts to divert these grants and use them for sectarian ends. This half million of money would go to support the machinery placed in the hands of the denominationalists to capture and monopolise the schools of the country. That was one aspect of this grant. It was an enormous subvention to sectarianism. And the other aspect was equally characteristic of the uniform policy of this Ministry. The question of rates was ultimately a landlord's question. And this money was being given in a way which inevitably made it a new subvention to the landowners. He protested against this grant because there was no guarantee given to the public that this money would be spent
  1140
  upon popular education. They had been giving subsidy after subsidy in the teacher's house, in the share of endowments, and in other ways. They had learned finally today that even in the case of denominational school managers who had not had the pluck, and would not make the pecuniary sacrifices, to keep their schools going in the past, and who had, in consequence, transferred them to the School Boards to run. These extra funds would now be handed over to enable them to take over their schools and turn them into denominational schools again.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid this proposal had only been on the Paper for a few hours, and he wished to know if an opportunity would be given them of discussing the general bearings of the Clause.
  MR. TREVELYANasked if they would be able to discuss in Committee whether part of the grant ought not to be given to secondary education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was 10th to answer what was apparently a question of order, but he should greatly doubt whether it was possible to dismiss secondary education. That was not, however, for him to decide. As to the question of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, that must depend upon the character of the Amendment. He thought they must treat the whole Clause as a discussable proposition. On the other hand, the Amendment might be of a character which would enable other Amendments to be brought before the Committee.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he would reserve anything he desired to say on the proposed grant for the Committee stage, but he wished to ask a question which he thought could be more suitably answered now than in Committee. It had reference to the position of London in connection with this matter. London was for the moment left out of the Bill, and the House could not say at present whether the Government intended to deal with it next year. Assuming that the Bill applied to London, then London,

  1141
  in the ordinary course, would be entitled under the new proposal to £195,000 out of the total grant. Deducting the £49,000 which the voluntary schools received under the voluntary schools grant—he was using round figures, which he thought were sufficient for his purpose—London would be entitled to £146,000 out of the round £1,000,000 proposed as the additional sum to be given under the Bill. It appeared to him that a sum of £146,000 ought to be put aside in respect of London. Obviously it would not be fair that London taxpayers should contribute this additional sum unless London schools were to benefit to the same extent as they would do if the Bill applied to London. According to the ordinary calculation, London contributed one-fifth of the whole sum of the Imperial taxation, and therefore the amount to which the London taxpayers were entitled was something like £200,000. The Prime Minister had said that the question of Ireland and Scotland would he reserved, but that these countries would not in any sense be damnified by this Bill passing and by an additional sum being given to England. How would London stand in this matter? It seemed to him that the only way of dealing with the matter was to earmark £150,000 for the benefit of London education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The provisions of this Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows, do not refer to London. We hope to deal with London on an early day, but I do not see how we can allocate money to London until we deal with it.
  Mn. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not mean that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Or accumulate it.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that until London was dealt with, London would he mulcted to the extent he had indicated.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)said he understood his hon. and learned friend the Member for South Shields would oppose the grant if a division were taken. He understood that his hon. friend the Member for East Northamptonshire was in the same
  1142
  position. He therefore wished to state the reason why he would support this grant in aid. If he had come to the House and heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields without any knowledge of the question, he should probably have been influenced by his arguments. But what were the sober facts of the case? This was a grant in aid of local rates. It was a grant in aid of the provided schools, just as much as a grant in aid of the non-provided schools. If his hon. and learned friend had moved to reduce the amount by what went to the non-provided schools, there would have been something to say for the proposal. He was perfectly ready to oppose any further grants in aid being given to the denominational schools where there was not popular control, but this was not a grant to the denominational schools, because these schools would receive the grant in one way or another, or rather, he ought to say, they would receive the money from the taxes in one way or another, whether there was any grant or not. The only effect of refusing this grant in aid would be that the denominational schools would receive a larger sum out of the local rates, and the provided schools would receive more out of the Imperial Exchequer. Were they prepared to refuse this grant in aid, and even the increase that had been made, and at the same time to say that the local rates should be increased in proportion? That was quite right, undoubtedly, from the point of view of the hon. Member who represented one of the Divisions of London. He represented a great many who paid no rates at all, the voluntary subscriptions having been so liberal that no local rates had been required. He did not think the view stated by the hon. Member for North Camberwell was that which was generally taken by Members of the House. It was perfectly true that the financial proposals gave a little more than was contemplated, until last week. It was, however, limited indeed, and there was this objection to the limitation that they laid down the principle that the local rate for primary education should never be less than 3d. in the £, and if, by good management and economy, combined with efficiency, those local rates should be under 3d. in the £, the Imperial Exchequer grant would at

  1143
  once be reduced by the same amount. That appeared to him to be an unsatisfactory form. It was encouraging people in the local districts to economise the amount of grant voted from the Imperial Exchequer. At the same time it ought to be borne in mind that this grant was only for primary education, and that an amount would have to be raised for secondary education. It was now suggested that the rate for that purpose should be 2d. The whisky money had been applied in the past in many cases entirely to secondary education. The Government were really putting on the local ratepayers this compulsory rate of 3d., and at the same time there was another equivalent rate of 3d. The result would be that the local ratepayers would have to contribute 6d. in the £ for educational purposes in their district. He did not argue entirely from the point of view of the agriculturist. He believed the local rates pressed heavily in country towns and villages on the small shopkeepers and tradesmen and the agricultural labourers, and it was in behalf of those men that he supported the grant in aid.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and to ask the Committee to consider how they stood from the point of view of procedure. Here they were asked to pass the Report stage of the Resolution, authorising the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay certain large sums of money out of the Treasury, and neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the Committee, even in an estimate, what was the total sum of money the Resolution was to authorise payment of. The Committee stage of the Resolution was closured on Friday afternoon. As he read the Resolution, it was an indefinite sum that was to be paid out of the Exchequer. It seemed to him they had arrived at a stage when the Treasury was to be considered as a sort of private box of the Ministry of the day, instead of as the public purse to be directly guarded by this House. He doubted if there ever was an occasion throughout the history of the House when there was a Resolution undiscussed in Committee or unexplained on the Report stage by a Minister of the Crown,
  1144
  and by which it was proposed to authorise large sums of money to be paid out of the Treasury, without any estimate in round figures being placed before the House. He should have liked to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place at present. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, as guardian of the Treasury, would not remain dumb to the end of the Report stage. The position was even more striking for this reason, that the Resolution which stood on the Paper for many weeks until Friday last, was a Resolution which had been drawn up in consultation with the them Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were informed by the Prime Minister that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day that had insisted on the grant from the Treasury should not exceed three fourths of the expenditure on education. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer in doing that was taking a very effectual safeguard over the National funds, but in a moment that safeguard had disappeared. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell the House what he thought of this unlimited Resolution.
  Resolution agreed to.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  MR. A. J. BALFOURformally moved—
  "In page 4, after Clause 10, to insert the following Clause:—'(1) In lieu of the grants under. The Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, and under Section 97 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870, as amended by The Elementary Education Act, 1897, there shall be annually paid to every local education authority, out of moneys provided by Parliament—(a) a sum equal to 4s. per scholar; and (b) an additional sum of 1½d. per scholar for every complete 2d. by which the amount which would be produced by a rate on the area of the authority falls short of 10s. a scholar. But the total amount of Parliamentary grants paid to a local education authority in any year shall not be such as to make the amount payable out of rates by the local education authority in respect of their expenses under Part III. of this Act in that year less than the amount which would be produced by a rate of 3d. in the pound, and the

  1145
  grants shall, if necessary, be reduced accordingly. (2) For the purposes of the number of scholars shall be taken to be the number of scholars in average attendance, as computed by the Board of Education, in public elementary schools maintained by the authority.'"
  He said: I do not think that it will be necessary for me to make any long statement in explanation of the altered Clause. There are, broadly speaking, two changes. The one consists of a considerable increase in the amount which is given by the Exchequer; the other is a change—not of vital or fundamental importance, but still a useful change—in the mode in which the money is allocated. I have already made a statement as to the advantages of dividing the money into two portions, one giving a fixed sum per child of the population of the whole kingdom, and the other making allocations to different portions of the kingdom, on a basis varying with the wealth or poverty of payable of various districts concerned. I, on that subject, will only say that we have maintained that basis unaltered, except that my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has found it possible to increase the sum which the Government estimated as a maximum of somewhere about £900,000 a year. Roughly, we have been able to add to that a sum which, if every locality complies with the conditions under which the grant can be conferred upon them, will amount to about £400,000 a year more, so that there will be a total benefit to the local ratepayers of about £1,300,000 a year. That is the largest change in the Clause, and I think it is one which will be universally satisfactory. The other change refers to the limitation based on the 3d rate, and I think that will also prove satisfactory on the whole. The Government thought at first that a 3d. rate would be universal, or nearly universal; but, on closer examination, we found that there were more places than we supposed in which it will not be necessary to raise a 3d. rate. No blame attaches to the Government for that miscalculation, and no inconvenience has been caused to the Committee. I shall accordingly ask the Committee to consider a further Amendment. The general proposition I wish to advance is this: that under the Clause
  1146
  as it now stands we give a larger sum than we gave before, and also render the limitation principle more generous in its operation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: (Carnarvon Boroughs): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the exact terms of the modification.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My explanation is probably simpler than the terms of the Amendment. It is this: if any place raises less than a 3d. rate, its grant from the Exchequer will be pro tanto diminished. The Amendment, however, will be to strike out the paragraph beginning "But the total amount" and ending "be reduced accordingly" and to substitute the following, "If in any year the total amount of Parliamentary grants payable to the local education authority, would make the amount payable out of other sources by that authority, on account of their expenses-under Part III. of this Act, less than the amount which would be produced by a rate of 3d. in the £ the Parliamentary grant shall be decreased and the amount payable out of other sources shall be increased by a sum equal in each case to half the difference."
  New Clause (Aid Grant)—(Mr. A. J. Balfour)—brought up and read a first time
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEthought it most unfortunte that they had these continual changes in the Clauses of the Bill. Only hon. Members who were members of local authorities were competent to discuss this new Clause, and what was wanted was time to send it down to the various local authorities in order to hear from them how it would work out. Those of them who had tried to Bret at the facts knew that there was a great difference of opinion amongst highly competent authorities as to how the Clause would work out. Amendments which some of his hon. friends proposed to this Clause were based on the fact that it gave very sufficient financial assistance to different

  1147
  parishes, and discrepancies between district and district would continue to exist. They might not be so extreme as between the highest and the lowest as at the present time, but they would continue. Many hon. Members desired to see the principle of the equalisation of rates, which had been put forward for London by the Government with every demonstration of support from their followers, applied to the counties. Something was done in 1897 to redress the grievance by the grants to the most necessitous districts, but the Act making these grants would be repealed by the present Bill, and the hardship would remain. Calculations which had been made by those who had the greatest official knowledge of the figures, showed that, while the effect on the general rate of the county that would be produced by equalisation within the county would be very small, the discrepancy as between different districts would be very great, some districts paying three times and four times as much as others. To relieve the poorer districts, the average charge would be very small, as compared with the enormous discrepancy as between district and district. The Committee would have to consider that matter. No doubt, the case of county boroughs which were extremely necessitous would be put before the Committee; but the question of equalisation within the counties, in order to relieve the poorer parishes, which had lost the local management of their education, should also be considered. The Government had given, in respect of the poverty of those poor districts, a large sum of money; but they had given half of it absolutely to the county as a whole, and the county was given discretion as to whether half the other half, or another quarter, should be given to the poor districts. Why should the county have that invidious task put upon it? It seemed to him that a larger share should be given to the poor districts, and that there should be some attempt at equalisation. The hon. Member for the South Molton Division put a Question to the First Lord of the Treasury on the subject the other day. The hon. Member asked if the expenses charged to the present School Board areas would be included in the expenses of the local
  1148
  education authority; and it was an extraordinary fact that the answer was in the affirmative. That brought out the absurdity of the situation. The proposal was one that would not stand the careful investigation of the Committee.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he quite admitted that the problem of how to meet the case of the pourer districts equitably was a very difficult one. Where the rateable value was lowest, the number of working class children to be educated was, as a rule, highest, and where the rateable value was highest, the number of working class children to be educated was, as a rule, lowest. That being so, the difficulty of meeting the case of the poorer districts was very great. For instance, in Bournemouth the rateable value was £390,000, the number of children to be educated was 3,400, and 1d. in the £ brought in 9s. per child. In Gateshead, on the other hand, the rateable value was £340,000, the number of children to be educated was 14,240, and 1d. in the £ brought in 1s. 7d. per child. To devise a sliding scale which would meet two extremes of that kind was a very difficult task. How did the Government propose to meet them? They took all the Voluntary School Acts' money, except what belonged to London, which was not yet legislated for, and also the necessitous School Boards' money, amounting in all to £860,000. Then they added the new £900,000 described to the House by the Prime Minister, making a total of £1,760,000. First of all, they proposed to dispense 4s. per child all round; and, including London, that worked out at £824,600, leaving £935,400. Then they proposed a 1½d. sliding scale for every complete 2d. by which the amount which would be produced by a 1d. rate on the area of the authority fell short of 10s. a scholar. Their original proposal was a 1d. sliding scale; and the increase of a ½d. would increase the amount by £467,700, making a total of £2,227,700, of which £824,600 would be in the form of a fixed 4s. per child, and £1,403,100 in the form of a 1½d. sliding scale. He did not think

