Sitting of 19 November 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  BURGH POLICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Caithness, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  DOGS REGULATION BILL.
  Petition from Caithness, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Greenfield; and Manchester; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Caithness, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Redhill, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (SANITARY MEASURES).
  Copy presented, of Report on Sanitary Measures in India in 1900–1901, Vol. XXXIV. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Grants for School Teachers' Houses, 1843–1881 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
  Copies presented, of Minute sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Technical Instruction Act. 1889, for the following counties:—
  County of Carmarthen (First Minute), dated 21st October, 1902;
  County of Salop (Fifth Minute), dated 21st October. 1902;
  County of Glamorgan (Twelfth Minute), dated 15th October, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  CENSUS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, 1901.
  Copies presented, of Census of England and Wales, 1901 (Counties of Northampton, Cornwall, Monmouth, and Berks) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Education Bill—Clause 2—Evening Continuation Schools.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any provision in the Education Bill, or elsewhere, to enable a local education authority to teach elementary subjects, paid for out of funds set apart for higher education, in evening continuation schools, without contravening the meaning of Clause 2 of the Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) There is no such express provision. Whether any provision is in fact necessary, having regard to the words of Clause 2, is at present under consideration.

  British Postal Orders from Turkey.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that 20s. postal orders cannot be purchased at the British post-offices at Constantinople, Salonica, and Smyrna; and, seeing that the French post-offices in Turkey charge the same commission on money orders there for France as is charged in France itself, he will, with a view to encourage British trade, give similar opportunities.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am aware that postal orders for 20s. cannot be purchased at the British post-offices at Constantinople, Salonica, and Smyrna. The rates of commission charged at those offices for the issue of money orders are the same as are charged in this country for money orders payable at places abroad, and it is not proposed to interfere with them. According to the latest information in my possession the rates of commission charged on money orders issued at French post-offices in foreign countries for sums of £1 and over are higher than the French inland rates.

  Post Office Savings Bank Deposits—Rates of Interest.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that, in the case of accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank, fractions of £1 do not receive interest, and that the £ must have been on deposit a clear calendar month to secure interest, will he state the amount actually credited by way of interest in the books of the Department to the 805,436 accounts which are stated to have shown balances over £50 during the year 1899, and will he quote the total amount credited by way of interest during that year to the whole of the 8,046,680 accounts open.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen, Chamberlain.) The total amount of interest credited to all depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank for the year 1899 was £3,023,821. No figures are at present available to show how much of this sum was credited to accounts having balances over £50, and to obtain the desired information would involve an amount of labour and expense which I should not be justified in incurring.

  Telegraph Learners—Starting Pay.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Postmaster General whether he will explain why the starting pay of telegraph learners has been raised in some of the largest offices in England, and whether he is prepared to extend the concession to the remainder of the offices throughout the country.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) As stated in the House on the 30th June last, a change has been temporarily made at some of the largest offices under exceptional circumstances, and it is not proposed to extend the change elsewhere.

  Scottish Harbour Grants.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the Committee appointed in 1899 have received ten applications for grants in aid of harbours in Scotland, will he state the names of the places for which grants were refused.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The names of the places in Scotland for which
  1348
  grants were refused are (1) Auchmithie (Forfar); (2) Boddam (Aberdeen); (3) Broadbay (Ross and Cromarty); (4) Buckpool (Banff); (5) Dunbeath (Caithness); (6) Noah Knapdale (Argyle); (7) Portmahomack (Ross and Cromarty); (8) Valtos (Ross and Cromarty.)

  Poultry Breeding in Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate whether he has any official reports showing the results of the efforts of the Congested Districts Board in the Island of Lewis to improve the breed of poultry; and will he state how many sittings of eggs have been sent to the Island of Lewis this year.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) It is very difficult for the Congested Districts Board to get replies to their inquiries from the recipients of eggs, but the general effect of those received is favourable. One hundred and forty-two fowls and forty sittings of eggs were applied for and sent to Lewis in the earlier half of 1902.

  Port Ness (Lewis) Harbour.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the name of the engineer who has been deputed to report on the condition of the harbour at Port Ness, Island of Lewis; and will he state when this gentleman proposes to visit the harbour.
  (Answered by Mr. Graham A. Murray.) Mr. William Shield. The actual date of his visit has not yet been definitely settled, but will probably be before the end of the year.

  Inland Revenue (Ireland)—Game Licences.
  MR. MACARTNEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any precautions are taken by the Inland Revenue Department to ensure that those who shoot game in Ireland are provided with a game certificate; whether the attention of the Department has been directed to evasions of the law in King's County; and whether any steps have been taken in relation thereto.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes-Fisher.) The officers of Inland Revenue in Ireland,

  1349
  with the co-operation of the Royal Irish Constabulary, take every precaution against evasions of the Game Licence Laws. The attention of the Board of Inland Revenue has net been specially drawn to evasions of these laws in King's County.

  Civil Service Abstractors.
  MR SKEWES-COX: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that in the Treasury, Colonial Office, Customs, Scotch Office, and Seamen's Registry. &c., Office certain assistant clerics (abstractor class) are in receipt of personal allowances or gratuities of £20 and £30 per annum, he will consider the advisability of extending this privilege to abstractors of meritorious service in other offices on the recommendation of the head of a Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes-Fisher.) The Treasury is always ready to consider a recommendation from the head of a Department for an improvement in the position of an abstractor who is employed on work of a class higher than could otherwise be fairly required of him.

  Poor Law—Proposed Central Superannuation Fund.
  MR. FREEMAN THOMAS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to resolutions recently passed by various poor law unions and conferences in favour of a central superannuation fund, and if in any Amendment of the Superannuation Act it will be made compulsory for poor law officers to retire at sixty-five: and whether, seeing that there are clerks connected with some unions who are nearly eighty years of age, the Local Government Board will suggest to the local board of guardians the need for paying greater attention to the retiring section of the Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My attention has been called to resolutions passed on the subject of a central superannuation fund. As to the second point, I am not aware that there is any proposal to amend the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act in the direction referred to. As regards the concluding part of the Question, it is competent to a
  1350
  board of guardians to require, any officer who has attained the age of sixty-five to retire if they consider that this would be expedient in the interests of the public service. It does not at present seem to me necessary to communicate generally with boards of guardians on this subject; but if representations were made to me that any particular officer is by reason of old age unfit for the discharge of his duties I would give the matter my attention.

  Unpublished Reciprocal Agreements with Foreign Powers.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has given any pledges or entered into any reciprocal agreements with any Foreign Power in regard to China or Japan, of which this House has not been made cognisant; whether it has given any such pledges or entered into any such reciprocal agreements in regard to the Mediterranean or to any country abutting on it with any Foreign Power of which this House has not been made cognisant.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) I venture to hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am only able to reply that I have no statement to make upon the inquiry which he has addressed to me. Any other reply, he will allow me to say, would be contrary to public interest.

  Ireland—Conduct of Police at Rathcormac.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of the police at Rathcormac on the 9th instant, on the occasion of a Gaelic tournament held in a paddock rented for the purpose by the President of the Gaelic Club, when a head constable and some policemen refused to pay for admission, and forced an entrance into the paddock; and, seeing that meetings of the Gaelic Club for various sports are held in Rathcormac week after week, will the police be instructed to exercise more discretion with regard to them in future.