  1149
  that that was the best plan of dispensing the money. The fixed portion was too much, and the sliding scale portion was not enough. If the fixed portion were materially diminished, and the sliding scale portion increased, the money could be dispensed in such a way as to make it better for the poorer districts, and not quite so good for the richer districts. He himself had taken the trouble to work out the figures for every part of the country; and he would direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the solution he proposed. If the fixed portion were reduced to 2s., there would then be sufficient money to make the sliding scale, not 1½d. but 2d. A 2s. fixed portion would amount to £412,300, leaving a balance of £1,815,400 to be dispensed under the 2d. scale. He would take the two most extreme cases, In the case where a 1d. in the £ only brought in 1s. per child, under the Government scheme, such a district would get a fixed grant of 4s. a child, and under the 1½d, scale it would get 6s. 9d. or a total of 10s. 9d. The other extreme limit was where 1d. in the £ brought in 10s. a child. In that case, the fixed grant of 4s. would be paid, but nothing would he paid under the sliding scale. That was a difference between the two cases of 6s. 9d., but the difference in the 1d. rate was 9s. and accordingly 6s. 9d. would not meet the differentiation. His proposal would involve exactly the same amount of money. In the case where the 1d. produced only 1s. a child, 2s. would be paid as the fixed grant, and 9s. under the 2d. sliding scale or a total of 11s. In the other case, where a 1d. rate produced 10s. per child, the fixed grant of 2s. would only be paid, and nothing would be given under the sliding scale; and the total would be 2s. and 9s., the difference between the product of the 1d. rate in both cases. The net result would be that by narrowing down the fixed portion and increasing the sliding scale, the same amount of money would be spent, viz. £2,227,700, but a little would be taken off the richer districts and put on the poorer districts. Curiously enough, the special aid grant would be exactly the difference between what a 1d. rate would produce in the different districts. He would suggest to the First Lord of the
  1150
  Treasury that that would be a more equitable scheme. The Government scheme was a good scheme as far as it went; but it made the fixed grant too much, and the sliding scale not wide enough to provide for the extreme differentiation in the amount produced by the 1d. rate. All the intermediate cases between a 1d. rate producing 1s. and 10s. would work out similarly under his scheme. He apologised for dealing with the matter in detail, but it was desirable that they should arrive at some scheme under which the money could be spent in such a way as to equitably deal with the great differentiation in rateable values. The new proposal with reference to the 3d. rate was, in his opinion, an improvement on the rigidity of the original scheme. He agreed that an obligation should be put on the locality to pay something. Indeed, he regarded that as vital; not that he wished to see more rates raised, but because he wanted people who had contracted themselves out for thirty-two years, largely because of the preference they said they had for a particular form of religious instruction, to be made to pay something. He was glad the Government had the courage to impose a local obligation to pay something. Otherwise, he had not the shadow of a doubt that towns like Preston, Stockport, and St. Helens would at once say, "We are going to get this new special aid grant; our schools are not so bad after all; we will be much better off; and there will be no need for us to raise a local rate at all." He was more glad than he could express that the Government had insisted in putting on a local obligation. But, modified though it was, the 3d. rate was more or less arbitrary. For instance, in Bournemouth a 3d. rate would raise 25s. a child, whereas in Stockport it would only raise 6s. a child, owing to the higher rateable value and the smaller number of working class children in the former as compared with the latter district. But Bournemouth must raise 25s. per child, otherwise it would be fined, even under the modified scheme. The scheme did not say that a 3d. rate should be raised, but that, if it were not raised, the locality would be fined to an amount representing the

  1151
  difference between a 3d. rate, and the rate they did raise. It was almost impossible to fix a standard of local obligation which would not be arbitrary in its incidence. The higher the rateable value the smaller would be the number of working class children, and the lower the rateable value, the larger would be the number of working class children. Therefore, the 3d. rate, modified as proposed, would be more or less an arbitrary standard. He did not like the phrase of 3d. in the £ in all new cases, because there was a grave danger that it would be stereotyped as the educational maximum instead of the minimum the Government intended it to be. The eight county boroughs and the 250 non-county boroughs which had never had a rate would say "3d. is the amount we are to go to, and we will go to that but no farther." He did not wish it to become fixed as the statutory maximum, which would be a most disastrous thing. In regard to the distribution of any new special aid grant, the Government should narrow the fixed portion and widen the sliding county scale. While he was glad that the Government would insist upon there being a local obligation, he should be sorry to find it fixed in the Bill at 3d. in the £. He would rather have had a proportionate grant and a widening of the sliding scale. He would rather see it put down at three-fourths by the State and one-fourth by the locality.
  MR. CRIPPSthanked the Government, on behalf of those who desired a charge on the rates that would not be unduly burdensome, for the concession they had made. It would be a monstrous thing to attempt in this Bill to fine in the future the districts which had hitherto been under a purely voluntary system. Although he agreed that the ratepayers must bear a fair share of the burden, when it cause to the question of what that fair share was, there was no reason for making the burden heavier than was necessary to obtain an efficient system of education. Anything beyond that was harmful, and made the ratepayers dislike education. The proposal of the hon. Member for North Camberwell to reduce
  1152
  the grant to 2s. per head and widen the sliding scale, would not specially favour the extremely poor districts. It would put aside certain advantages which the voluntary districts had had, and which ought not to be taken away from them in the future. It would place a fine upon those districts which had a voluntary system, and be exceedingly hard on the county districts in which there was a mixed system. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had talked about an equalization of rates up to the old School Board standard. This Bill took the burdens off particular districts and put them on the country at large, but beyond that the right hon. Gentleman desired the equalization of rates between county and country.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that what he desired was equalization of the rates, not as between county and county, but within the county itself.
  MR. CRIPPSwas glad the right hon. Baronet did not desire equalization as between county and county, as that was really a monstrous proposal and one which ought never to be made. As regard the 3d. rate, under the Clause as it originally appeared, it was to be levied in every district whether it was wanted or not. That would have been not only very unfair, but tremendously wasteful. Districts in which, because the educational necessities were met from either voluntary sources. Endowments, or State grants, the money was not required, would have been obliged to levy this 3d. rate. That was an impossible position to take up. However, the Government had not altered their proposal. But even under the altered circumstances, he though the rates ought not to be called on. He could not see why a district, which had sufficient money for educational purposes, should be obliged to raise a rate in order to get a grant to which they were otherwise entitled. He had no objection on principle when it was a question of the division of the amount between the State grant and the rates. In the present form of the proposal the Government had done all they could have been expected to do, and he heartily thanked the Prime Minister for the concession he had made.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that as a general principle he was opposed to grants-in-aid, but the one under discussion was of a much better character than any the Government had proposed during the last six years inasmuch as it did not differentiate between classes of people or classes of schools. Moveover, if there were to be grants-in aid at all, those for educational purposes were the most justifiable. It was all very well for the hon. Member for North Camberwell to attack poor little rural districts because they did not contribute much to the rates, but seeing what a hard struggle it was for the little tradesmen to scrape a living and for others to raise their rent, it was really a matter of surprise that they levied any rates whatever for educational purposes or anything else that they could avoid, and any provision that would lighten the burden of rates upon them would be an advantage to education itself. The Welsh School Boards had been severely criticised. No doubt the attendance compared unfavourably with that in some of the rich English boroughs, and the equipment and staff were inferior but the reason was given in the very figures quoted by the hon. Member, because they proved that even that poor equipment cost more proportionately than that in the richer boroughs. The difficulty was one of rating, and, much as he loathed grants in aid, he was glad the Prime Minister had introduced this proposal; in his opinion it would be the least objectionable Clause in the Bill. The difficulty was not so much equalisation between county and county, or town and town, as equalisation within the county itself. The cost of a building, ordered by the Board of Education, even though inefficiently equipped, was prohibitive to a poor parish. Could not the Prime Minister find some means of meeting such cases? If the right hon. Gentleman would provide that out of the subvention the County Council should make a grant in aid of buildings, it would be a considerable relief to the poor parishes, and would hardly hit the county at all. It would probably represent less than ½d. rate to the county, but it meant a difference of 1s. or perhaps 1s. 6d. to the parish. Seeing that the Necessitous School Boards Act was being repealed,
  1154
  these places would not get so much relief after all; therefore he hoped some distinction would be made in favour of the poor little parishes.
  SIR H. MEYSEY - THOMPSONsaid that as the question of Mr. Forster's opinion had been raised, he rose for the purpose, not of discussing the proper rate that should be levied, but of stating what he heard Mr. Forster himself say on the point. At the time of the Education Bill of thirty years ago he went with his father, who took a very great interest in the question of education, to stay at a house in Yorkshire, where they met Mr. Forster. The whole question of the Bill was discussed, and Mr. Forster was asked the question: "Why do you not fix a limit to the rate?" to which he replied: "Well, I nearly decided to put a limit of 4d.; the reason I did not do it was that I thought, if the limit was put in, every education authority would think it necessary to spend the 4d., whereas I think it ought to be done easily for 2d. or 3d."
  MR. M'KENNAasked whether the basis on which the assessment would be made would be the county basis or that of the particular area under the local education authority.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBEBT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): It is the county basis.
  MR. M'KENNA: I think the words ought to be in the Clause.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: They are not wanted.
  MR. BRYCEexpressed his great regret that the House should have to discuss this intricate question without the benefit of the views of the local authorities on the matter. The Government had pursued a most extraordinary course. In June last the First Lord of the Treasury announced this new Clause; it was tabled some time afterwards, but it was not until Friday morning last the present form of the Clause was published, while that very afternoon an alteration had been made, which the Members

  1155
  would have to discuss from their recollection of its object rather than their knowledge of its terms. A more inconvenient or unfortunate course could not be imagined. The complaints as to the heavy burden the Bill would throw on the rates were made before the Second Reading of the measure. The Government, therefore, had had all the facts before them for some months, and why they should have waited until now to mature their plans assed comprehension. On that side they held very strongly that the Committee had not been properly treated in the matter, and he felt bound to voice that feeling.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a second time.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYmoved the omission of the words; "under Section 97 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870, as amended by The Elementary Education Act, 1897." He was anxious to state the case in which certain necessitous School Board districts were very much interested, and he wished to suggest a rearrangement of the grants proposed by this Clause. He recognised that if the sole result of this Amendment meant an increase of taxation he should be out of order, but the consequence of the Amendment he moved would be to cause a rearrangement of the last part of the Clause. He thought he would be able to show the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman had not submitted a scheme which would carry out the intentions already expressed by the Government. He would try to state his case as shortly as he possibly could. In 1870 it was recognised that the imposition of a rate for educational purposes would inflict upon certain districts an exceptionally heavy burden, and the Act of 1870 tried to make provision to meet the necessities of those places. It provided that in those districts if the 3d. rate did not produce a sum equal to 7s. 6d. per child in average attendance, such district would be entitled to an additional grant to bring up that sum to 7s. 6d. That system existed for twenty-seven years. But in 1896 the terrible condition in which certain urban and rural districts had been placed by the
  1156
  increased demands of the State, caused the position to be brought before Parliament, and this resulted in an alteration of the law in 1897. In 1897 they passed the Necessitous School Boards Act, under which an attempt—and a very earnest and successful attempt—was made to deal with certain exceptionally heavily rated districts. The Government of that day tried to find—and he thought did find—a very clear definition of what constituted necessity with regard to the School Board rate. They laid down that it should depend upon three factors; (1) the rateable value of the district; (2) the number of children to be educated; and (3) the amount of rate which had to be levied locally in order to discharge the statutory obligation. He wanted to lay stress upon the third factor. It was then agreed that they could not accurately define "necessity" unless they kept in mind in addition to the rateable value the amount of the rate which was to be levied in the district. If one district was entirely supplied by voluntary schools transferred to the new authority, though its rateable value and child population might be exactly the same as another district which had to supply all its schools, the charge which would accrue in the second case would be much higher than the other. It had already been pointed out that in order to deal adequately with such cases some grant must be made not only towards maintenance but to the cost of the buildings. In the Act of 1897 the cost of the buildings was carefully considered, and he needed only to quote the-opinion which had been arrived at by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, written by Lord Balfour of Burleigh himself, which stated that in the Act of 1897 an exceedingly ingenious and effective scheme had been discovered of dealing with this necessity. Only five years ago this principle was adopted, and now, under this Bill it was to be entirely thrown aside although it had worked well for five years and had the most cordial support of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. And why? As far as he could understand because the Government were of the opinion that the present scheme met the necessity, or else because they thought it was difficult to find an adequate remedy. In 1896 the difficulty

  1157
  was declared to be insuperable, but in 1897 it was overcome. He was not suggesting that they should revert to the Bill of 1897, but that the same principle should be incorporated in this Bill. What would be the effect of this scheme throughout the country? The scheme of the Government recognised two factors only, child population and rateable value, and upon those two factors alone would the new grant be distributed. Everyone realised that under the new Government scheme the 4s. per child would be distributed irrespective of the wealth or poverty of the district. Then they came to the sliding scale, which depended entirely upon the rateable value and the child population. If every district were equally supplied with school buildings there would be much to be said for this scheme, but when they realised that in some districts every school required was at present a charge upon the local rates and would remain so for some time, that the rateable value was low and the child population was very high, they had the whole of those three factors in the most aggravated form, and nothing was being done by the Government to meet these special cases. Those districts would not be one whit better off. He was more particularly interested in the great county borough of West Ham, with a population of nearly 300,000, and its enormous number of children, the majority of them being educated in board schools, and with the prospect of having to take over more than 7,000 children now in the voluntary schools. He had often brought before the House the disastrous taxation already pressing upon that borough. West Ham was a town larger than Nottingham, and with a larger child population, and it had a school rate which Nottingham would tremble at the very prospect of. The School Board rate in West Ham was 2s. 6½d., although they received, under the Act of 1897 the sum of about £18,000 a year. The Government proposed to sweep away that money under the lines he was moving to omit, and in lieu thereof they proposed to give another grant. The other grant, however, did nothing inure nor less than take the place of that money, but under the amended form of the Government proposal there would he added a sum of about £4,800, and that was all. That sum would only grant the smallest possible relief to the very heavy charge which
  1158
  would have to be undertaken in the education of those 7,000 additional children in the voluntary schools. How were they left as compared with other towns not necessitous? Bath would escape with a 5½d. rate. The figures he was quoting were based upon the latest Departmental Returns, and if they were inaccurate the margin of inaccuracy would remain the same throughout the whole of the towns. Bath would have a 5½d. rate, while West Ham would have a rate of 2s. 7½d. Could anybody believe that the scheme which the Government outlined in the earlier stages of this Bill was being carried out when two towns were being left in a position so exceedingly unequal as that? Birmingham would have the whole of the additional charge under this Bill entirely met by Government grants, and would be left with a school rate of 1s. 1½d. Therefore Birmingham, which was rich, with a comparatively small child population of about 15 per cent. as compared with 18 per cent. in West Ham in the public elementary schools—Birmingham, with a higher rateable value, would discharge its obligation to the State by the payment of an education rate of 1s. 1½d., and yet the districts to the East of London, the County Borough of West Ham, and the non-county boroughs in the south-cast of Essex, would have the burden which presses upon them heavily already accentuated by this Bill. Nothing whatever was done by the Government scheme to meet these burdens except this paltry additional grant of less than £5,000, which would accrue to them under the amended form of the scheme, and they did not even get that on the original form of the proposal. It had been stated that the obvious object of this new aid grant was to diminish the burden thrown upon the locality by the operation of this Bill. He had already pointed out to the Committee that there were districts to the east of London where that burden would not be diminished to the extent of a 1d. rate, while there were other districts where the whole of the additional burden would be borne, and where the rate at present levied would possibly be reduced. In Portsmouth he heard one of the leading aldermen of the town, who had held the position of mayor, declare that the scheme of the Government would not only meet all their