  1351
  (Answered by Mr Wyndham.) The police did not use any force in entering the field, and no objection was taken to their presence by the owner. On many occasions disturbances arising out of these tournaments have taken place, and it was deemed prudent to have police in attendance at the meeting in question. They do not unnecessarily intrude on such occasions.

  Army Recruiting Since Close of the War.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of recruits, exclusive of re-engaging Reservists, who have been enlisted, since the conclusion of the South African War, for the Regulars and Militia respectively, specifying in each case the numbers for each arm of the Service, and, in the case of the Infantry, the number of specials.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The following statement shows the number of recruits who have been enlisted since the conclusion of the South African War to 1st November, for the Regulars and Militia respectively:—Regulars: Household Cavalry, 62; Cavalry of the Line, 2,912; Royal Artillery, 5,157; Royal Engineers, 626; Foot Guards, 701; Infantry of the Line, 11,051; Army Service Corps, 484; Army Ordnance Corps, 172; Royal Army Medical Corps, 352; Total, † 21,520. Militia: Royal Artillery, 1,217; Royal Engineers, 148; Infantry, 13,736; Royal Army Medical Corps, 197; Total, 15,298. It is not possible to obtain figures for a broken period as to the number of specials without obtaining returns from all the districts, for which I am not prepared to call.

  Recruiting—Physical Standards.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the physical standards for recruits enlisted for the Regular and Militia forces have been raised since the introduction of the higher rates of pay; and, if so, in what particulars.
  † Exclusive of 964 re-enlisted under Army Orders 106 of 1900 and 59 of 1901.
  1352
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The higher rates of pay have not yet come fully into force. The standard of height has been raised in the case of the Hussars from a minimum of 5 feet 2 inches to 5 feet 4 inches. All other physical standards for recruits remain unchanged.

  British Honduras—Mr. Fenwick's Explorations.
  COLONEL SADLER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the report of Mr. Fenwick's explorations and discoveries in British Honduras; and whether the names of the places discovered will be published in the British Honduras Government Gazette.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary, Chamberlain.) I have received a Report on the subject of the hon. Member's Question. Mr. Fenwick does not appear to have added to the existing knowledge of the Colony.

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South Africa—Further Financial Assistance for the Boers.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a request for further financial assistance to the burghers of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony in addition to the sum already voted by Parliament; and whether he proposes to confer with the Boer generals on the subject.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I have no expectation of any further interview before I leave for South Africa. The views of the generals and my reply will be found in Cd. 1284.

  Volunteer Officers.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state why a distinction was drawn between the Volunteer officers who went out to South Africa at the beginning of the war and those sent out between six and eighteen months before it was terminated, to the detriment of the latter in respect both of leave and pay, which

  1353
  were granted on landing to the one and withheld from the other; why Volunteer officers from the Mother Country were less liberally treated than Colonial officers in regard to decorations; and whether it is intended to continue the requirement that officers holding His Majesty's Commission in the auxiliary forces must be sworn in by recruiting sergeants as private soldiers, and answer the questions in the attestation papers, before obtaining temporary commissions in the Regular army.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): As regards the first part of the Question, no such distinction was drawn. The Volunteer officers who returned with their units were given a month's leave with pay for the purpose of settling up with their men; those who came home individually were released from service from the date of disembarkation, unless retained in South Africa for the public service, when they were given a month's leave from date of disembarkation. As regards the second part, my right hon. friend gave the hon. Member a full reply to a Question which he put on the 12th instant,† to which I have nothing to add. As regards the third part, the practice was discontinued in 1900.
  MR. LUKE WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War with respect to the Volunteer officers employed in South Africa and who were mentioned in despatches and received rewards, if he will state the number of these officers who served with Volunteer companies and engineer detachments.
  LORD STANLEY: I will obtain the information requested by the hon. Member.

  King's S uth African Medal.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that, owing to the conditions under which the King's South African medal is granted, some of the Auxiliary forces are debarred from receiving it, the conditions may be so amended that all those who served in South Africa during any portion of His Majesty's reign may receive the medal.
  † See page 746.
  LORD STANLEY: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my right hon. friend's reply to a Question put by my friend the hon. Member for York, on Monday last, † wherein it was stated clearly that there was no intention of altering the regulations.

  Imperial Yeomanry—Medals.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that certain of the battalions of Imperial Yeomanry that went to South Africa in 1902 arrived there too late for the grant of the Queen's medal, in consequence of the fact that they had been kept at Aldershot two months longer than it was stated would be the case in the warrant under which they enlisted, the same medal could be given to them as was given to the Militia employed at Malta.
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir; this medal was given for service in the Mediterranean, and is not applicable to South African service.
  MR. YERBURGH: I shall take the earliest opportunity of drawing attention to this matter.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Government not grant them some medal?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir.

  Reservists.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Reservists who took part in the South African Campaign, and left the colours with an exemplary, very good, or good character, are to be re-admitted to the Army if so desirous and able to pass the medical examination, without distinction as to the date of transfer to the Reserve.
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. They must have been transferred or re-transferred to the Reserve between the 1st June, 1902, and the 1st January, 1903, the object being to aid those soldiers
  † See page 1118.

  1355
  who, owing to the large numbers discharged at the same time, find a difficulty in obtaining employment.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask whether consideration cannot be given to the case of men discharged in April last, who find great difficulty in obaining employment, and were misled by the public announcement?
  LORD STANLEY: I do not think they need have been misled. I will mention the case to my right hon. friend, but these men had three or four clear months in which to get employment before the mass of the Reservists came home.

  Army Entrance Examinations.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE (Hants, Fareham): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that inconvenience is being caused to the public schools and other educational establishments by the uncertainty which now prevails as to the future syllabus of the Army entrance examinations; and whether he can now announce his intentions with regard to the syllabus unanimously recommended by the Military Education Committee.
  LORD STANLEY: I am most anxious to obviate any avoidable inconvenience, but the subject is a very important one, and I can only say that full time will be given before any change is brought into operation.

  Welsh and New Zealand Coal.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state how Welsh and New Zealand coal compare in the relation of bulk to weight, and in the effective development of steam; what percentage less weight of New Zealand coal can be stowed in a given bunker space, and how much more effective is a given weight of Welsh coal in developing steam; and if he can state approximately the actual and percentage difference in price between Welsh and New Zealand coal delivered at the China Station during the last few mouths.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The Admiralty do not think it is
  1356
  in the public interest to furnish detailed particulars with regard to the coal actually carried on ships of war. The results of trials made in foreign countries are not communicated to the Admiralty. I must ask, therefore, to be excused answering the hon. Member's Question.

  H. M. S. "Cressy."
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give the results of any recent full speed trials by His Majesty's armoured twin crew cruiser "Cressy," made with New Zealand or other coal.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No report has yet been received at the Admiralty o any speed trial by H.M.S. "Cressy" during the present year. The last full speed trial of which the results are known took place in October, 1901, before the vessel left for the China Station.