  1159
  charges but would take 2d. off the School Board rate. He could not see why towns like Portsmouth should be treated on a different footing to the towns which were already so heavily burdened. It could not be thrown at these East End districts that their rateable values had been made purposely low, for they had been assessed up to the utmost penny they could bear quite recently. Everything they could get hold of was rated, and yet, in spite of that, their rateable value was as low as £4 8s. 9d. per head of population. While they were heavily assessed they had an abnormally large number of children in attendance. Not a single one of their school debts was yet liquidated. The first school erected in the district had still a debt to pay off. He had shown to the Committee that what was now proposed by the Government entirely failed to meet the necessity pressing upon the ratepayers in the district. It might be suggested that although the School Board rate was heavy, the other rates were light, but the fact was that the local rates worked out at 9s. 8d. in the £while the average of the country was somewhere between 7s. and 8s. He had tried, at the risk of the loss of lucidity, to compress his remarks as much as he could, but he should have failed in Ids duty if he had not raised his most emphatic protest against the terms of this Clause. He said frankly that he put his Amendment forward rather as a means of urging the Government to amend their scheme, to so modify it that urgent necessity might be relieved, and that some of the richer districts might bear a fair proportion of what was a national burden. Whitehall fixed the amount of the demand. The local authorities had practically no control over what they must do, and yet the localities were called upon to pay an alarming amount of the expenditure. He felt more strongly, as years went on, that inasmuch as this educational work was a national benefit, it ought to be a national burden thrown in the main on the central exchequer and not upon the local rates. Feeling that, he appealed to the Government to try to find some scheme before the Report stage which might meet the necessities of the districts.
  Amendment proposed to the Clause—
  "In line 1, to leave out the words, 'And under Section 97 of the Elementary Education
  1160
  Act, 1870, as amended by the Elementary Education Act, 1897.'"—(Mr. Ernest Gray.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. Friend speaks with great force for the constituency which he represents. That constituency has been, ever since I have been concerned in these questions, a source of great anxiety to those who have had to deal legislatively or financially with educational problems. The truth is not that the borough which my hon. Friend represents is in every particular a part of London, with the exception of this very important particular from my hon. Friend's point of view, that it does not gain by the Equalisation of Rates Act, which affects the Metropolis as a whole. No doubt that does produce a most abnormal state of things. It produces a state of things to which I do not imagine any precise parallel can be found in any other part of the country. I am, therefore, the last of complain that my hon. Friend should appeal to the Government to try to find some remedy for that state of things, some alleviation which would content those whom he represents. I confess I cannot accept the particular solution he proposes. I am not absolutely sure that I understand the effect of the Amendment. If his idea is that my right hon. Friend is to give all the grant which he has just promised, and the grants to necessitous School Boards in addition, then I take it that the Amendment would be out of order, for it would certainly be in substance, whatever it was in from, asking the Committee to sanction a very large increase of the grant we have just been authorized by the House on Report to give in aid of education. Therefore, I conceive that is not the policy of my hon. friend.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I recognise that I should be out of order if the Amendment had that effect. This Amendment must necessarily be followed by other Amendments to secure a redistribution of the grant.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The policy which he actually adopts in view of the

  1161
  regulations of the House is not to ask any increase in the amount of the grant, but to ask that the existing grant should be diminished by the amount of the necessitous schools grant, and that the necessitous schools grant should be distributed as at present. I have not been able to work out the figures, but I am not at all sure that my hon. friend would gain much by that procedure. But in my case I think the Committee will feel that, although there may be hard cases, it would be quite impossible for us, and most undesirable, to abandon the general scheme of this Bill, which masses all the grants together, and gives them in one general sum, for the purpose of dealing with this or that exceptional case. I would remind the Committee, what my hon. friend is perfectly aware of, and what he practically acknowledged, that this Bill does him no injury, and that he will not be worse off under the Bill than he is at the present time, but that only there are other parts of the country which will benefit by the Bill more than he will benefit by it. I am afraid that is true, and I am afraid it is inevitable as long as you adhere to the policy which is the policy, I frankly admit, of the Bill. While you may vary of the maintenance charges, you cannot pool the buildings. I do not believe the Committee would really tolerate any proposals of that kind. If you once admit that a district which is obliged to provide all its schools must bear a heavier burden than the district which, by good fortune, or for some other reason, had a great many schools provided for it—so long as you admit that there is to be a difference of that kind, so long, I fear, you must admit that there must be a difference between West Ham and some other more fortunately situated districts. My hon. friend would not gain as much as he hopes to gain by the Amendment. No doubt the position of West Ham after the Bill passes will be as it is now, and that it will not be so financially fortunate as compared with certain other districts in the country. For these reasons I think the Government have really no choice but to vote against my hon. friend's Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that they
  1162
  could not pool the buildings, but he had not offered to the Committee any argument in support of that. He had never heard any argument which had really gone to the point against the pooling of the liabilities of the provided schools. When the Government had taken away by what seemed to him to be the whole principle of the Bill, the local management of the schools by the elected representatives of the locality, it seemed to him that they had gone to the point which necessitated the equalisation, or something like the equalisation, of the charge for these schools. Of course that question did not very well arise on this Amendment. It was not possible for him to support the Amendment, which however, afforded an opportunity for the discussion of the question whether the money which was to be given should go directly to the district, or to somebody else on behalf of the district. The united districts did not receive the money direct, it went to somebody else for them. There were united districts much larger in population than the urban districts which were named in the Bill as separate districts, and yet the money which was given in respect of the liabilities of those united districts under this Clause was to go, not to them, but to the county, which was only bound to return one quarter, or one half if they so chose. These appeared to lam to be cases of monstrous and unnecessary injustice.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid he hoped the Government would look with a favourable eye on the suggestion made by the hon. Member for North Camberwell. What might be wanted for the Old Kent Road might not be suitable for an agricultural county. He desired to thank the First Lord of the Treasury for the concession he had made to the agricultural Members; the right hon. Gentleman had tempered the wind to the shorn lamb. He did not mean to say that they were satisfied. It was not their business to be satisfied, but they were grateful; and with an intelligent anticipation of events before they happened, he hoped they should have further relief from the rates before long. He was bound to say that, as a humble agricultural

  1163
  Member, he would do his best to persuade his supporters that the First Lord and the Government had, under very difficult circumstances, endeavoured to do their best in this matter.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid that the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford had said that it was not his business to be satisfied with the Government proposal, and neither was it the business of the Opposition to be satisfied. There were extreme cases like West Ham and some rural districts which would be saddled with great liabilities. In his own constituency—the county borough of Oldham—the rates amounted to 6s. 8d. in the £, of which the school rate was 1s. 9d., and the amount received would only be 1s. 6d. per scholar. The hon. Member for West Ham had, however, not stated what his proposal would amount to in regard to the other grants, and therefore while he agreed with him in principle he could not vote with him.
  MR. D. J. MORGANsaid that the case of his constituency was as bad as that of West Ham, where the population was almost entirely made up of working men from London, and the district had to educate their children.
  Question put and agreed to.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid he agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, that it was a great pity that they had not had an opportunity of consulting the local authorities in regard to this Clause. Under the provisions of the Bill as originally drafted, instead of the necessitous districts being better off than before, they would be worse. In East Ham instead of getting 8s. 10d. per scholar they would only receive 8s. 2d. under the new scheme. He urged on the Government that a sliding scale was absolutely necessary. It was imperative that some arrangement should he arrived at by which the necessitous districts should be put in such a position as to educate the young children who resided there. He wished this Bill when it became an Act to work easily and
  1164
  smoothly, and it was necessary that there should be no injustice done to any part of the United Kingdom; and that could only be done by the adoption of a sliding scale.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 6, to leave out 'a sum equal to 4s. per scholar' in order to insert 'Wherever the product of 1d. rate in the area of the authority is more than 2s. 6d. per scholar, a sum equal to 3s. per scholar.'"—(Mr Louis Sinclair.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid his hon. friend and the Committee would see that this was an Amendment which could not possibly be accepted. If he understood the words of the Amendment correctly, the effect of them would be to make the grant more in certain cases.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: Not the effect of my words.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That was the effect of the hon. Member's Amendment, but the hon. Member must have meant less.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid the words of the Amendment were the converse of what he desired to move, but his position was that as he could not move a reduction, he had to move an increase.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYexpressed great sympathy with the hon. Member, who was not in a position to move what he really desired, but at the same time he felt sure that the hon. Member would see that the Amendment was one which the Government could not possibly accept.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he desired to move an Amendment, in line 7 to strike out the words "per scholar." The wording of the Clause as it appeared; upon the Paper did not carry out the obvious intention of the Government—
  "An additional sum of 1½d. per scholar, for every complete 2d. by which the amount which would be produced by a 1d. rate on the area of the authority falls short of 10s. a scholar."
  Supposing they took a district in which there were ten scholars and in which the

  1165
  1d. rate produced £2 10s. Ten shillings a scholar would amount to £5. The 1d. rate would be £9 10s., and therefore the amount produced by the penny rate would fall short of the amount required by £2 10s. If each scholar was to receive 1½d. for every complete 2d. of the amount by which the rate fell short of the amount required—there were 300 twopences in £2 10s.—1½d. for every complete 2d. would give 37s. 6d. per scholar, or a total grant to the ten scholars of £18 15s. That was not the intention of the Government. The intention of the Government was to give 1½d. on every complete 2d.—not on every complete 2d. "per scholar." The object of his Amendment could be attained either by leaving out the words "per scholar" in line 7, or by inserting the words "per scholar" after the word "twopence" in line 8.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYthought his hon. friend was quite correct in his statement of the intention of the Government, and he would accept the Amendment but he would prefer it in the manner last suggested by the hon. Member.
  Amendment made to the Clause—
  "In line 8, after the words 'twopence,' by inserting the words 'per scholar.'"(Mr. Gibson, Bowles.)
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid it had been conclusively shown that there were a large number of poor parishes possessed of a School Board, the rates of which were extremely high. The First Lord of the Treasury had declined to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member on the ground that it was of an exceptional character and related to only one or two cases in the United Kingdom. The Amendment he now proposed to move was of a different character, the hard cases it was designed to meet being rather the rule than the exception. He quoted the amounts of the education rate in several parishes of Carnarvonshire, to illustrate the necessity for greater relief in extremely poor parishes. In such parishes throughout the country the cause of education would be indefinitely retarded unless
  1166
  the parish, and not the county, were made the unit in this financial Clause He knew a number of parishes in which a 1d. rate did not produce more than £10 a year.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 9, to the Clause, as amended, to leave out the word 'authority,' and insert the words 'parish served by the schools.'"—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'authority' stand part of the Clause, as amended."—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the Amendment would not carry out the object of the hon. Member, as it was already provided in the earlier part of the Clause that the money should be annually paid to every local education authority. On the merits of the Amendment, he pointed out that the Government had already gone as far as they could to mitigate the burden on poorer parishes by increasing the payment from one-half to three-quarters of the twopence. He hoped the Committee would see that the Government had gone as far as it could in this matter, and would reject the Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES DIL Esaid if the hon. and learned Gentleman had confined himself to saying that the Amendment would not carry out the object his hon. friend the Member for Flint Boroughs had in view, he would not have had anything to say upon the matter, but the hon. and learned Gentleman went further and said that the Committee would recognise that the Government had gone as far as it could. He had never heard any argument from the Government which met the demand for a much bolder step in the direction of equalisation. The total grants under this Clause would now be considerably over two millions of money. In spite of this great increase in the grant, there was nothing being done towards equalising the charges on the parishes. He agreed that the Amendment would not carry out the view of his hon. friend, and therefore, he would try to raise the question at a later stage in order that a division might be taken upon it.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the difficulties of the Committee had arisen from the Government Amendment having been put down on the Paper so late. The suggestion of his hon. friend the Member for Flint Boroughs seemed to him to be reasonable, and he did not think it ought to be brushed aside in this way. It was worthy of the attention of the
  Committee. All his hon. friend said was, that having once arrived at the figure to be given to the local authority, they ought to provide for the proper and equitable distribution of the money, so as to make a distinction between rich and poor parishes. That he understood was the object of the Amendment.
  (5.48.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 206; Noes, 85. (Division List No. 538.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finch, George H.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S

  Balfour, RtHn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lockie, John

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Flower, Ernest

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Bigwood, James

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Garfit, William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bull, William James

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Butcher, John George

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Campbel1, Rt. Hn. J.A(Glasgow

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Carew, James Laurence

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Milvain, Thomas

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Chapman, Edward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Helder, Augustus

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Percy, Earl

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'dDixon

  Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

  Purvis, Robert

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pym, C. Guy

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Kemp, George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Stock, James Henry

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Samuel, Hebert L.(Cleveland)

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

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Spear, John Ward

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Harwood, George

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

  Hayne, Rt. Charles Seale-

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Spencer, Rt Hon C. R (Northants

  Bell, Richard

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Langley, Batty

  Tennant, Harold John

  Burns, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Caldwell, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  M'Arthur William (Cornwall)

  Wallace, Robert

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wason, Eugene

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Moss, Samuel

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Douglas, Charles M (Lanark)

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Whitley, J. H.(Halifax)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Edwards, Frank

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, Henry (York, W. R.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidst'ne

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Ferguson, R. C. Mumo (Leith

  Price, Robert John

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Rea, Russell

  Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Runciman, Walter

  Mr. Herbert Lewis and

  Grant, Corrie

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Mr. Samuel Evans.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Shackleton, David James