  H. M. S. "Hyacinth."
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the nature of the defects in the machinery of H.M.S. "Hyacinth" which prevent her having her new trial with H.M.S. "Minerva."
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There are no defects in the machinery of H.M.S. "Hyacinth" which prevent her from proceeding with trials with H.M.S. "Minerva." As the object of these particular trials is to test various propellers of different form and dimensions, some time is necessarily occupied between the trials in changing the propeller blades.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why proper screws were not designed for this ship at first?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Member knows that the question of screws is one which is being experimented on in almost every country, and we are experimenting in order to ascertain if better results are to be obtained from these screws than from the original ones.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: The powers of the screws have been known for years, and no more experiments are necessary.

  British Trade in the French Congo.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the effect on British trade in the French Congo of the grant of exclusive rights of proprietorship and trade by the French Government to the concessionaires, who now demand the expulsion of British firms from the country; and whether he can state what progress has been made with the negotiations with the French Government relative to the claims of British subjects for restitution and compensation.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRAN-BORNE, Rochester): His Majesty's Government recognise that this is a matter of great importance to British trade. It has for some time past been the subject of negotiation with France, and definite proposals are now under the consideration of the French Government.

  Kabyle Revolt in Morocco.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to convey to the House respecting the Kabyle revolt in Morocco, and the steps taken by His Majesty's Government to protect British interests in that quarter.
  LORD CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Minister at Tangier reported by telegraph on the 12th instant that the Borgu tribe near Tetuan had cut the road and stopped traffic between that town and Tangier, on account of the Governor of Tetuan refusing to release some people of their tribe. Sir A. Nicolson does not appear to anticipate any serious trouble at present. We shall, however, be in a position to send ships in order to protect British life and property should occasion arise.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: How can effective protection be afforded by British ships to persons in the interior?

  Aliens in London.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  1358
  the Home Department how many aliens have been charged at Metropolitan police courts in the last twelve months; and if, having regard to the number of criminal cases throughout the country in which aliens are concerned, he will consider the desirability of acquiring the power of expelling from the country aliens who have made themselves amenable to the criminal law; and further, what steps are being taken to prevent persons expelled from Belgium and other Continental States in consequence of anarchist outrages settling in London and other British centres in the absence of any other State consenting to receive them.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,): During the twelve months ending the 31st October last, 4,943 persons of foreign nationality were charged at the Metropolitan police courts. As regards the second and third paragraphs of the Question, it would be premature to make any statement or express an opinion as to the desirability of legislation pending the Report of the Royal Commission which is now inquiring into the whole question of alien immigration.
  MR. LOUGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these figures show an increase on those for the previous year?
  MR. COCHRANE: I cannot say.

  Police Overcoats.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state why the constables on duty in Palace Yard, on Monday 17th November, were obliged, having regard to the state of the weather, to remain on duty without greatcoats. The hon. Member added: It is not suggested that any complaint was made by any of the men concerned.
  MR. COCHRANE: There was no such obligation as the hon. Member suggests. On the contrary, instructions that the men should wear greatcoats were issued early on the day mentioned by the responsible officer.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then why did not the men obey orders?

  Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom from 1887 to 1901, including figures to 31st March, 1902, was distributed to Members on 10th October, 1902; and can he make arrangements whereby these accounts may henceforth be distributed at a less interval than six months after the close of the period which they embrace.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The distribution of the United Kingdom Abstract was to some extent delayed this year owing to special circumstances connected with the revision of some of the financial Tables—circumstances which it is hoped will not recur. Every effort is made and shall be made t o issue the Abstract as early as possible.

  Post Office Telephones.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is yet in a position to say when the extension of the Post Office Telephone System throughout the metropolis and suburbs will be complete; will he state the amount expended by the Post Office up to the present time on this service, the number of subscribers, and the amount of their rentals.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E): Seven Post Office Telephone Exchanges have already been opened in London since the 1st March. These serve districts which include more than half the previous users of telephones. Four other exchanges to serve large areas are well advanced. Owing to the rapidly increasing demand for a telephone service, it is not practicable to name a date when the system can be regarded as complete. The authorised expenditure on works now in progress is in round figures £1,261,000. These works provide not only for the service of existing subscribers, but to a much greater extent
  1360
  for future requirements. The number of subscribers' telephones now working is 5,160, and this number is being increased by from 150 to 200 a week. The receipts in respect of the local exchange service in London up to the 15th instant were £34,473, and £1,086 was received for trunk calls made by Post Office subscribers.
  Mk. LOUGH: Are these new subscribers put into communication with the subscribers of the National Telephone Company?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; that follows from the terms of the agreement which the House had under discussion early in the year.

  Supervision of Postal Officials by their Relatives.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a member of the family of the postmaster at Londonderry was recently supervised at Gravesend and Douglas, Isle of Man, by another member of the same family; whether this official was recently temporarily transferred to Belfast from Douglas, arid subsequently to Londonderry; and whether he can state the result of any inquiries that have been made into these matters.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A daughter of the postmaster of Londonderry was attached to the Gravesend and Douglas post offices, of which her father was postmaster. She has been recently transferred temporarily to Belfast and to Londonderry. Although the Department does not generally regard it as satisfactory that an officer should have to supervise a member of his own family, I do not think it necessary to insist in all cases that a daughter of a postmaster should be excluded from her father's office.

  Education Bill—Evening Elementary Schools.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the provisions of the Education Bill, 1902, under which local education authorities are compelled to provide elementary public school accommodation, extend to the provision of evening elementary schools under Clause 18 of the Bill as reprinted.
  THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): The effect of sub-Section (1), Clause 18, of the Bill, will need consideration; but it does not appear that the duty to provide public elementary school accommodation under the Bill extends to the provision of evening elementary schools under that sub-Section.

  Welsh Intermediate Education.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will state whether the powers vested in the County Council under sub-Section (a) of Clause 13 of the Education Bill could under any circumstances, through the operation of sub-Section 7 of Clause 12 of the Bill, as amended, be applied to any parish or parishes in Wales or Monmouthshire.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The County Councils in Wales and Monmouthshire will have the powers given by sub-Section, (a), Clause 13 (1) of the Bill, with regard to expenses incurred under the Bill. But the provisions of Clause 13 of the Bill will not apply to money spent under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889. The effect of sub-Section (7) of Clause 12 of the Bill is merely to alter the constitution of the body who administer the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, not to alter the actual provisions of the Act.

  Bagnalstown Petty Sessions Summonses.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of Bernard Kennedy v. Michael Moore at the Bagnalstown Petty Sessions, in which the Royal Irish Constabulary claimed the right to serve summonses for the Petty Sessions Court at Bagnalstown in cases at the suit of the Town Commissioners; and whether he will issue instructions to the police to have these summonses served by the proper officer employed by the Town Commissioners.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): It has hitherto been the practice of the constabulary to serve summonses in
  1362
  these cases. That course was adopted to convenience the Town Commissioners. If, however, the Commissioners desire that summonses in all cases in which they are complainants, should beserved by their own officer, no objection will be raised by the constabulary.

  Recorders Court, Dublin.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the delay and expense caused to suitors by the accumulation of cases in the Recorder's Court in Dublin; and whether, in order to obviate this public inconvenience he would be prepared to introduce a new Clause into the Local Government (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill extending the jurisdiction of the Court of Conscience from £2 to its former limit of £10.
  Mr. ATKINSON: I am not aware that there has been any accumulation of cases in the Recorder's Court in Dublin. Whether the jurisdiction of the Court of Conscience should be extended is a matter for consideration, but any reform of the existing procedure would not be germane to the Bill.