  MR. M'KENNAmoved to add at the end of line 9, the words, "provided that in estimating the produce of a 1d. rate in the area of the local education authority, not being a county borough the rate should be calculated on the assessment for county rates." Under the Clause the grant would be calculated with boroughs on the valuation for poor law purposes, whereas for the whole administrative county it would be on the valuation for county purposes. Under that plan, in a borough a particular building might be valued for poor law purposes at £50, whereas for county purposes the valuation might be only £40. As the grant was to be calculated on the relation between the rateable value and the number of scholars, it was very
  1170
  important that the valuation by which the amount of the grant was to be determined, should be accurately fixed. In many places property had been intentionally valued at a low rate, and the places in which that was the case would receive special advantage from this grant. The county basis was, generally speaking, very accurate, and it was only fair, as between different local education authorities within the same county, that the amount of grant should in every ease be based on the same valuation.
  Ammendent moved—
  "In line 9, at end to add—'provided that in estimating the produce of a 1d. rate in the area of the local education authority not being a county borough the rate shall be calculated on the assessment for county rates.'"—(Mr. M'Kenna.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYpointed out that all the county was concerned with, was to see that the relative assessments of the different areas within the county were correct. For the purposes of the county it did not matter what the amount of the assessment was so long as the proper proportion between the different areas was observed. The County Council had power to review the assessment of the relative areas, but with the actual amount they had nothing to do. He really thought there was no ground for the apprehension of the hon. and learned M ember, and he suggested that he should leave it to the areas to make their assessments correctly.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISagreed with the Attorney General that the only question to be decided was as to the relative proportions the various boroughs and districts had to pay. But could any better plan be suggested than that proposed by his hon. and learned friend? The county assessment was perfectly fair; it was calculated on the same basis throughout, and if the Government would look into the matter they would find that the method suggested in the Amendment was by far the best and most practicable that could be put forward.
  MR. TREVELYANreminded the Government that they had admitted the existence of the kind of difficulty referred to by his hon. and learned friend, because in the King's Speech they promised a Valuation Bill. That measure had not yet seen the light, but its general idea was taken to be in the direction of carrying into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. Those recommendations were, generally speaking, to assimilate the assessments throughout the different counties under whatever authority those assessments were made. The Amendment, therefore, had some significance.
  MR. M'KENNAwas proceeding to quote from the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, when—
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY,interposing, said that with a slight modification, there would be no harm in accepting the Amendment. If the hon. Member would move the Amendment in the following form he would adopt it—
  "Provided that in estimating the product of a 1d. rate in the area of a local education authority not being a county borough the rate shall be, calculated upon the county rate basis."
  MR. M'KENNAsaid he would accept the suggestion of the Attorney General.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYasked whether the Amendment should not include quarter session boroughs.
  MR. WALTER LONGthought there was no necessity specially to designate quarter session boroughs. The precise words of the Amendment would be considered, and if necessary could be altered at a later stage.
  Mr. M'KENNA'SAmendment was withdrawn, and the words suggested by the ATTORNEY GENERAL were agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Clause, as amended—
  "To leave out from the word 'but,' in line 10, to the word 'accordingly,' in line 15, both inclusive, and insert the words, 'If in any year the total amount of Parliamentary grants payable to the local education authority would make the amount payable out of other sources by that authority, on account of their expenses under Part III. of this Act, less than the amount which would be produced by a rate of 3d. in the pound, the Parliamentary grant shall be decreased, and the amount payable out of other sources shall be increased by a sum equal in each case to half the difference.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause, as amended."
  DR. MACNAMARAasked the Chairman whether it would be in order for him to move the Amendment he had handed in, as an alternative?
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the words of the original Clause are struck out, the hon. Member can move alternative words.
  Question put and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the new Government form of the Amendment was preferable to what they had had before them up to now. He wanted to get back more to the Government's second edition of their original proposal. He admitted that the new proposal of the Government was an improvement, but he objected to the fixing of 3d. in the pound, for the reason that it might be taken as a statutory maximum of obligation and would be likely to become stereotyped as the amount to be raised by the local authority. Such a result would be very disastrous to the schools of the country. He was aware that hon. Members opposite said that 3d. in the pound was enough. Lord Salisbury had stated that it would be advisable to write up in letters two feet long over every board school that the rates should never he more than 3d. in the pound. He did not say that the proportion of three-fourths or four-fifths was a thoroughly equitable scheme, but if they laid down that the Government had to find a proportion they should avoid the extremely dangerous probability of it being said that the House of Commons had determined that the statutory maximum which they might be called upon to contribute locally was 3d. in the pound. He proposed as an Amendment the original form of the proviso modifying the three-fourths to three-fifths, because the Government had now found another half-million of money winch amounted to one-twentieth of the whole.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out all the words after the word But and insert the words, 'the total amount paid to any local education authority on account of all the Parliamentary grants in respect of elementary education, including the grant under this Section, shall not in any year exceed four-fifths of the total expenses of the authority under Part III. of the Act, and the amount payable under this Section to a local education authority shall, where necessary, be reduced accordingly.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: effect of this Amendment, in practice, will
  1174
  not be very extensive. The proposal is in itself an improvement, because it does away with the evil which exists, not in a large number of cases, but in cases where the rate would be under 3d. I think the apprehension expressed by my hon friend is really unfounded. He seems to think that if we mention a 3d. rate and provide for a certain deduction, it will come to be regarded as a sort of statutory limit. I cannot think that there is anything in that apprehension, because 3d. in the £ is not mentioned as the maximum anywhere. I rather wish it could be so mentioned. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh."]
  DR. MACNAMARA: That confirms my apprehensions.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: What we do provide is that 3d. is the statutory minimum for the payment of the full Parliamentary grant; and how can the most careless person suppose that that is the maximum? The hon. Member opposite is afraid people will run away with the idea that 3d. is the maximum, but not even the man who runs as he reads could make that mistake. Therefore I think the hon. Member's apprehension may really be dismissed as unfounded. Now I pass to consider the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman in support of his alternative proposal, which is a variation of the original Government proposal. He proposes that we should say that the Government contribution is not to exceed four-fifths of the total amount provided for in the expenditure or in the Budget for educational purposes for elementary education, and in case anything of that kind happens the Government grant should be reduced accordingly. I submit to the Committee that the proposal of the Government is a better one, for this reason. If you take the four-fifths then you put down £1 and get £4 of Government money. If you take it in reference to a 3d. rate, if you are under the 3d. the difference is shared, so that it is pound for pound from both local Government sources. I think the hon. Member will see that this really is better, having regard to the varying circumstances of the districts where the rates may be under or over 3d. in the £. Suppose we find the circumstances are such in a certain district that a 2d. rate would

  1175
  be enough for all the expenditure for elementary education, and suppose that a 2d. rate yielded £2,000. Of course a 3d. rate would yield £3,000 and £2,000 would be the full amount of the Government grant. What is proposed now by the Government is that that £1,000 should be divided between the district and the Government, so that the Government grant would be reduced by £500, and £500 would be put on the local rate, and thus you would have a 2½d. rate instead of a 2d. rate. I therefore submit to the Committee that the contention of the hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the Government proposal is quite unfounded, and as a working proposal I think that what is put forward by the Government is likely to be far more effective
  MR. WHITLEYsaid this was a very difficult matter for the Committee to balance, having regard to the fact that so little time had been given them to consider the proposal of the Government. He was sure the Committee would pardon him if he tried to present another aspect of the case to that which had been put by the Attorney General. He thought the difference between these two schemes would have just the reverse effect to that which had been described by the Attorney General. Let them remember that the principle of a proportion between Imperial aid and the local rate aid for the purposes of education was fixed by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a protection to the country, at three-fourths and one-fourth, respectively. In the case of a local authority not inclined to spend any more than they could be forced to spend on elementary education, and who cared more for saving expenses than for the quality of the education in the district, what result would these two schemes have? According to the scheme of the Government, for every penny the local authority failed to raise they would only lose an equivalent penny of Government grant; whereas by the plan proposed by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, every authority who were so niggardly as to save a penny which they ought to spend would lose 4d. which they would otherwise receive out of the Exchequer, so that, looking at the two schemes from the point of view of progress in education, he had not the slightest doubt that by keeping the proportion of four-fifths to
  1176
  one-fifth there would be a greater stimulus given to education than by the plan proposed by the Government. He could imagine some local authorities saying, that rather than rate themselves to the extent of 3d. they would forego the equivalent 3d. of Government grant. In that way, under the Government proposal, it would be possible to have backward areas throughout the country where local authorities cared more for the saving of the rates than for the good of education. In Wales, in connection with secondary education, the principle was adopted of giving an equivalent grant of a halfpenny for a halfpenny, and he thought everyone would admit that that was a good principle, which had given a stimulus to secondary education there. He appealed to the Government to reconsider what he regarded as their hasty decision in this matter.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid it seemed to him that in a great many places a 3d. rate, which might go a long way in regard to maintenance, would not go far if it included buildings. That being the case he should prefer the proportions proposed by the hon. Member for North Camberwell to those proposed by the Government. In the case of a borough which up to the present time had had no denominational schools, by fixing a minimum of 3d. in the way proposed they really fixed a maximum, and the whole of the money would be wanted for maintenance only. He did riot think there was any danger of misunderstanding the words When an Act of Parliament stated what was to be the minimum, there was a tendency to regard it as the maximum required.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he would point out to the hon. Member how the proposal of the hon. Member for North Camberwell would work in the poorer districts. If the Committee said the proportion was to be a fourth or a fifth, it would be possible to raise the rate to 1s., and that might be a heavy amount for a poor district to raise. Therefore this 3d. rate had been fixed in justice to the poorer districts.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that in some cases the figure might reach 1s., but it was already 1s. in those cases. The Government scheme was to suggest that the amount had better be brought down
  to 3d. That was what he wanted to avoid.
  (6.35) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 219; Noes, 99. (Division List No. 539.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lockie, John

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Flannery. Sir Fortescue

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Flower, Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balcarres, Lord

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gardner, Ernest

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Garfit, William

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Bignold, Arthur

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

  Meysey-Thomson, Sir H. M.

  Bigwood, James

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir _Frederick G.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Milvain, Thomas

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

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

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Bull, William James

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Butcher, James George

  Gretton, John

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Carew, James Laurence

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Murray, RtHn A. Graham (Bute

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Percy, Earl

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Chapman, Edward

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Charrington, Spencer

  Helder, Augustus

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Clive, Capt. Percy A.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Purvis, Robert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Howard, J (Midd., Tottenham)

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ridley, Hon. M.W (Staly bridge

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dicksion-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jobb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eition)

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Kemp, George

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Kennaway, Rt Hon. Sir John H.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Keswick, William

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Kimber, Henry

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Farrell, Sir T. George

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Finch, George H.

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

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

  Stock, James Henry

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Warde, Colonel C.E.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  TELLERS FOE THE AYES—

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Tuffnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  NOES.

  Allan, SirWilliam (Gateshead)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland)

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

  Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Shackleton, David James

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Harwood, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bell, Richard

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Spear, John Ward

  Burns, John

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Spencer, RtHn. C.R.(Northants

  Caldwell, James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Langley, Batty

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Tennant, Harold John

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Lloyd-George, David

  Toulmin, George

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Lough, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Wallace, Robert

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wason, Eugene

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Edwards, Frank

  Moss, Samuel

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Price, Robert John

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Priestley, Arthur

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Rea, Russell

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dr. Macnamara and Mr.

  Grant, Corrie

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Whitley.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

  Runciman, Walter

  Words [of Mr. Balfour's Amendment, as amended,] inserted.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Amendment he had placed on the Paper was designed to meet certain cases of hardship which would occur under the Bill as it stood. There were groups of rural districts which had hitherto acted as one for the purposes of education. These districts would now be merged in the counties. In his own constituency there was a rural school district with 30,000 population. And he knew of another case of two rural parishes, which had been grouped together by the Board of Education for the purposes of rating for education. There was a
  1180
  denominational school in one parish. The School Board District would now be broken up, but the parish would have to pay the county rate, pay for the denominational school, and would have also to pay the capital debt of the extinguished School Board District, with which in future they would have no connection at all. It seemed to be particularly hard, and totally impossible of explanation to the people, that they would have to pay 3d. or 4d. in the £. more than the people in the neighbourhood.
  Amendment proposed—
  "After the words last inserted, to insert in the Clause the words, '(2) The amount paid

  1181
  under this Section shall be allocated by the local education authority in the first instance to the expenses referred to in paragraphs (c) and (d) of sub-Section 1 of Section 13, if any such expenses are incurred by them.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the Bill did not create the hard cases to which the right hon. Baronet referred. He admitted that the Bill would not cure them, but it would mitigate them. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to make universal a grievance which was at present casual and sporadic. The grievance was that certain artificially amalgamated parishes, which had got schools of their own, were obliged to pay fo schools built in other parishes, and that grievance, which now existed only in these artificially amalgamated areas, the right hon. Gentleman wanted to extend to every county in the kingdom. In the case of a parish which built a school twenty-five years ago and had five years more of the debt to run, the right hon. Gentleman, he understood, would pool the charge; but, on the other hand, in the case of the parish which had for thirty years been paying a heavy charge for its buildings, were they to recoup it? And if not, why not If it were urged, on grounds of equity, that they should give the privilege to the parishes which came late into the field in regard to the provision of their schools, why should they refuse redress to the parishes which came early into the field? As to the limit fixed, while thinking that the county authority should not be relieved of all obligations in respect of School Board areas, they had thought that all obligations should not be imposed upon them. They had taken the middle course, believing it wise to leave some discretion and latitude to the education authority in order that varying circumstances and cases might not be left out of sight.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he did not feel quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman had authority for believing that in every case the Government had succeeded in alleviating the grievance.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, yes; in every case.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: It should be remembered that the poor parishes would lose the necessitous board school. At present the grants earned by a parish were used entirely for that parish, but that would not be so in the future. They would now go to the County Councils and be distributed over the county area. So that against the alleviation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred must be put on the other side of the account the fact that the parishes would lose the advantage they had before of that portion of the grant earned by them. He submitted that the loss would be far greater than any gain which might accrue from the proposals of the Government.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he regretted the Government could not see their way to admit the case put forward by his right hon. friend. The Government had taken upon themselves to lay down principles which they had not the courage to carry out. They were setting up a county management of schools, and they ought to be prepared to face the logical conclusion of their scheme. They came forward with a one authority scheme and a one rate scheme, and several of the Opposition took the view that such a scheme had advantages, the greatest advantage being that there would be a separate rate for each area which would enable the authority to set up a good school in the district. But when the Government laid down general principles they did not, unfortunately, carry them out. The logical conclusion to the scheme of the Government would be to place the whole burden of setting up primary education on the county as a whole. If police stations could be made a county charge, why not schools? The small districts were not fairly dealt with.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid he represented a district where the details of this particular question had been discussed for years, and where the grievances pointed out would be severely felt. Four at least of the School Boards in that division were necessitous boards, from the heavy expenditure they had faced in providing excellent schools. He could assure the Prime Minister that many of those who supported him

  1183
  politically in 1886 and on other occasions when similar suggestions to those embodied in this Bill were under discussion were not disinclined to the proposal to place schools under a county authority, because they believed that these liabilities would be dealt with in a broad and generous spirit. These classes of ratepayers would be profoundly disappointed at the way in which it was proposed to deal with them now. It was only fair to those districts which had contributed in these costly schools solid assets to the county educational system that when they were surrendering the control of the schools they should receive generous treatment in respect to meeting the liabilities incurred in providing the schools.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANShoped the Government had not said their last word on this matter, for he thought a very strong case had been made out showing the great hardship to small localities which must necessarily ensue by reason of the proposals of the Government, not-withstanding the way in which they met the Committee on Clause 13. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had asked whether in the parishes where large expenditure had occurred, the expenditure should be repaid. That, of course, was impracticable, but at the same time to draw a hard and fast line in the Bill would create a very great grievance. The suggestion of his right hon. friend was merely that the Government should begin anew. In the case of a School Board district which might have paid the whole of its debts at the end of this year the School Board of that district had no great burden, but in a few years it might be necessary for them to extend their buildings. That expense it was proposed to place on the county authority,
  but in the case of a building just erected the building was taken away which had been built with the money of the district, and the people were to be told that they had nothing to do with the matter, except to pay the debt they had incurred in the interests of education. If against such a state of things it could be shown that the burden would be spread over the whole country, and that no particular portion could be made to suffer, it would be an equitable settlement, but the arrangement which was now made was not equitable.
  DR. MACNAMARApointed out that there were a number of small villages where a rate brought in a precept of from £5 to £25. These villages, at the present time, were rated very heavily, and they had each a liability of from £3,000 to £5,000 in respect of the school they had built. The Government now said to them that they would have to pay the county rate of 3d. and also a differentiated rate until they had wiped out their liabilities, and if they built a new school there would be a differentiated rate until they had paid that also. In the case of those villages which were never rated, and the schools of which were provided out of voluntary resources, that was not a communal charge, and he thought it grossly unjust that those villages which had contracted themselves out for many years should now be asked to pay for those villages which had voted for education in the past. It seemed to him that the scheme of the Amendment was eminently reasonable, and he regretted that the Government had not seen their way to adopt it.
  (7.23.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 95; Noes, 213. (Division List No. 540.)

  AYES.

  Allan, Sir-William (Gateshead)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cremer, William Randal

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Bell, Richard

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert John

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Grant, Corrie

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

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

  Burns, John

  Edwards, Frank

  Griffith Ellis J.

  Caldwell, James

  Emmott, Alfred

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Thomas F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pickard, Benjamin

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

  Lambert, George

  Price, Robert John

  Toulmin, George

  Langley, Batty

  Priestley, Arthur

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Leyland-Barrett, Francis

  Rea, Russell

  Wallace, Robert

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wason, Eugene

  Leng, Sir John

  Robson, William Snowdon

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Levy, Maurice

  Runciman, Walter

  White, Luke (York, E. R)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Whiteley, Geo. (York, W. R.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shackleton, David James

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Macnamera, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

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

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Yoxall, James, Henry

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Spencer, RtHn C.R.(Northants

  Moss, Samuel

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durh'm)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Sir Charles Dilke and

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Tennant, Harold John

  Mr. Alfred Hutton.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Kemp, George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Finch, George H.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Keswick, William

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kimber, Henry

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Bigwood, James

  Flower, Ernest

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W

  Legge, Col Hon. Heneage

  Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn

  Gardner, Ernest

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Garifit, William

  Lockie, John

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bull, William James

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

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

  Butcher, John George

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Lonsdale, John Brownlce

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

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

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Grenfell William Henry

  Milner, Rt Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Chapman, Edward

  Gretton, John

  Milvain, Thomas

  Charrington, Spencer

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hardy, Laurence Kent, Ashf'rd

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Percy, Earl

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Purvis, Robert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Pym C. Guy

  Dunning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Quitter, Sir Cuthbert

  1186

  1187

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Walrond, RtHn. Sir William H.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Spear, John Ward

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

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

  Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stock, James Henry

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Roberson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Strut, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Talbot, RtHn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

  Worley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Tully, Jasper

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Sinclair, Louis (Romfield)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Smith, Abel, H. (Hertford, East)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Question put, and agreed to.

  It being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHERin the Chair.
  Question proposed, "That the proposed New Clause (Aid Grant), as amended, he added to the Bill."
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid this was the last opportunity they would have of discussing the Clause, as most likely on the Report stage it could not be debated, and he therefore wished to draw attention to two or three points. It was true that the Government, realising that their first proposal to grant£930,000 was inadequate, now proposed to add a further sum of £465,000. To his mind that was not so satisfactory as if the Goverment had accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, which laid it down as an essential part of the Bill that under no circumstances whatever should the education rate—for primary as well as secondary education—exceed one-fourth of the total amount to be raised in the area of the
  1188
  local education authority for educational purposes. That was to say, the difference would have to be made good out of the Imperial Exchequer on the sound principle that three-fourths at least of the cost of education should be a national and not a local charge That Amendment was placed on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford at the direct request of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. On the ground that the education was to be administered locally, it was felt that there might be a certain amount of local contribution to ensure efficiency and proper economy. The Government, however, thought right to refuse to accept the Amendment and to say that in future no limit should be placed on the amount to be raised out of the local rates, thereby giving great dissatisfaction to agriculturists and other occupiers in country districts. No doubt the tendency would be to raise the standard of education, and very properly so; but he objected to making education unpopular by saving that any improvement of the standard should entail higher rates while there would not be proportional increase of the aid grant. Any increase of local rates would be very unpopular indeed, and certainly hamper the education needs of the area. The Government had laid down the curious proposition that in no case should the local rates contribute less than 3d. in the£. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had expressed a hope that a much higher local rate would be raised in country districts. The Prime Minister cheered that observation, and thus evidently looked forward to the rate being more than 3d. Fortunately for himself, the Prime Minister

  1189
  was in the position that he would not have to pay any rates under the Bill, and he could cheer the statement with a light heart. That day they had had laid before them the third edition of the Government proposal. The House in this matter had been treated in a most cavalier fashion, and in the interval of which the sitting had been suspended they had not even taken the trouble to present the revised Clause and put it on the Orders of the Day. The Attorney General in telling them what the Clause meant said he would have liked to have made it impossible for the rate to be more than 3d.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I said I should be glad if that were possible.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he was speaking under great difficulties, because he had not the amended Clause before him; there was only the copy in the hands of the Chairman. The Attorney General told them the effect would be that a county where they only raised a 2d. rate, which produced £24,000, would be fined to the extent of £6,000, because the rate was only 2d. It seemed a very curious inducement to economy to say to that County Council, "If you only spend a 2d. rate of the ratepayers' money on education, because you find that quite sufficient, we shall fine you £6,000 by reducing your grant to that extent. On the other hand, if you spend up to the full amount of a 3d. rate we shall not fine you at all but we shall give you the full amount of the grant." Was not that offering an inducement to extravagant expenditure? It was possible that in some local areas the amount required would not exceed a 2d. rate, and although the authority there might carry on the schools efficiently and with economy, it would be fined in the way he had pointed out. Now he wanted to ask what would be the effect of the Clause in the school districts where the School Board now received a grant under the Agricultural Rates Act. Would the district or parish get credit for that amount in the reduction of the rate it had to pay to the county authority, or how would it be treated? The School Board had received the money not merely in aid of the current rate, but also for payment of interest on money expended on buildings, and the grant had been in part made for
  1190
  the payment of the interest. Would the district or parish in future have to pay that interest without any assistance from the grant under the Agricultural Rates Act? He hoped he would be told they would retain all the money given them under the Act, else it would greatly increase the rates in those districts. For it must be remembered that the repayment of three-fourths of such loans fell on the parish as a special rate.
  MR. M'KENNAhoped that the Attorney Genera I would favourably consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ding's Lynn which would, in his opinion, improve the wording of the Clause.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that as at present advised, he did not think the words would carry out the object which the hon. Member had in view. The whole matter would, however, be considered. In reply to the hon. Member for South Somerset, he had to say that the grants payable to School Boards under the Agricultural Rates Act would be paid to the authority taking over the functions of the School Board.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Then they will lose the benefit of them
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: No.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Yes, as to payment of interest on loans.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid the Clause dealt with the distribution of large sums of money among the local authorities, and it was well to bear in mind that when once they had laid down the principle of distribution, it would become very difficult to reconsider that. They ought to have had fuller opportunities of considering the Government proposal and they ought to have had laid before them some Return showing what its effect would be. As it was, they were laying themselves open to the charge that they wore asking the Committee to vote money under circumstances which nobody could understand. He School Board grant was only £160,000 a year, but now it was proposed to distribute something like two millions annually, and surely there were considerations other

  1191
  than mere rateable value that ought to be taken into account. He would like to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education to consider that the most expensive schools were the smallest schools. It cost far more per head to build a school for a small number of children than for a large number, and it was also far more expensive to administer a small than a large school, if an efficient staff was to be maintained. He thought the Government would have done wisely to bear that consideration in mind in allocating part of this money; they might well have given to a school with an average attendance of less than fifty, two or three times as much as was proposed under the Clause. They would thus have contributed more to the efficiency of education than they would do by increasing the grant per head. The Government should also have considered low the distribution of the grant would be affected by the varying methods of assessment in different districts. He would give one illustration to show how it worked out in the West Riding of Yorkshire—in the case of Sheffield, Leeds, and Bradford. Under the Necessitous School Boards Act, Sheffield now got £6,000 a year, Leeds £3,000, and Bradford nothing at all—yet Sheffield was by far the richest, and Bradford the poorest of the three county boroughs. One explanation was, no doubt, that the capital in Sheffield was mainly invested in machinery, while that in Bradford was in bricks and mortar. Still the fact remained that the three towns had benefited under the Act in question in exactly the opposite direct ion of poverty and wealth. Seeing that injustices of this kind were almost sure to crop up, he did think the Treasury would have done well to have adopted a principle tribution of this money. It was, indeed, a serious matter that the distribution should be dependent on the different methods adopted in regard to assessments—methods which were calculated to favour wealthy rather than poor districts. In districts which were sparsely populated, and where of necessity the schools were small, it would be well to give a larger amount per head than was given in large schools.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid it was objected that this Clause in conjunction with Clause 13 raised in-equalities especially between the poorer and wealthier districts, and that point had been especially urged by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. But as he pointed out in the debate on Clause 13, the manner in which the burdens would be spread over the whole county would do a great deal to relieve the poorer districts. In the Forest of Dean the School Board rate was very heavy at present; it was, roughly speaking, 2s. 6d. in the £, the expenditure being £14,600 yearly. Out of that £1330 represented the repayment of the principal instalments of loans and £1170 repayment of the interest, or about a fivepenny rate. The County Council under this Clause would have the power if it pleased to reduce this charge by one half, and as the county rate for general expenditure in Gloucestershire was not likely to be more than 4d. the Forest of Dean would in future be called upon to pay about 7d. instead of 2s. 6d. in the £ yearly. Surely this new system of spreading the burden over the whole county was a marked improvement on the old plan, by which each district took its own burden, and went a long way in the direction of helping the poorer districts.
  MR. ERNESTGRAYsaid that while no doubt the proposal would be a considerable improvement in rural districts, it must not be forgotten that the ratepayers of the Forest of Dean would still have to bear half the Gloucestershire rate. He welcomed the change because of its further extension of the principle that the State should bear a larger share of the cost of education and the locality a smaller share. Earlier in the afternoon a complaint was presented on behalf of the heavily-rated districts. No one had ever suggested that this difficulty of the heavily-rated districts was an easy matter to deal with. The present scheme would meet a large number of cases, but it would also result in a large number of anomalies, and if the Prime Minister thought that he had finally disposed of the matter he was greatly mistaken. He feared that the new burdens under the Bill would emphasise the difficulties which had existed

  1193
  for a long time, and would exist until the Chancellor of the Exchequer took over a large share of this burden. The great rating authorities would continue to urge the adoption of a scheme such as was proposed in the Bill of 1897, not in lieu of, but as a supplement to, the present scheme. The question was bound to come up again, and he hoped the day would soon come when the Government would deal with the whole question of local taxation. The matter could not be adequately dealt with in a Clause relating merely to the School Board rate. The Government would have to redeem their promise to take up the whole question of local assessments and local taxation, and he hoped that before the period of the present Parliament expired, an adequate scheme would be submitted to the country.
  MR. LUKE WHITEasked what the effect of the Clause would he on School Board districts, which at present in many counties received a sum in aid of the repayment of the principal and interest with regard to loans. He understood that in future this money would go to the County Councils. Would these Councils credit the present School Board districts with this amount?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought the point raised by the hon. Member for the Buckrose Division was one of considerable practical importance. If the position was as stated, the small School Board districts would be hit harder even than had been anticipated, because the half of the rates which they received under the Agricultural Rating Act would in future go to the County Council, but the liability -would still be a burden on the locality. He thought the Government must have overlooked this point, and he asked what was their proposal for meeting the difficulty.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYreminded the Committee that the equivalent for the fixed contribution under the Agricultural Rating Act was the rating of agricultural land at only half its value. That advantage the agricultural land would still retain, so that the equivalent for the grant would he retained by all Agricultural land in the county, although the grant
  1194
  would in future go not to the School Board but to the County Council. They had, he might also point out, provided that as regarded the liability of the locality it was to be one-half, ranging up to three-quarters. If that was not sufficient, the whole matter might have to be taken into consideration but as at present advised the Government were not prepared to admit that the provision was insufficient.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought that the Attorney General had failed to meet the point. The mere relief of agricultural land hit the small tradesmen and those who were rated for something other than land. The county might take over the burden to the extent of one-half, but on the other hand it need not take more than one-fourth. At present the little parish received the benefit of the Agricultural Rating Act, because although agricultural land was relieved to the extent of one-half the Exchequer took the burden of the other half, but in future the relief would be spread over the whole county. The Attorney General must see that these little parishes would be hit exceedingly hard, and he hoped the matter would be reconsidered before the Report stage.
  MR. LUKE WHITEsaid in the county which he represented there was an agricultural district where, prior to the Agricultural Rates Act, the School Board received from the Poor Rate from land £200 per annum with regard to the repayment of loans and interest in respect of the building of schools. After the Agricultural Rates Act was passed land paid only £100, and the School Board received the remaining £100 under the Act. As he understood it, if this Bill passed in its present form the County Council would receive that £100, and the parish would be the sufferers to that extent. That, he thought, was an injustice the Government could not have contemplated.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the hon. Gentlemen opposite looked only at one-half of the picture. They forgot that the maintenance was also pooled. They must look at the rate as a whole. However, the matter should be looked into in the light of what had been said, but, as he had already said, the Government, as at present advised, considered that their proposal was entirely adequate.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there was not much in the point of the Attorney General with regard to maintenance, because most of the rate was in respect of buildings, and his experience was that in these small parishes the maintenance practically came out of the Government grants. Probably the Government would reconsider the matter. He hoped that soon there would be a Government who would reconsider the whole question of local taxation. These grants in aid only helped them temporarily to tide over difficulties they did not meet the real trouble. It was a pity the Government had not attempted to deal with the matter in a complete and thorough manner. These doles relieved the pressure on one class only at the expense of another. The Government had agriculture too much in their minds, forgetting that there was a distressed class in the towns.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, no.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the distress in towns?
  MR. WALTER LONG: No. I deny the allegation that we have forgotten that distress.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that at any rate there was no outward visible sign of the inward spiritual grace.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. Member ignored the fact that in the last twelve years the Party to which he belonged had given assistance to the towns as well as to the country districts. He had confined his attention to the Agricultural Rating Act, entirely forgetting that the Act of 1888 gave relief both to the towns and counties, and more to the towns than to the counties.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had in his mind the legislative record of the present Administration, and he thought seven years was good or had enough for any man or Government to go upon. In the last seven years the Government had discriminated against the towns in favour of one particular industry. This £2,000,000 might have been used to
  1196
  settle the whole denominational difficulty, which had been presented to them as a building difficulty, and nothing else. It was, however, being used for the purpose of perpetuating this sectarian system, which was at the bottom of all our educational deficiencies. What had they done here? They had penalised the districts which built schools, and they practically said to them: "If you build schools you do so at your own expense." They had practically given notice to those parishes that if they built free schools they must do so at their own expense. He regretted that the Government had not taken advantage of this opportunity to settle the whole difficulty.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that there was one point upon which he should like to have some enlightenment. He was sorry to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place. This proposal meant some additional national expenditure and some addition to the Estimates of the year. He had not heard any estimate of the-probable financial effect of this Clause. He had heard the Prime Minister repudiate the charge that this Clause was a grant in aid of voluntary schools. At any rate it was an addition to the system of grants in aid. He had never known a proposal of this magnitude submitted to the Committee before without being accompanied by a careful estimate prepared by the Treasury in regard to its provable financial effect. It would be most discreditable to this Committee if it allowed this Clause to pass without some such statement. He did not know whether anyone on the Treasury Bench was prepared to supply the information he was asking for. He would ask the President of the Local Government Board, who had appeared intermittently to take charge of this Bill, to give him that information. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if this Clause passed in its present form whether the Government had formed any estimate of the burden which it would throw upon the Estimates, and if so would he tell the Committee the amount of that estimate. (MINISTERIAL laughter.) No doubt it was a matter of laughter with hon. Gentlemen opposite