  Bagnalstown Water Supply.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have received reports from the Bagnalstown medical officer as to the necessity of a water supply for that township; whether they have made any inquiry into these complaints; and what action they propose to take to insist upon the local authorities providing a water supply for the inhabitants.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The question of improving the water supply for this township is at present under the consideration of the district council, at whose instance a local committee is investigating the matter.

  Newbridge Artisans' Cottages.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds the Board of Works have refused to issue the final instalment on the loan for artisans' cottages in Newbridge to Kildare; and whether, in view of the

  1363
  public inconvenience thus created, he will direct the balance of the loan to he issued without further delay.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board of Works has not refused to issue the loan. The local authority has not yet completed the forms necessary to enable the Local Government Board to recommend the issue.

  Inspector Fleming and the Thomastown Guardians.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Inspector General has received any complaints from the Board of Guardians of Thomastown Union as to the recent action of District Inspector Fleming, and to the fact that he has relatives living in the district; and what has been the result of the inquiry into thin matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: These complaints have formed the subject of a correspondence between the guardians and the Inspector General, whose decision had been communicated to the guardians. If the hon. Member has not seen the correspondence, I shall he glad to send him a copy.

  Belfast Revaluation.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the names, qualifications, previous experience, and previous employment, and the salaries paid to the valuers employed by the Commissioner of Valuation in making the recent revaluation of Belfast.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This information is being tabulated and, when completed, will be communicated to the hon. Member.

  Rating Appeals.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many appeals have been made to the county court judges during the last twelve months against rating valuations made by the revisers under the new system of valuations; how many valuations have been decreased on appeal; and in how many has the original valuation been upheld.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: There is no new system of valuation in force in Ireland. The number of appeals to Quarter Sessions during the past twelve months was fifty-seven. Changes were made by the county court judges in eighteen cases; I am inquiring as to the nature of the changes made.

  Tallow Conspiracy Case.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the names of the officials referred to by the Lord Chief Baron in the case of O'Keeffe v. Walsh and others, of Tallow, as having failed in the discharge of their public duties; and, if not, whether any public inquiry will be held into this matter with a view to discovering the parties responsible.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. I am not prepared to debate the course pursued by the Executive more than three years ago by way of Question and Answer in tins House.
  MR. TULLY: Why are not these officials prosecuted for breach of trust?

  Imprisoned Irish Members.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state if Members of Parliament sentenced to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, are permitted during their imprisonment to receive their Parliamentary Papers and to communicate with the authorities of this House as to Amendments and Notices of Motions standing in their names; and, if not, whether he will direct any modification of the prison rules in this respect.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; the prison rules do not, I am advised, admit of the privileges referred to. It is not proposed to alter the rules, which are identical with those in force in English prisons.

  Education Bill—Sham Trust Deeds.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will introduce provisions into the Education Bill, as was

  1365
  done in the case of The Finance Act, 1894, to prevent sham trust deeds being executed with a view to evading the provisions of the Bill.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I take it that if a trust deed is a sham it will not be upheld by the Courts, and no special provision is required in this Bill to provide against it.

  Religious Instruction in Schools.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether sub-Section (4) of Clause 8 of the Education Bill would subject the decisions of the managers of voluntary schools in regard to religious instruction to an appeal to episcopal authority where the trust deeds at present provide for it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Without attempting to interpret the hon. Gentleman's phrase "the decisions of the managers," I may observe that wherever a trust deed gives an appeal to the bishop to determine whether the teaching is or is not in conformity with the trust deed, that appeal will still remain obligatory.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Will there be any appeal to the Board of Education from the bishops?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I take it that the Board of Education will be quite out of this.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Will there be any circumstances under that sub-Section in which there will be an appeal to the Board of Education?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps it was rash to do so in answer to a Question without notice, but I have indicated my opinion for what it is worth, without consulting the exact phraseology of the Bill, that there will be no appeal to the Board of Education with regard to religious instruction. I do not believe there will be any such appeal.

  Gibraltar.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether
  1366
  he is now able to say whether the Report of the engineer sent to report on the harbour on the eastern side of the Rock recommended by the Gibraltar Committee in March 1901 will be laid upon the Table of this House; and, if so, when; and, if it will not be laid, can he state generally what course His Majesty's Government intend to take in order to render Gibraltar tenable, and to keep it open as a naval station.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; I have much pleasure in informing the hon. Member that the Report can be laid immediately.

  Appropriation Accounts.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the Civil Service Appropriation Accounts for the year ending 31st March only reach the Comptroller and Auditor General on the next 30th November, and that the Army and Navy Appropriation Accounts for the same period only reach him by 31st December; and whether these intervals of eight months and nine months respectively can be shortened and the accounts delivered earlier, so as to admit of a. more complete examination of them by the Comptroller and Auditor General before he presents his Reports thereon to the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the dates 30th November and 31st December are fixed by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act of 1866. The Comptroller and Auditor General is not limited in the examination of the accounts to the time after he has received them in a complete form. The accounts of the spending Departments are rendered monthly, and so his examination of them proceeds throughout the financial year, while in the largest Department he has his own officers permanently located for the work. I understand the Comptroller and Auditor General himself has no complaint to make of the time allowed.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the dates are fixed in the Act only as the limit beyond which the time shall not be extended.

  National Finance Accounts.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, is he aware that the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom for the year ending 31st March, 1902, and ordered by the House to be printed on 23rd June, 1902, were not distributed till 31st August, 1902; and can he make arrangements so to expedite the future printing and distribution of these Accounts that they may be distributed at a less interval than five months after the close of the period they include.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Finance Accounts include the final Returns of revenue for the expiring year, which, coming as they do from all parts of the United Kingdom, require many adjustments, and cannot be ready until some time after the close of the financial year. The printing of the accounts has to be done at a time when the pressure on the Government is considerable, but although every effort will be made to expedite their distribution I am afraid I should be holding out false hopes if I promised any great acceleration.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  New Clause (Managers)—(Mr. A. Balfour)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid there ought to be some discussion as to the generally unsatisfactory character of this Clause before they came to the Amendments. On examination of this Management Clause they found it to be as narrowly denominational as it could possibly be. The trusts, as at present constituted, were of various characters, but in general they would either leave the appointment of the managers in the hands of the incumbent or else in the hands of the subscribers to the school. But one of the
  1368
  first things likely to occur as a result of this Bill was that the subscribers would become nonentities. At every stage of the Bill money was being put into the hands of the managers, thereby relieving them of the necessity for seeking subscriptions; and where now there were perhaps twenty or thirty subscribers giving a pound apiece, in future there would only be two or three. The rest of the money required for repairs would be obtained from other sources, such as the rent of the schoolmaster's house and from endowments, which, by the action of the Committee on the previous day, were largely put into the hands of the managers. The result of the disappearance of the subscribers would be that the appointment of the foundation managers would be in the hands of the parson in a great many more cases than at present. In many cases there would be no subscribers left, except the incumbent and his curate, who would for form's sake remain a subscriber to the school. This appeared to him to be a very unsatisfactory condition of things to perpetuate. What would happen with a large number of the villages, where at the present time persons other than friends of the incumbent were chosen to serve on voluntary school committees? This Bill had created in the minds of the clergy a presumption of hostility between themselves and the popular managers; and, in future, the parson, where he had the power, would do his best to choose four managers who would uphold his particular views and would follow his lead absolutely. He would deem that necessary, because he would regard the two managers chosen by the public as hostile to himself. The four foundation managers would probably be the parson, his favourite curate, the wife of the squire, whom he could depend upon to give an annual tea to the children, and one of the churchwardens. He contended that the members of the denominations concerned ought to have more freedom in the; selection of managers, and that there ought not to be left so much power in the hands of the incumbent of the parish. Was there any reason why two of the managers should not be appointed by communicants of the Church to which the school belonged? It would maintain the essential spirit of the trust. It would be very unfortunate if in future the managers were chosen from