  1197
  that the expenditure under this Bill should be challenged at all. This expenditure would no doubt be proposed in the shape of an annual Vote which if rejected would destroy the Ministry, but the expenditure incurred would have to be met all the same. How any responsible Government could come down to this Committee without having made up their mind as to the amount of burden entailed by this Clause he could not understand. He could not believe that they had made an estimate, and, therefore, he asked the President of the Local Government Board to tell them how much the money raised under this Clause was going to amount to. Would it be £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 a year?
  MR. WALTER LONG: No.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that remark was the first indication that be had had of the amount, and he should like the right hon. Gentleman to give the information he had asked for.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am bound to say that I think the demand of the hon. Gentleman opposite is a most unreasonable one. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have devoted not only a considerable part of this evening, but many other evenings, and a considerable part of the whole time devoted to the discussion of Amendments, to attacks upon the Government because we are charging the rates with an undue proportion of the cost of education, and they have attacked us time out of number for not devoting more money out of the Imperial Exchequer to the relief of this part of local taxation, and they have more than once said that the attention of the ratepayers of the country will be called to the action of the Government in this respect. Now, the hon. Gentleman opposite makes an attack upon the Government because we have not informed the House or the Committee what will be the amount of the charge we are now laying upon the country. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has stated explicitly that, if this new contribution in aid of local taxation is availed of to the fullest possible extent, the demand upon the Imperial Exchequer will be to the extent of £1,300,000. That statement has been made by the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman
  1198
  the Member for Dundee was good enough to say that I took an intermittent part in these discussions. Surely the statement the hon. Member has just made, and the question he has asked, is a proof of the fact that he has been taking a far more intermittent part in the discussions than myself, and it shows a greater dereliction of duty on his part than anything which I have been guilty of. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in reference to the relief of taxation, I may say that the view of the Government has been that there should be a fair distribution as between Imperial and local charges. The hon. Gentleman opposite stated that we had not redeemed our pledges as to carrying out the recommendations of the Loyal Commission in regard to this distribution. Every hon. Member of this House knows perfectly well that we cannot deal with that distribution as between Imperial and local charges in a Bill of this kind. All that you can do is to bring to the relief of the local rates the Imperial Exchequer, so far as you are able to do so. We believe that we have made a very considerable addition to the relief of local taxation, not only by the original contribution of £920,000, but also by the new contribution of nearly £500,000, and we believe in doing this we have fairly discharged our duty towards those persons who will have to hear the local burden. The amount of the Imperial burden has already been stated, and I cannot help saying that I think the charge of the hon. Gentleman opposite in this respect is not quite just.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he thought that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had mistaken their complaint, which was that so many years had been allowed to elapse without dealing with this question. By this proposal the relations of local taxation with national taxation had been inextricably confused. For the last ten or fifteen years those relations had been getting more and more confused, and this debate had shown how hard it was to get any definite opinion upon this question. He thought something should be done to clear up this confusion. Until something was done to put this question upon a rational and intelligible basis they would not be able to unravel these difficulties. He earnestly

  1199
  commended to the Committee and to the Government the extreme importance of this question, because they were not now able to make out clearly what were the true relations of the taxpayer and the ratepayer, or upon what principle any local subvention ought to rest. The Attorney General had stated that he would consider this question. Did he propose to consider it with a view of asking the House to go into Committee?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I stated distinctly that if the whole question of maintenance was taken into account as well, the arrangement proposed is a fair one.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he presumed that if further consideration led the Government to think some change ought to be made in this respect they would give effect to it.
  Clause added.
  New Clause:—
  "(1) Nothing in this section shall affect any endowment, or the discretion of any trustees in respect thereof: Provided that, where under the trusts or other provisions affecting any endowment the income thereof must be applied in whole or in part for those purposes of a public elementary school for which provision is to be made by the local education authority, the whole of the income or the part thereof, as the case may be, shall be paid to that authority, and in case part only of such income must he so applied, and there is no provision under the said trusts or provisions for determining the amount which represents that part, that amount shall be determined in case of difference between the parties concerned by the Board of Education. (2) Any money arising from an endowment and paid to a County Council for those purposes of a public elementary school for which provision is to be made by the Council, shall he credited by the Council, in aid of the rate levied for the purposes of Part III. of this Act in the parish or parishes served by the school for the purposes of which the sum is paid, or if the Council so direct shall be paid to the overseers of the parish or parishes in the proportions directed by the Council, and applied by the overseers in aid of the poor rate levied in the parish."—(Sir William Anson.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON,upon a point of order, submitted that this new Clause was not in order. In form as well as in fact it was really an Amendment of sub-Section 2 of Clause 13 which had already been passed. This new Clause commenced, "Nothing in this Section shall affect any endowment." He presumed that the Section referred to was sub-Section 2 of Clause 13, which provided that "All receipts in respect of any school maintained by a local education authority shall be paid to that authority." He submitted that the effect of this new Clause was to contradict sub-Section 2 of Section 13, and it ought to have been brought up as an Amendment to sub-Section 2 of Clause 13. That sub-Section provided that the money was to go to the local education authority, minus sums specially applicable for purposes for which provision was to be made by the managers, and this Clause reversed that mode of calculation. Therefore, he submitted that this new Clause was not in order and could only be dealt with on Report.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The question of endowments seems to me to be a very fitting, one to be dealt with in the Clause by itself. Clause 13 is already a very long Clause; in fact it was long in its original shape, and it has been considerably added to in Committee.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was referring to Section 2 of Clause 13, which provided that all receipts should be paid to the local education authority. The words "All receipts" had been defined as including endowments. Therefore, this proposition would, in effect, be an Amendment of the general words of sub-Section 2 of Clause 13.
  THE CHAIRMAN: But the same remark would be applicable to all the Clauses. By general agreement this question of endowments, I think, was to be brought up as a new Clause. At least it is my recollection of what took place when the question was discussed. It was by general agreement that the whole question of endowments was to be brought up as a separate Clause.
  MR. M'KENNAasked if it was not necessary that notice should be given

  1201
  of any new Clause which the Government proposed to move. The new Clause they were now considering must have been handed in after the House ceased sitting on Friday night last. This proposal was entirely new and no formal notice had been given of it. It had only come to his knowledge within the last quarter of an hour. The Blue Paper under the head of endowments contained a Clause which appeared on the White Paper as a new Clause, of which no notice had been given to the Committee. He submitted that the proper proceeding was to have moved by way of Amendment to the Clause which stood on the Blue Paper the terms of the Clause on the White Paper.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is sufficient notice that the Clause should appear on the Paper. What I understand by notice is that it must be in the hands of Members and that it must not be produced at the last moment as, unfortunately, too many Amendments have been produced during the last forty-three days.
  MR. BRICEpointed out that whereas sub-Section 2 of Clause 13 declared that all receipts in respect of any school maintained by a local education authority should be applied to that authority, line 6 of the present Clause provided that "part thereof, as the case may be, shall be paid to that authority." He submitted that this expressly contradicted the provision which the House had already decided, and such contradictions had frequently been ruled out of order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The discussion referred to happened some time ago, and I have not had an opportunity of refreshing my memory as to what actually occurred. My recollection is that the question of endowments was raised before, and it was then generally understood that the question was to be brought up again. I think, if I remember rightly, the Prime Minister gave his idea as to the manner in which the question of endowments was to be dealt
  1202
  with, and it was generally agreed that it should be dealt with in a subsequent Clause.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he raised the question of endowments, and he asked the President of the Local Government Board whether "all receipts" included endowments, and he said they did.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, no.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that in any case he submitted that the words "all receipts" did include receipts from endowments which had already been provided for.
  MR. A. K. LOYDsaid he introduced the subject of endowments on the Clause requiring the provision of funds for repairs, and in reply to his remarks the Prime Minister promised to deal with the subject in a separate Clause, and went on to sketch terms very much the same as those which were embodied in this Clause. On the strength of the statement made by the Prime Minister his Amendment was withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the Clause was introduced in conformity with an undertaking given by the Prime Minister some time ago that the question of endowments would have to be dealt with in a separate Clause, having regard to the double ownership which subisted in the non-provided schools. The Clause was to ensure, where the trust under which the endowment was held indicated that the income was to go in a direction which placed it in the possession of the local authority, it should reach the local authority, and where the trust left it in the hands of the managers it should be assured to the managers. The majority of trusts were general in character, and the Clause proposed to leave them in the discretion of the managers or trustees. But there were other endowments appropriated to particular purposes, endowments for teachers' salaries and other objects, for which the local

  1203
  authority were required, under the Bill, to make provision. These went to the local authority. The object of the Clause was to interfere with the discretion of the trustees as little as possible, but to ensure that where the trust indicated the particular direction of the endowment that direction should be followed out. He thought that was all that it was necessary to say in regard to the first portion of this proposal. As regards the appropriation of the money where it was placed in the hands of the local authority, the question arose, who should continue to be benefited by the income arising from the trust, and the answer obviously was the parish or parishes which the school was intended to serve, and the income arising from the endowment would go in aid of the rate of that particular parish. It might appear to the local authority that it would be more convenient simply to credit the parish with the amount of the rate they would be charged with, or it might be more convenient that the money should be paid to the overseers. That was left to the discretion of the local authority. He believed the Clause carried out substantially the scheme indicated by the Prime Minister, and he hoped the mode in winch it was proposed to direct the income of the endowments might find favour with the Committee.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISasked the hon. Baronet to explain what was meant by the phrase "parish or district which the school was intended to serve." Cases were very common indeed where an educational endowment, originally at any rate, was intended to apply to several contiguous parishes. In that case, did the expression "parish or district which the school was intended to serve" relate to the parish in which the school was situated, or would it apply to the parishes to which the educational endowment related? He wished information in regard to another point. The Clause stated at the end—
  "If the Council so direct shall be paid to the overseers of the parish or parishes in the proportions directed by the Council, and applied by the overseers in aid of the poor rate levied in the parish."
  Supposing a County Council passed a resolution to that effect, was that intended to conclude the matter for all
  1204
  time, or was it intended that the application, so directed by the Council, should only last until the Council had directed otherwise?
  MR. BRYCEregretted that the opportunity afforded by this Bill was not being taken advantage of to make better use of those endowments, which, he believed, aggregated about £150,000 a year, especially in the way of supplementing the needs of the upper kind of education in the rural districts. The new local authorities ought to be put in the position of being able to frame schemes for the application of educational endowments. That proposal was embodied in the Clause of which the noble Lord the Member for the Cricklade Division had given notice, and it appeared to him to be an excellent and useful Clause. He thought it ought to have emanated from the Government. With regard to the particular Clause now under consideration, the Secretary of the Board of Education had spoken as if the trustees of the endowed schools were always the managers. He doubted if that was the case. He rather thought that, in some cases, the trustees were not the managers, and the question arose as to how much was to be the function of the managers and how much the function of the trustees. It must be remembered that the positions of the endowed schools were very different indeed. Some of the trusts were old, while some were quite modern, and he thought the question ought to have engaged the attention of the Government how cases were to be dealt with in which the managers were not the trustees, and provision ought to have been made for the powers to be exercised by the trustees where they were not the same. Here was another position. In the beginning of the Clause they found these words—
  "Nothing in this section shall affect any endowment, or the discretion of any trustees in respect thereof. Provided that, where under the trusts or other provisions affecting any endowment, the income thereof must he applied in whole or in part for those purposes of a public elementary school, for which provision is to be made by the local education authority, the whole of the income or the part thereof, as the case may be, shall Le paid to that authority, and in case part only of such income must be so applied, and there is no provision under the said trusts or provisions for