  1369
  "the inner ring" of the parish, controlled by the parson. He had in his mind a case which occurred in the North of England in which the parson, because of his very High Church proclivities, lost nearly the whole of Ins congregation, and merely preached to the squirearchy of the county, who came from long distances in order to listen to his eloquent sermons. The people of the parish went elsewhere. But what would be the condition of things in a case like that? The incumbent would practically have the appointment of the whole of the four managers, and surely it would be better if his parishioners had a right to select at least two of them. It certainly would cause less friction. He hoped the scope of the Clause would he widened so as to ensure that the denominational managers were more truly representative.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONhoped the Prime Minister would be kind enough to explain to the Committee how it was proposed to work this Clause. No one would know how to go about the appointment of the four denominational managers. It would be very difficult to make the appointments in accordance with the present trust deeds, because one of the constituencies named by the trust deeds—namely, the subscribers to the schools—would exist no longer, as there would be no need for subscriptions. The First Lord had on innumerable occasions told them that one of the main objects of the Bill was to destroy what had been called the one-man management of the school, but by practically placing the appointment of all four denominational managers in the hands of the incumbent they were deliberately giving more power to the one man than he had ever before had. It was boned to create a great amount of friction. It was not a healthy state of things that the majority of the managers of a school should owe their position to the nomination of the incumbent. The best people would not accept office on such terms; men and women of independent character certainly could not do so.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)thought the First Lout would admit that the Clause required a good deal of amendment, even from his own point of view. What was the Government's
  1370
  idea as to these appointments? Under the model trust deed of the National Society which dominated the majority of the Anglican schools the management was vested in the clergyman of the parish and his curate or curates. There were to be four denominational managers under the Bill, so that where the incumbent had three curates he and his curates would fill the four places. As a rule in country parishes the incumbent had one curate. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."]
  MR. MALCOLM: In the majority of cases the clergyman of the parish has no assistance.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does the hon. Member tell me that in the vast majority of cases the clergyman has not assistance in the way of a curate?
  MR. MALCOLM: Yes
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would accept that statement from the hon. Member, but at any rate in thousands of parishes the clergyman had a curate; in those cases half the denominational managers would be, clerical. How were the others to be appointed? Under the model trust deed any vacancy was to be filled by election by the subscribers of 10s. and upwards of the current year. The Clause passed yesterday destroyed that constituency. There would no longer be any need for subscribers now that the only burden on the managers was the repairs. To bear that burden the managers would have the rent of the schoolmaster's house, which would alone be a larger sum than was generally represented by the subscriptions.
  An HON. MEMBER: There are very few schoolmaster's houses in towns.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am dealing with rural districts.
  MR. MALCOLM: And in many rural districts they have not a teacher's house.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he accepted the hon. Member as an authority on curates, but on this point he could not agree with him. His hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell informed hint that out of

  1371
  14,000 voluntary schools, there were 8,194 to which schoolmasters' houses were attached, and the rent of these buildings would provide a fund for repairs. In these cases certainly the subscribers were not needed. The second fund arose out of the endowments, and in many cases the endowments, unless they were earmarked for the school teacher's salary, would be at the absolute discretion of the trustees for the fabric and repairs. These two funds would render it unnecessary to appeal for subscriptions. [An HON. MEMBER: Then there are the fees.] With the fees there would be three funds which would enable them to dispense absolutely with subscribers. Supposing that they wanted a few pounds in cases where there were no endowments and no schoolmaster's house, what would happen? A big sum was not wanted, but a sufficient sum of money for the purpose. The clergyman would fix his own constituency. He would settle down with his curate to make out a list of the men who would probably subscribe. The curate might suggest Mr. So-and-So, because he was a rich man. The clergyman naturally wanted the control of his school. There was a good deal of human nature in Holy Orders. He would object to the gentleman named by the curate because he was a Low Churchman whose views did not correspond with his own. He would then pick out the members of his congregation of either sex who would be most amenable to his influence. All he had to do was to go to four or five members of the congregation who were his best supporters. He would ask them to put down £1 each, and the men so picked out would elect the managers in the district. But to say that this method of selection represented even the denomination itself was a perfect farce. Since the Government had decided that schools should be denominational let them be frankly so. Let them really represent the denomination. Did they propose that the trust deeds should remain as they were, the clergyman ex officio with power to appoint his own curate or curates, and the balance to come front the subscribers whom the clergyman himself selected? In the event of there being no subscribers at all, how did the Government mean to provide a constituency to elect the managers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee that I should now reply on the points raised by the hon. Member for the Elland Division and the hon. Member for Carnarvon. A great deal of the argument of their speech is based on the assumption that no subscriptions or sacrifices will be required in future from those who support the voluntary schools. Well, as a friend of the voluntary schools, I almost wish that were the case, but I am afraid that it is very far from being so, and that it will be found when the Bill comes into operation that the idea that the various denominations interested in these schools will have to make no sacrifices to keep up the schools is an idea which has no foundation in fact. There may be here and there exceptionally constituted schools where the contributions of predecessors have put the schools in so good a position that they do not require to ask the existing generation to put its hand into its pocket to carry out the work of the schools. It is quite true that such cases exist. Cases exist, no doubt, where the endowments are of so large a character that the school is independent of outside support, or where the managers or trustees of the school were possessors of the fee simple of the schoolmaster's house, which they turned to some account. But though these cases undoubtedly exist, the broad fact remains that this Bill, while it does relieve much of the strain that presses on the managers of voluntary schools, and while it removes that particular kind of competition with rate-aided schools, of which the managers of voluntary schools have so long and bitterly complained, does put undoubtedly upon the managers of denominational schools the duty and the necessity of still deriving funds from private sources in order that the schools may remain allocated to the denomination. Therefore I would venture to point out to the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, that the financial basis on which they have proceeded is one which does not correspond to the actual facts of the case. I put the same conclusion in still more precise and explicit language. It is quite clear to me that it is a

  1373
  mistake to suppose that we have destroyed the constituency based on contributions to the school. It may be that annual subscriptions are not required in the same sense as before, but contributions undoubtedly will be required, and I see no reason why, in the schemes to be presented to the Education Department, the managers may not suggest a constituency, modified in some detail, but having for its basis the willingness of the constituency to subscribe for the support of the school of the denomination to which they belong.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Who does the Prime Minister suggest they should be?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course it is impossible to suggest who would be the people who would subscribe to the cost of any of the schools in the district, but it is perfectly possible, while modifying the trust deeds, to maintain, if not the precise provisions of the trust deeds, at all events, something on the same lines. I see no inherent difficulty in doing it. The hon. Gentleman gave a sketch of what he supposes will be the constitution of the Board with its four denominational managers. He said that the trust deed of the National Society contemplated, in the first place, that the clergyman shall be ex officio a trustee, to which, in the case of a Church school, I. think nobody would object. He further stated that the clergyman might appoint the curate, if he has only one, two curates if he has two, and three curates if he has three; the result of which manipulation of the body of managers would be that all the four managers would be gentlemen of his convictions. I cannot conceive that that would be the actual operation of the Clause we are now discussing. Of course, as the House knows, the normal board of management will consist of six members, four of them being necessarily denominational; but we do not limit by the Bill the possible number to six. Six is the contemplated number, but there are cases in which that would be exceeded, and if the number of six is greatly exceeded I do not see why there should not be more
  1374
  than one clergyman on that extended number. But I should be sorry to see an immense clerical preponderance on the board of management, and certainly that would be attained if the hon. Gentleman's prophecy were fulfilled. But I cannot believe either that the existing trustees would present any such scheme to the Board of Education for their approval, or that the Board of Education would be disposed to agree to it if there were three clergymen out of a body of four denominational managers on the general board of management. That certainly is not contemplated. It is the business of the Board of Education to have regard to the general scope of the intentions of the trust deeds, but I cannot see that such an arrangement would be desired by the National Society, or sanctioned by the Board of Education. One of the difficulties which must always be borne in mind is that the Clause is necessarily wide and indefinite in its character, because the number of trust deeds to be dealt with are almost infinite in their variety. If we had simply a single form of trust deed to deal with, this House might have a free hand to take it into consideration, to state the way in which, we intend to preserve the spirit of that trust deed, and to say, in view of the general provisions of the Bill, that we propose that such and such modifications should be made. That would be a possible policy, and it might be the right policy if we had only one corm, but as we have to deal with an infinite variety of trust deeds, I think we must draw the framework of this Clause so as to give the discretion of the Education Department and the existing managers the widest possible latitude. I think it was the hon. Member for the Elland Division who asked "what becomes of your protestations about one man management?" My answer is very plain. My answer in the first place is that one man management means, I presume, management by one man. For that we substitute management by six men. That, at all events, will be a considerable change. It is said that this is all a pretence and a delusion, because one is the clergyman and the others are the nominees of the clergyman. Why should there be this view of the relations between the various

  1375
  members of the Church? I cannot think that these men will all be dismissible by the parson, and, therefore, surely I am justified in repeating what I said before. In the first place, this Bill substitutes six men management for one man management, and in the next place it puts on the board two men who have no relation to the original trust deed of the school, and there is no reason to suppose that in regard to the four remaining managers there will not be sufficient breadth and elasticity of arrangement so as to make them properly representative of the denomination to which they belong.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that one part of the speech of the Prime Minister he could not, for the life of him, understand. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that in such a case as had been put by the hon. Member for Carnarvon, where there would be more than one clerical manager that matter would be dealt with by the Board of Education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Under a scheme?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The word scheme is not used in this Clause, but, of course it is contemplated that the proposal would be made to the Board of Education, which would have something to say as to the constitution of the new body of managers.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: No, Sir, that would not occur at all. The case put would be consistent with the trust deed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I think not.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: It is the commonest thing in the world for two clerical managers to act.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If we had cut down the denominational managers to four, then it would not be consistent that two or three of these should be clerical members. It would have been different in cases where the board of
  1376
  managers consisted, as was sometimes the case formerly, of fourteen or sixteen members.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that that was an entirely new rendering of this Clause; and there again he was sure that the Clause would have to be interpreted by the Courts. It had never occurred to him that the case put by his hon. friend would be inconsistent with the trust deed. He did not think it was. There was nothing about the spirit of the trust deed in the Clause. If the Clause were read perfectly carefully, as it was now before he Committee, it would be seen that it had to be shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Education that the provisions of the trust deed as to the appointment of managers were in any respect inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, etc. The ordinary case was where they were consistent. The ordinary case was that the managers were to be communicant members of the Church of England and, in some cases, that they were to be communicant members of the Church of England and subscribers. He believed that it would be held by any court of law that the clergyman and the curate could continue to be put on the board of managers. In the ordinary rural parish there were only three managers. The forms attached to the church doors were more commonly signed by three persons than by any larger number, and of these three, sometimes two were clergymen and one a county gentleman or a leading farmer. He was sure there was nothing inconsistent with that in the spirit or letter of the trust deed. He could not think that the explanation of the Prime Minister was right on that point. Then, as to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that under the Bill things would go on as now in regard to Church management. Their point was that things did not go at all. At the present time there was no constituency. All that was done was that the clergyman asked two people to sign the forms with him. But they were starting afresh and introducing some form of public management of these schools and responsibility of management, and surely his hon. friend was right in saying that in doing so they ought to create some sort of

  1377
  a constituency. In his hon. friend's supposed case it was to be a Church constituency, subject to the conditions of the trust deed. There were two cases which commonly existed at the present time. First, that in which there was no management except one-mail management. The second was worthy of the consideration of the Committee, because it was common in populous parishes where there were small manufactures. In that second case there was a body of managers of Church Schools, but then the trust deed was not adhered to. Although the trust deed said that the managers must be communicant members of the Church of England, as a matter of fact some of them were Nonconformists. He knew of a case where two of the managers of Church Schools were Wesleyans. Of course that had been done with the view of securing liberal subscriptions from Nonconformists. In another case where the management had been so far popularised, the treasurer of a Nonconformist School was also manager of a Church School! That was more popular management, but it was inconsistent with the trust deed. Both these cases pointed in the same direction, and showed that they ought to create a real constituency.
  MR. MALCOLMsaid he wished to apologise to the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs for having interrupted him in the course of his speech, but he was rather led to it by what he considered the exaggerated statements of the hon. Gentleman. There were certain cases of wrong or hardship, but these were the exceptions; and it would be a pity to proceed with legislation on the assumption that the exception made the rule instead of proving it. The hon. Member for Carnarvon said that it was possible under the trust deed for the parson and three curates to form all the denominational members of the board of management, and then the hon. Gentleman proceeded to argue that in all the country districts of England the parson was blessed with one, two, or three curates. Now, he would point out that almost half the country parishes had not got a curate as well as a vicar, that in a small minority there were only two curates and a vicar, and that in scarcely any at all were there a vicar and three curates. He thought that these facts would puncture in some degree the
  1378
  contention of the hon. Gentleman. Then the hon. Member for Carnarvon went on to point out what a conspiracy there would be between the vicar and his curates to get control over the school endowments; but in many parishes they had no other endowments than the school house, while in the towns very few of the parishes had school-houses; so that both from a rural and a town point of view the hon. Member had been misinformed. The hon. Member for North Camberwell said that in 8,000 parishes there were school houses, but he inferred that many of these were board school houses [Dr. MACNAMARA: No; voluntary school houses.] He hoped that the general case against the Government Bill would be more accurately stated in future, in order that the country might know the facts of the situation and the great difficulties with which the Government had to contend.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he was led to suppose from the hon. Member for Stowmarket that his case was much more the exception than he anticipated, because the country parish with which he was most familiar had one curate, also a schoolmaster's house which could not be claimed under this Bill; and the school had an endowment of £20 a year. His parish might be from that poin of view more favourably situated than the generality; but it must not be supposed that the ordinary type of parish had not a curate and a schoolmaster's house as well. He did think that the country parish with one curate was not at all an exception. [Mr. MALCOLM: I said one half.] If they could have had a Return of the number of voluntary schools throughout the country, giving the composition of the managers and how far they were under clerical control, it would have astonished many hon. Members.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that six months ago he had asked for such a Return, and the Government actually refused to give it.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that there were a large number of instances in which the managers were nominated by one man, and he was quite sure that the