  1205
  determining the amount which represents that part, the amount shall be determined in case of difference between the parties concerned by the Braid of Education."
  But suppose the case of an endowment not destined to any special purpose, suppose it were a small endowment—and there was a large number of them attached to elementary schools—and that there would be no relief to the rates, that the rates and the Parliamentary grant would be required to pay for the current expenses of the school, the result must he that the whole of that small endowment would be applied to the repairs of the school, and thus the managers would be relieved of the burden of repairs which the Bill imposed upon them, and which had been represented during the discussions on the Bill as part of the bargain of placing the voluntary schools on the rates. That consideration became the more important when it was remembered that in a great many cases these schools were not denominational in their foundation, having been established, long before there was a State provision for primary, education, for the education of the poor children of the parish, without any direction as to the kind of religious instruction to be given in them. But as these schools fell into the hands of the local clergy and magnates, the practice grew up of giving in them the denominational instruction which in many other schools was given under trustees. If the endowments of these schools were looked into in the same way as the endowments which were dealt with in the Act of 1869 it would be found that they were really not denominational, although they had been used as denominational schools. He saw no reason why, in making a new departure in education, Parliament should give legislative approval to an unauthorised practice, and stamp these schools for all time as denominational. The desire of the pious founder of two centuries ago in establishing these schools was not to relieve the rates, as his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education had contended, but to give children of parts in the parish the chance of rising in the world, by providing them with the means of education, and now that primary education was happily supplied to everybody by the State, the endowments should be
  1206
  applied to helping the children of the parish to obtain a still better education.
  MR GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid it was difficult to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's speech whether he opposed or supported the Clause.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he desired to amend it, and he put forward three points—first, that small endowments ought to be used for repairs; secondly, that where schools were not denominational by foundation, endowments ought not to be treated as denominational; and, thirdly, that endowments ought not to be used for the relief of the ratepayers.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid the right hon. Gentleman's first point was that if the endowment were small it should not be used for repairs. He confessed he did not see what difference the size of the endowment made as to its application. The real point was this: It was difficult now to say in many cases what the object of the pious founder was. In most cases endowments were now applied to the general support of the schools. That fell on the general fund, which was now to be divided between the local authority and the managers, and surely the only statesmanlike course the Government could pursue was to divide the endowments somewhat on the principle on which they were now divided. The fact that one endowment was large and the other small had really nothing to do with the case. Then they came to the question of educational endowments. He really thought the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to drag in the religious question on every possible occasion.
  MR. BRYCE: The religious question arises itself in this matter.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid they were dealing with elementary

  1207
  schools belonging to various denominations which were very largely in some cases supported by endowments, and the question was what they were to do with these endowments. He ventured to say that the denominational question did not enter into that, and if it did enter curious results would follow. If they were to say that these endowments were not to go to the denominations unless they originally belonged to the denominations, the effect would be that a great many of the Wesleyan schools which possessed endowments would have them taken away from them. If these endowments had been used for the general support of the schools, and if the general support of the schools was now to be divided between the managers and the local authority, they must have some system whereby they should be used by these two bodies in future. Suppose they diverted them to some other purpose, what would happen? They would have in that district for the first time a very large school rate, and the people of the parish would be greatly aggrieved because the endowment which they had at present was not used for the relief of the rate or the repair of the buildings.
  MR. BRYCE: It is the county rate.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid the whole of the people would contribute to the county rate. Most of the endowments were left before the Act of 1870 came into operation. He quite admitted that since 1870 there had been, perhaps, some misapplications of endowments different from the original intentions of the founders; and in many parishes the result had been that there were no rates, and very small subscriptions. The country would never tolerate the taking away of all these endowments after they had been made use of for thirty years. The Clause might not be theoretically perfect, but he regarded it as a practical and statesmanlike way of dealing with a very difficult question. There was the other question, that these endowments should not go to the relief of the rates, but in some other way for the benefit of the parish. His hon. friend the Member for East Somerset had an Amendment on the Paper which would meet the case. There
  1208
  were some cases where the endowments were so large that they would more than pay the county rate, or a large share of it. He thought it was quite right and proper that in such cases the county authority should have the right of applying to the Board of Education for a scheme to enable them to divert the balance to some other purpose—as, for instance, to giving scholarships in the elementary schools to enable the children to attend a secondary school. In this way they would be able to use a certain part of the endowments in building up the educational ladder, which they all desired to see. The Government having dealt with a most difficult question in a businesslike and sensible way by giving the local authority a portion of the endowments for work which they would undertake in the future, the Board of Education might well be trusted, where there was any dispute, to make a fair division.
  MR. STEVENSONsaid he rose for the purpose of asking one or two questions as to the interpretation of the Clause. He could not quite congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, or those who were responsible for the Wording of the Clause, on the particular use made of the phrase "provision," which was employed in three totally different senses. it could not be denied that there was some doubt and ambiguity as to the interpretation of these words. He agreed that the money provided by these endowments ought to be ear-marked, as far as possible, for the purposes for which it was originally intended, or akin to what was originally intended. There were cases in small towns and large villages in which the endowment was larger than was necessary for the purpose of maintaining a local school, and the inhabitants of these villages would feel very keenly if a new burden were imposed upon them which they had not borne in the past. There were cases in which the founder in years gone by had bequeathed some land which, in his day, would only be a garden patch, but which had been built upon and now yielded a large revenue. In cases of that kind he rather gathered that, although a very large portion of the money was capable of being used for educational purposes, it would devolve on the trustees to decide what was to be

  1209
  done with the surplus. There might, however, be several bodies of trustees connected with one of the same endowments, and it might be necessary, in cases of doubt, for the Board of Education to frame schemes in order to effect a proper apportionment of the funds. He hoped that if it was not possible for the Government to introduce a Clause in this Bill to deal with contingencies of that sort, they would consider the desirability of bringing in a Bill dealing with the subject as a whole. In cases in which the endowments only formed a small portion of the whole, he could not see how any difficulty could arise; but he did see a distinct possibility of difficulty in the future in cases in which the endowments were very large, and in which it might be necessary to decide what should be done with the surplus. In regard to questions as to whether these endowments were denominational or un-denominational, he would not deal with it. Every case should be dealt with on its own merits. They could not group them into classes; every one must form the subject of careful investigation. To endeavour to lay down any general rule would be absolutely misleading. He hoped the Government would give some explanation as to the wording of the Clause, and also what they contemplated in regard to cases in which there was a large surplus available.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen—whose speeches he always listened to with interest and enjoyment, because the right hon. Gentleman was an expert in these matters—knew a great deal, but he did not know everything. He happened to be a "pious founder" himself—not that there was anything to be proud of in that, nor that he wished it. The object of his colleagues and himself was most certainly the reduction of the rates and the minimising of the expenses, and, quite secondarily, the cause of education.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid he desired to ask the Government to consider the real purpose for which these endowments were in the first
  1210
  instance given. Undoubtedly it was for the advancement of education. He felt very strongly that education could be advanced by a system of scholarships. It was very well known that in the rural districts, especially, the average educational advantages for boys and girls were not very great, and he was afraid that there would be opposition to the appropriation of money for secondary schools; but clever boys and girls should be afforded the opportunity of enjoying, to their own advantage and that of the nation, a secondary education through the means of scholarships. Private generosity was quite inadequate to meet such claims. He was very disappointed that the Government had not seized the opportunity of making a start in what he believed to be the only way of building up the secondary schools. He hoped the Government would consider this question afresh, and devote a portion of the money to scholarships.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he asked the Committee to say whether they had arrived at last at the general principles on which the Government proposed to deal with endowments. He maintained that this, new Clause departed entirely from what was apparently the original intention of the Government, as expressed in sub-Section 2 of Clause 13. That was to hand over all the endowments to the new education authority, except such portion as was made applicable for purposes for which provision had to be made by the managers. He desired to make a complaint against the Government for putting this Clause down in the shape in which it was, and then altering it. Here they had a Clause put down for Second Reading, and he thought it was intolerable that after forty-three days spent in considering the Bill they should have a Clause on the Blue Paper and. another Clause on the White Paper, both on the same day. The practical effect of this Clause would be that where there was a general endowment for the support of the schools and the sum of money was sufficient for the purpose, the managers would claim it for the repair of the school and they would thus be relieved from any burden in respect of repairs. Where provision was made

  1211
  for the use of only part of the endowment the managers would ask the education authority to decide how much should go to repairs and how much to the local authority, and the education authority would relieve the managers of the only pecuniary obligation that rested upon them. That showed that in tins Clause the Government were running away from their own intentions as expressed originally in sub-Section 2 Clause 13. Wherever there was an endowment there would be no obligation on the managers to effect repairs. The more they saw of the Bill, the more they saw how the bargain was being whittled down. Was the Committee prepared to say that, in the case of schools having an endowment, there was to be no burden at all on the managers in respect of repairs? Where, in that case, was that part of the bargain winch rested on the managers, if they were to be enabled to lay hands on an endowment for the purposes of repairs? No other pecuniary obligation rested on them at all. The obligation to effect repairs was one of the reasons why they were given the appointment of the head teacher and a two-thirds majority on the board of management. The second portion of the Clause dealt with cases where the trust deed provided that only part of the income should be applied by the managers. He was not quite sure that he understood the second part; but it appeared to him that in such cases the managers would ask the Education Department to say how much they should have for repairs and how much should be given to the education authority, and they knew that the Education Department would be prepared to relieve the managers of the only pecuniary obligation which rested on them. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich blessed that proposal. He got an interpretation the other day from the Government which had not been given in the House.
  LORD HUGH CECILdissented.
  Mr. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that an interpretation had been given as having behind it the greatest weight of legal
  1212
  authority, but the noble Lord did not feel fully satisfied with it. He himself thought it strange that such a legal explanation should have been given to the Bishop of London or to anyone else which had not been given to the House of Commons. He would not be in order in discussing that question, but he had said enough for his present purpose. His objections to the Clause were that, broadly speaking, it excluded endowments from the operation of the Bill altogether; and that if an endowment was to be applied only in part for purposes which were the purpose of the new education authority, it was not to be handed over to that authority until, at any rate, the managers had got their slice out of it for repairs. He thought that the Committee had a right to complain of the variations in the second part of the Clause. His right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen objected to money given by pious founders being used for the relief of the rates, but the lines to which his right hon. friend objected appeared only on the White Paper, and did not appear at all on the Blue Paper. The conclusion which he had arrived at, and which he humbly pressed on the Committee, was that in this Clause the Government were running away from their own intention as expressed in Clause 13. The Clause now before the Committee was entirely subversive of the principle in Clause 13. It was wrong in itself, and he hoped the Committee would not accept it.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he thought that the controversial part of the Clause was sub-Section 2; but the discussion had ranged over a wide circuit, and included matters which appeared to him to be wholly irrelevant. When the hon. Gentleman said that the Clause was wholly contrary to the policy of the Government as expressed in Clause 13, he must surely remember that, weeks before Clause 13 was reached, the Prime Minister declared that endowments would be dealt with separately and in a manner which practically corresponded to that in the Clause before the Committee. The policy of the Government had been then expressed, and was now carried into effect. The hon. Member for

  1213
  the Flint Boroughs asked him what was meant by the words "parish or parishes," and whether they would include the whole area to which a charity was intended to apply. The words were exactly what they implied; and the rates of all parishes concerned would be aided. The main objection to the Clause was that they had not uprooted the whole system of elementary school endowments, and had not proceeded to consider whether they should not be applied to the purposes of secondary education. The Bill was quite large enough already; and he thought, if the Government endeavoured to carry out such a measure as that indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, it would involve at least another week's controversial discussion. Then they were told that they were neglecting the intentions of the pious founder when they used his benefaction in aid of the rates of the parish he intended to benefit. No one in the House was more bound to have regard for the memory of pious founders than he was, and after what had fallen from his on. And gallant friend his regard was greater than ever before. They were not departing from the intention of the founders; the money would be spent on education; in the particular area the educational advantage of which founder intended to promote, and would be spent strictly in accord with the intentions of the founder as far as they could be followed. As to whether the endowments were originally of a denominational character or not, that was really a question as to the terms of the trust; and the intentions of the founder would be determined by an inquiry into the terms of the trust, and from information from other sources. When they were told that the managers would be relieved of all liability, that statement seemed to proceed from the assumption that the endowments were large, and that grasping managers would reserve the whole of them. As a matter of fact the endowments were usually small, and the object of the Clause was to ensure endowments going to the purposes for
  1214
  which they were intended. If they were intended for purposes with which the educational authority had to deal, then the endowment would go to that authority, and where the endowment was expressly or impliedly for purposes with which the managers had to deal then it would go to the managers. He suggested that the Committee should come to a decision on the Second Reading of the Clause, and take a closer discussion on the controversial sub-Section.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked if in the event of an endowment of £250 being found to have been given for general support of a school and the repairs cost £20, the managers would be required to hand over £30 to the education authority?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he wished to remind the Committee that when Clause 13 was under discussion the Government rejected the proposal for an audit on the ground that, except for repairs, the managers would have no money except money given to them by the County Council. It was evident the present Clause was not then in mind, and, seeing that the managers were to retain possession of other funds, would the audit Clause be reintroduced?
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid that the Amendment he moved to Clause 13 was on the ground that the managers would have no money for which they need render an account to the local education authority.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was not referring to the hon. Member; but if the hon. Member would refer to the report of the discussion he would find he was not correct, even as to the reason he had given for moving his own

  1215
  Amendment. The reason alleged on all sides was that the accounts of the managers would be the accounts of agents, with the sole exception of the money required for repairs.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: And religious instruction?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he would invite the hon. Gentleman to read the report of his own speech.
  MR. HERBERT ROBESTSONsaid he distinctly mentioned religious instruction.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was absolutely certain he did not remember it. The reason the audit was withdrawn was that the managers would not have a single farthing except money for repairs, for which they would not have to account to the County Council. He was quite sure that the Clause before the Committee was an after- thought, and that it was not in the mind of the Government when the provision relating to audit was being discussed. It now appeared that the managers would have money for which they would not be responsible to the County Council; and he would ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, as the managers would now retain possession of funds for which they would not have to account to the County Council, would he be prepared to re-introduce the provision as to audit which had been deleted under a misapprehension.
  MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)said he wished to ask the
  1216
  Parliamentary Secretary what would happen to non-sectarian endowments which had been allocated to elementary education under schemes of the Charity Commissioners. The managers of denominational schools would obtain money from two sources; the principal source would be the State, but the denomination would also find a certain amount for repairs. In return, the denomination would have the use of the school on Sunday, and three evenings a week, and also the denominational atmosphere All these purposes were strictly denominational and sectarian, and he therefore wished to know what would happen to non-sectarian endowments which had been allocated under schemes of the Charity Commissioners for elementary education. There were many such cases before the year 1870, and he wished to know whether or not such trusts were now to be applied to sectarian objects. If so, it was certain that they would not be acting according to the wishes of the donors, but simply on the authority of the Charity Commissioners. It was perfectly true that the Charity Commissioners could give a legal title, but it was certain they could not give a moral title; and to his mind it was absolutely essential that the claims of a religious denomination to property should be based on a moral title. He did not think that a religious denomination should base its title on a scheme of the Charity Commissioners; yet, if he read the Clause aright, non-sectarian endowments would be applied to denominational purposes. He did not think that was right from the moral point of view, and he hoped the Committee would be informed as to the intentions of the Government in regard to such endowments.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that under the terms of the Clause, where the purposes of the trust were such as the local authority should meet, the money would go to the local authority; where they were purposes within the discretion of the managers, the moneys would be retained by the managers. The whole object of the Clause was to deal with the trust moneys in accordance with the trust deed.
  MR. SOARESasked whether the Charity Commissioners would definitely allocate the proportions.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that where the endowment was general, and the managers had the discretion, they would exercise that discretion. Where the endowment was educational the Clause would regulate the procedure. In the case referred to by the hon. Member for Mid Glamorganshire the managers would not be bound to hand the money over to the local authority, but they would be bound to retain it for the purposes of the trust.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he spoke of money given for the general support of the school.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that if it was given for the general support of the school, that would put it into the managers' discretion as to what would best conduce to the general support of the school. If they thought that a building fund would be in the general interests of the school they could apply it to that. What had been said about audit rested on a misconception. The managers would have no money from the local authority which would not be strictly audited. The money they received as trustees they would be responsible for as trustees, and that would not come under Local Government Board audit. Every penny dealt with by the local education authority directly or through the managers would be audited.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that Clause 13, sub-Section 2, was never intended to apply to the receipts mentioned in the Clause before the Committee.
  (11.38.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 182; Noes, 75. (Division List No. 541.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balfour, Capt. C. B (Hornsey)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balfour, RtHn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Brockfield, Colonel Montagu

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Bull, William James

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Butcher, John George

  Austin, Sir John

  Bignold, Arthur

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Bain, Colonel.James Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Cavendish, R.F. (N. Lancs.)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Balcarres, Lord

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Kemp, George

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Kenyon, Hon. T. (Denbigh)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Denny, Colonel

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Dewar, Sir T.R. (Tower Hamlets

  Keswick, William

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Spear, John Ward

  Doughty, George

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon, Sir William Hart

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Stock, James Henry

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Faber, George Denison(York)

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

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Finch, George H.

  Maconochie, A.W.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Milvain, Thomas

  Tully, Jasper

  Fitzroy., Hon. Edward Algernon

  Montagu, G.(Huntingdon)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Forster, Henry William

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W

  Morgan David J(Walthamstow

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Garfit, William

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Murray, Col.Wyndham (Bath)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Orr-Ewing Charles Lindsay

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Percy, Earl

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Hamilton. Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Purvis, Robert

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Pym, C. Guy

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Handles, John S.

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rankin, Sir James

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bayley. Thomas, (Derbyshire)

  Cremer, William Randall

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Bell, Richard

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Brigg, John

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Edwards, Frank

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Ferguson, R.C. Munro (Leith)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derliy Co.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  1220

  1221

  Leng, Sir John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Toulmin, George

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Runciman, Walter

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Moss, Samuel

  Shackleton, David James

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Norman, Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Pearson Sir Weetman D.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R.(Northants

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Price, Robert John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Mr. Samuel Evans and

  Priestley, Arthur

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Mr. Mansfield.

  Reckitt, Harold James

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

  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he proposed to omit the first words of the section, as follows:—
  "Nothing in this section shall affect any endowment or the discretion of any trustees in respect thereof. Provided that."
  He wished to know what was the object of the words. There was no particular reason for starting a Section, which was originally only an Amendment to a Clause, but had now blossomed out into a new Clause, with a preamble making a general declaration.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 1, to leave nut the words '(1) Nothing in this section shall affect any endowment, or the discretion of any trustees in respect thereof. Provided that.'"—(Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he hoped he had made it clear that the object of the Government was to interfere as little as possible with endowments. It appeared to them most important that the Clause should state at the outset that endowments, or the discretion of the trustees in
  1222
  respect thereof, were not to be affected except as expressly provided. He thought these words were really essential.
  MR. M'KENNAasked if there was anything in the Bill giving the local education authority power to examine trust deeds. Unless the words were struck out, it was quite possible that the local education authority would not know anything about the amount of the trust funds.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the words were very objectionable, as they would throw all the bias in favour of the trustees and against the local authority. If the words were retained they would give the trustees the whip hand, and would put the county authority out of Court. The position had been explained to the Committee by the Secretary to the Board of Education, who said that if there was a trust for the general purpose of educating the children of the poor in a particular parish, the trustees would have first call on it, and would state the amount they considered they required, not only for the actual repairs of the but also for the maintenance of a building fund for the future. There should be a full inquiry, and the Board; of Education or some other authority

  1223
  should decide as between the trustees, and the local education authority. If the words were retained the local authority would have its hands tied; the trustees would have first call on the funds; and only the balance would be handed over to the local education authority.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he hoped the Committee would not agree to omit the words, as they were absolutely necessary for the allocation of the endowment. Unless the words were inserted, the matter would be left vague.
  MR. M'KENNAasked who would interpret the trust deed in the first instance.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid, of course, the trustees would; but as the hon. Gentleman knew, any interested persons could move for an inquiry into the circumstances of any charitable fund. If information were conveyed to the Charity Commissioners by responsible persons, an inquiry was immediately set on foot; and if the local authority had reason to believe that the managers in any particular case were taking the whole of a trust fund, when a part of it undoubtedly ought to be given to the local authority, they could go to the Board of Education and ask for an inquiry; and the Board of Education would at once put the matter into the hands of its law officers. He could not understand how the Clause would read if the words were omitted.
  MR. BRYCEsaid it was difficult to know what the relations between the local authority and the trustees were to be. It was quite clear that the local
  1224
  authority ought to have knowledge of what the trusts were, and how they were managed; and to enable them to do that, they ought to be able to inspect the trust deeds and call for any information from the trustees. He wished to know whether there was any such provision in the Bill. He confessed he could not find it. The words to which his noble friend objected seemed to imply that the functions given to the local authority by the Bill would not in any way cover endowments or jurisdiction over endowments, which were reserved in the fullest way to the local trustees, subject only to the jurisdiction of the Board of Education. That was not right. He did not think that anyone would deny that the local authority ought to have a locus standi in the matter as against the trustees. If the hon. Gentleman representing the Charity Commissioners would inform the Committee that the local authority would have that power, he would be satisfied; but, as at present advised, it seemed to him that the local education authority would have no locus standi.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.
  Mr. SPEAKER,in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

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

  I. Authorising the construction of: (1) A light railway in the county of Southampton from Bentley to Borton; (2) Light railways in the city of Wake-field, the borough of Osset, and in the townships of Horbury, Lofthouse-with-Carlton, Thorpe, Rothwell, Sandal-Magna, Oulton-with-Woodlesford, and in the parishes of Rothwell, East Ardsley, and Outwood, in the West Riding of the county of York; (3) Light railways in the borough of Morley and the urban districts of Birkenshaw, Drighlington, and Gomersal in the West Riding of the county of York; and for other purposes.

  II. Amending: (1) The Crowland and District Light Railways Order, 1898; (2) The South Norfolk Light Railway Order, 1898.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (SEAMEN EMPLOYED).
  Return of the number, ages, ratings, and nationalities of the seamen employed on the 31st day of March, 1901, on vessels registered under Part I. of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in the British Islands.
  TRADE UNIONS, BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT).
  Report by the Chief Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade, on trade unions in 1901; with comparative statistics for 1892–1900.

  COLONIAL IMPORT DUTIES, 1902.
  Return relating to the rates of import duties levied upon the principal and other articles imported into the Colonies and other Possessions of the United Kingdom.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Treasury minute, dated 10th November 1902, declaring that James Bowden,
  1098
  Royal Laboratory, War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Two orders, dated respectively the 7th and 10th days of November, 1902, the former entitled the Bristol (Avon-mouth Dock) Foreign Animals Wharf Order of 1902, and the latter revoking three Orders relating to the landing in Great Britain of animals brought from the Channel Islands.
  Eleventh general annual report by the Board of Trade under Section 29 of time Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890.

  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS ACT, 1888.
  Rule amending Rule 7 of the Register of Patent Agents' Rules, 1889.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BANKRUPTCY.
  Return respecting; laid before the House (pursuant to order of 6th of June last), and to be printed. (No. 186.)
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BEXHILL AND BOTHERFIELD RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.

  REPRESENTATION IN HOUSE OF LORDS OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name, that Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. be suspended for this day's sitting, perhaps I may be allowed to state, with reference to the Bill to which the Motion relates, that His Majesty has been pleased to approve the appointment of Lord Wolverton to an office in His Majesty's household, and that it has been arranged that my noble friend will take charge of the business of the Board of Trade in this House in the place of the Earl of Dudley, the late Under-Secretary of the Board of Trade.
  Standing Orders XXXIX. and XLV. considered (according to Order), and suspended for this day's Sitting.

  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER 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 Lord Wolverton); agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly: Committee negatived. Then (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.
LANARKSHIRE (MIDDLE WARD DISTRICT) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  WICK BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

  PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BELL.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to grant a Second Reading to this Bill, I propose, for the sake of lucidity, to divide the few remarks I have to make under two heads—firstly, the necessity for any change in the existing law; and, secondly, the proposals for the changes which are contained in the Bill. With regard to the necessity of some amendment of the Patent Acts, the President of the Board of Trade has long been aware that stringent criticisms have been passed in the country on the existing law, more especially on two grounds—first, that very often a patent granted by the Patent Office is practically valueless, because the Patent Office at the present time has no charge put upon it to inquire into the question of whether the invention that is presented to it has already been patented in that office; and second, that patents have very frequently been taken out by foreigners and others who had no intention whatever of working them in this country, or of
  1100
  granting licences to British manufacturers to use them in this country, and who, in fact, play a dog-in-the-manger policy. The President of the Board of Trade, having these two things in his mind, determined, as is the usual practice, to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole of the Acts in question. He selected a very strong Committee, over which Sir Edward Fry presided. Among other eminent experts who sat on the Committee was the present Lord Chief Justice of England; and the Bill which is in your Lordships' hands is mainly founded on the Report of that strong Committee.
  With regard to the changes proposed to be made in the existing law, put very briefly, they are as follow. There is to be a limited official inquiry into the anticipation of an invention in so far as that anticipation is disclosed by the records of the Patent Office during the period of fifty years preceding the application for the patent; and there is to be a transfer to the Judicial Committee of the powers of the Board of Trade in respect to the granting of compulsory licences. The limited official inquiry will be a great reform in the present patent laws, and will, we hope, give the patentee some security that he has obtained a good patent. I am assured by the Patent Office that, although they anticipate a very large increase in the business of the Department, they will still be self-supporting. I have, I think, said all that needs to be said on Clauses 1 and 2, and I now pass to Clause 3. The President of the Board of Trade has been very much impressed by the representations of very large bodies that have been made to him on the subject of this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman has been convinced that patents are often taken out by foreigners in this country for obstructing British trade and the development of particular industries, such as the aniline industries in the North. The remedy he proposes is to be found in sub-Section (3) of Clause 3, which, with your Lordships' permission, I will read. It is as follows —
  "Where any such petition is referred by the Board of Trade to the Judicial Committee, and it is proved to the satisfaction of the Judicial Committee that the reasonable requirements of the public with reference to the patented invention have not been satisfied, the Judicial Committee may order the patentee to grant licences on such terms as they may think just, or if the Judicial Committee are of opinion that

  1101
  the reasonable requirements of the public will not be satisfied by the grant of licences, they may, by order, revoke the patent."
  The rest of this Clause has, I believe, been generally approved of by the trading community of the country, and the Clause as a whole will no doubt enable British traders to obtain fair terms from foreign patentees. There is only one other subject of importance in the Bill—namely, the tribunal to which these cases will be referred. I am aware that Sir Edward Fry favoured the High Court as the final Court of Appeal, but in this Bill the President of the Board of Trade has, after due consideration, appointed the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In the presence of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, it would be presumptuous for me to express any opinion upon this. The Bill, which passed through all its stages easily in the other House, has the approval of the trading community and the Board of Trade feel sure that it will effect a great amendment of the existing law. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved. "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Wolverton.)
  LORD DAVEY: My Lords, I have only two observations to make on this Bill. In the first place, I wish to point out that it is a complete novelty—I might say a revolution—in the patent law that the question of whether a proposed patent has been anticipated by some earlier specification should be decided by an administrative officer, and not by a judge, with an appeal only to the law officer. It is proposed that the administrative officer—the examiner—shall—
  "make investigation for the purpose of ascertaining whether the invention claimed has been wholly or in part claimed or described in any previous specification,"
  and if he reports to the Comptroller that that is so, the Comptroller may absolutely require the patentee either to amend his patent or to insert a reference to the prior specifications, and the only appeal from the decision of the Comptroller to the law officer. If, therefore, the Comptroller is of opinion that the proposed patent is anticipated by a
  1102
  prior specification, there will be no means, so far as I can see, of bringing that question—and it is a very important question to the patentee—for decision to the ordinary courts of this country. The other observation I wish to make refers only to a matter of drafting. I observe that in sub Section 3 of Clause 3, which was read by the noble Lord who moved time Second Reading of the Bill, there is a phrase declaring that "the Judicial Committee may order" a patentee to grant licences on such terms as it may think just, and the Judicial Committee is empowered to make other Orders. Your Lordships are aware that the Judicial Committee is only a Committee of the Privy Council. It does not make Orders itself; what it does is to recommend that certain Orders be made by the King in Council. Though it is not a matter of very great substance or importance, I think it would be better that the ordinary procedure, which is for the Committee to "recommend," should be retained. I should be glad to know whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is of the same opinion. I am also informed that the Clause empowering the Judicial Committees to make Rules will require some slight amendment, but as that is purely a drafting matter I will not trouble the House with it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (the Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, with reference to the matter of substance raised by the noble and learned Lord, I think the question has been very fully considered, and I do not propose to go into it. With regard to the point of drafting, I quite agree with my noble and learned friend. I think it has been by an error on the part of the draftsman that the phrase declaring that the Judicial Committee may "order" was used instead of the word "recommend." As the noble and learned Lord has said, the Privy Council makes submission to His Majesty, and then an Order is made in pursuance of His Majesty's command. Therefore I think that when the Bill reaches the Committee stage it should be amended in the sense the noble and learned Lord suggests.

  1103
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed; and to be considered on Thursday next. (No. 187.)
  House adjourned at Ten minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.