  1379
  figures of such a Return would have been a revelation to Members of the House. They had been told that a breach was to be made by this Bill in one-man management, and he understood that the Prime Minister had said that a breach ought to be made in the practice of one-man nomination of the majority of the board of managers. But what he wanted to know was. How was that to be carried out? So far as they could see, this Clause increased the power of one-man nomination, because the amount of subscriptions was to be diminished. They were going to give a large additional sum out of the public funds for the purposes for which the subscriptions were required before, and by diminishing the subscriptions they were placing into the hands of one man, in a great number of cases, the power of nomination of the whole board of managers. He knew of managers instance where the board of managers was entirely at the disposal of the vicar, who said that he was anxious to give that board of managers a broader foundation. That was to be done by giving a nomination of one manager to the Parish Council; but when the Parish Council inquired into the matter they found that whoever they elected as manager must remain at the disposal of the vicar. How was that going to be altered under the present Bill? The Prime Minister said that there would not be a clerical preponderance on the board of management, but the majority would be clerical nominees. He did not see that the Prime Minister made out his case. Supposing the man who hitherto nominated the whole board continued to nominate four-sixths of the Board, how would there he anything in that inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill? That could only be cured by widening the constituency from which the managers were to be selected. The Committee might or might not accept the particular constituency, proposed by his hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs; personally, he should support it. But what lie contended for now was some sort of constituency, and unless the Government could see their way to introduce something in the nature of a constituency, then they on that side of the House should propose a constituency for themselves. The ease for widening
  1380
  the trust deeds, and for not being bound by the provisions of the trust deeds was an immensely strong one. The foundation managers would not be solely appointed for the purposes of the trust; they would be the executive of the local education authority. The trust deeds were drawn up before the State had taken on itself the duties of education. The situation now would be entirely altered. The trustees to be nominated under the trust deeds were to be invested with powers of a far wider character; and the only fair way of compromising, in the public interest, was, while securing the denominational education demanded where the trust deed required it, and foundation managers of a particular denomination, to introduce an element of a constituency which would give some guarantee that these managers, in carrying out the provisions of their trust, would be people who would be worthy to be the executive of the local education authority, and who would feel that they had responsibilities, not merely under the provisions of the trust deeds, but to the wishes of the parents themselves in a particular parish.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid he rose, not so much for the purpose of answering the criticisms from the other side of the House, as to point out one or two things relevant to the discussion. The idea on the other side of the House appeared to him to be that it was just and fair to take full advantage of the existence of school buildings built for a particular purpose and use them to the utmost for educational purposes, and yet not have any regard for the intentions of those who had built and supported those buildings as expressed in the trust deeds. That appeared to him to be a most unfair principle. If the State wanted the buildings, they ought to pay for them. But that was not the principle of the present Bill, and it was rather late to enter on that now. The present Bill contemplated using the buildings without paying for them; therefore, they roust be used subject to the provisions of the trust. That was an argument he was entitled to use; it was not an argument which his right hon. friend could use; because he had already disregarded, or attempted to disregard, the trust deeds on a very

  1381
  important point. The Government would least of all be able to claim that they had been faithful to the principle of the trust deeds. They had disregarded and violated them; and, in the process, they had disregarded, violated and outraged the religious convictions of a great portion of their supporters. That was so. But if they had a grievance against the Government in respect of that and other matters, they were not blind to the fact, which was very clearly emphasised in the debate that evening, that there might be another Government still worse. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Berwick Division was likely to be the most moderate Member of any Government that could possibly take the place of the present Government. Yet, the right hon. Gentleman thought it would be quite legitimate to upset the trust deeds, and have a constituency giving some form of popular control, which had been already rejected in Clause 7. Before, however, the system set up in this Clause could come into operation and a new set of managers were appointed some months must elapse. If any change of Government were to take place, if—he was sorry to put so lugubrious a hypothesis—a distinguished Member of the present Government were to die in the interval, the whole situation might be changed, and the whole of the denominational schools throughout the country would be at the mercy of those who succeeded. He really thought that that was a position open to criticism by those interested in denominational schools. It was to be observed that there was to be some obscure, yet undefined, power given to the managers over religious instruction in the schools. Therefore, the matter was more important than it was before that ill-fated Friday when the Government turned their backs on their own principles, and admitted the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment. That being so, there was ground for the very keenest anxiety. If anything happened to the Government between now and the time those orders came into force, every denominational school in the country might lose its character. Therefore, he earnestly pressed on the Government to consider whether it was fair to
  1382
  those who had built the denominational schools and had supported them, to leave the whole character of those schools at the disposal of any Board of Education which might come into existence between now and next July. That was a very haphazard way of legislating. He did not want to press the Government now; and owing to the situation in which they were placed through the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was very reluctant to move Amendments at that stage; but he hoped the Government would consider whether it would not be possible to introduce some provision which would allay the very reasonable apprehension which was entertained. If a hostile Board of Education came into power every denominational school in the country would be altogether changed.
  MR, A. J. BALFOURsaid he sympathised with his noble friend, who had evidently spoken under the stress of contending emotions. His noble friend was in some doubt, he gathered, whether the Government were more to be reproached for their imaginary change of front, of which he complained, or their reckless dealing with trust deeds; or whether, on the other hand, their preservation was more to be prayed for in order that an even worse Government might not come into existence within the next few months. If his noble friend could suggest any reasonable alteration consistent with their view of their own Bill, which was different from his noble friend's view of the Bill, which would carry out the object which his noble friend and himself had in common, the Government would gladly consider it; but, apart from that, and until he saw that Amendment, he would only say he would do all he could to preserve his own health and that of his colleagues.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had given expression to a purpose with which the Committee would heartily concur; and he might, perhaps, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that the time was approaching when the debates would no longer expose hint to the strain which had excited the apprehension of the noble Lord. He must leave

  1383
  the noble Lord and the Government to settle between themselves the grievance of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment. He really did not know that that deadly arrow had struck so deep; and he supposed they should hear more about it at a later stage. He should, however, like to assure the noble Lord as to what would happen if another Government came into power. Looking at the Clause, he could not imagine that there could be any considerable discretion given to the Board of Education. It was perfectly clear that, under the Clause, the trust deeds would go on as they were going on now; and that it would have practically no application except in cases where there was no trust deed. If there was a trust deed which could be made compatible with the Bill, it would continue to exist. It was also plain that there would be no power on the part of the Board of Education to alter a deed, unless it contained provisions inconsistent with the Act; and that would, he believed, be only in a small minority of instances. The result would be that practically the powers exercised under the trust deeds hitherto would continue to exist. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that in the majority of cases there was now one-man management; but that one-man management would continue because the clergyman would have the power of appointing. What difference would there be whether he appointed his wife or his daughter or his churchwarden?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked in how many cases would the clergyman have that power.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he gathered the clergyman would have that power in a great many cases. The one-man management would continue on account of the facts of rural life. There were three kinds of rural parishes. There was the parish in which there was conflict, which he was afraid would be more acute under the Bill; there was the parish in which the clergyman enjoyed the complete confidence of the laity of his own church, and in which things would go on as at present; and there was the parish—and it was in a great majority—where there was neither conflict nor harmony, but apathy. Thirty
  1384
  years ago the clergyman, speaking generally, was the only man who cared about the education of the parish, and he had a great incentive to making his management effective. He had a strong spiritual motive. The Kenyon-Slaney Amendment showed how exceedingly keen and warm and strenuous were the feelings of the district in a large section of parishes with regard to the spiritual prerogative of the clergyman, and where-ever the clergyman was able he would use that spiritual prerogative to his utmost in the endeavour to get three other managers on the Board who would conform to his views. One could not complain of that, because he would be acting according to his conscientious convictions. But it was for that reason, because there were so few people in the rural parishes who cared for education or who took the trouble to watch over the clergyman, that he believed the one-man management would continue. The charge on subscriptions was a perfectly insignificant charge. He had endeavoured to get an estimate of the charge on subscriptions. In a district covering 100 children it would be very small indeed; it would be a charge quite easy for four or five people to meet, without any strain, out of their own pockets. Added to that there was the fact that in 8400 of these schools they had the rents of the school houses, and in at least 1500 there were endowments and school fees. So that in one half of the voluntary schools there were other funds from which the cost of repairs could be defrayed without touching the subscriptions. He believed the thing would remain, so far as the Bill was concerned, even more in the hands of a small number of persons than heretofore, because hitherto it had been necessary to call for subscriptions from a wider area than now. One other observation suggested itself to him. For twenty-five years they had had in the House a demand, which had latterly become less articulate and less effective, for some recognition of the power of the laity in the Church of England. If one who belonged to another country and was able to look dispassionately at these matters might express his feeling, he would say that

  1385
  it was a pity that in this Bill some better recognition was not given to the rights of the laity. The view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was that the Bill was promoted to secure that denominational teaching which the Church, as a whole, desired. He was sure he did not ignore the laity, but the Bill did. If it did not, it would have provided for a universal rule under which in every parish, whatever the terms of the trust deed, there should have been an election by members of the Church of England in the parish of these denominational managers. If that had been adopted it would have rendered the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment entirely unnecessary. If the right hon. Gentleman would even now admit an Amendment to that effect he would do a better stroke for the Bill than any he had yet done. He was convinced that would be the best way of solving the difficulty, and therefore, in the interest of peace in the Church of England and in the interest of the rights of the laity he very much regretted that some such course had not been taken.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somerset-shire, E.)said that the words of the Clause as to the provisions of the trust deed being in any respect inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill obviously pointed to those, the great majority of cases, in which the deed provided for a larger number of managers than was allowed under the Bill. In the great majority of these trust deeds four managers were provided for. The principal task of the Board of Education would be to cut down the number of managers, and he thought they might look to that Department to see that the claims of the clergy and the laity were properly balanced. One very important aspect of the question had not been discussed, and that was the very large number of cases in which there were no trust deeds. How were the Board of Education going to meet such cases? He would be glad to have a little more light thrown upon that. This brought them to a set of cases in which there was no trust deed and the school was private property, which might be diverted to any other purpose by the owner at any time. It was very curious that there was no
  1386
  allusion to the owner of a school throughout. He thought that some words would have to be inserted directing the Board of Education to have regard to ownership in these schools.
  MR. A. BALFOURappealed to the House to bring the discussion on this Amendment to a conclusion.
  DR. MACNAMARAregretted he could not accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman. His case against the Clause was that where there was no proper constituency the Clause did not create one, and that where there was a constituency it would destroy it. The Prime Minister had said that the broad fact remained in the Bill that the duty and necessity of still providing proper funds for the repair of denominational schools would rest on the denominational managers. That was true of the original form of the Bill. But from March 24th right down to the present moment it was notorious that the Church, through its leaders, had been attempting to whittle away the financial obligations which had been put upon it by the Bill. As the Bill now stood, the Government had destroyed the constituency by taking away any obligation to maintain voluntary contributions. As the Bill originally stood, there was a considerable obligation on the managers to maintain the fabric out of voluntary contributions, but the obligation had now been practically removed. ["No, no."] First of all, under the Clause adopted on the preceding day the managers were to have a considerable pull on the income from endowments. That income amounted to £151,000. He could not say how much the managers would get of that sum, but whatever the amount, it would go towards the upkeep of the fabric. Then there was the rent from voluntary school teachers' houses, of which there were 8,494. Most of those houses were in the country, and worth, perhaps, only £4 or £5 a year, but those in the towns were worth £25 or £30. Even at the moderate figure of £5 each, the rents would amount to more than £42,000. Then the next Clause to be considered proposed to give the managers a right to a share of the school fees, which in the past had gone to the relief of local rates, and had amounted to £232,000. In addition to that, the Board of Education had agreed

  1387
  that in future there should be fees in night schools. Therefore, from endowments, rents and school fees, there was roughly £500,000 of money, which, together with the £800,000 in voluntary subscriptions, made £1,250,000 upon which the managers would have some claim under the Bill. He had gone carefully into the question of the cost of maintaining the fabric, and considered that an average of 2s. per head would amply meet the charge.
  MR. JAMES HOPEpointed out that, according to the last Report of the London School Board, the charge was 5s. 3d. per head.
  DR. MACNAMARAthought the hon. Member must surely be aware that all charges in connection with building operations and so forth were much higher in London than in the country. He could point to hundreds of cases in rural districts where the expenditure per child was not more than a penny or two pence, and the Committee might rest assured that 2s. was a generous estimate. On 3,000,000 children, that worked out at £300,000 for the upkeep of the fabric—a charge which could be easily met out of the share of the £1,250,000 given to the managers in the manner he had described, with a considerable sum left over to form a building fund for future use in connection with Clauses 9, 10 and 11. According to the model Clause now in existence, in all respects other than the superintendence of the religions and moral instruction of the scholars, the control and management of these schools was to be vested in and exercised by a Committee, consisting of the principal officiating minister of the district, his licensed curate or curates, and a certain number of other persons who continued to be contributors to the amount of 20s. a year. With this obligation to maintain the fabric practically removed, how many of such contributors would there be? The constituency was practically destroyed, and they would have to fall back on the clerical element. The Prime
  Minister was doubtless sincere in saying he did not want the clerical element to dominate the schools, but as the result of this Clause, the schools would be so dominated, because the only constituency by which a lay element could be secured was destroyed. He hoped that before the Clause was passed, it would be so modified as to secure a fair amount of lay representation on the trust management of these denominational schools.
  MR. MOSSsaid it was generally recognised that the more popular the management the better was the education, but under this Clause all idea of popularising the management of denominational schools was given up. As the hon. Member for North Camberwell had conclusively shown, voluntary subscriptions would practically be unnecessary in the future. That being so, under the provisions of the trust deeds, they would go back to the bad system of one man management—either directly by one man, or by one man and his nominees. The great bulk of the trust deeds would still be consistent with the principles of this Bill, and the managers would be appointed under the provisions of those trust deeds, which meant they would be appointed by the clergyman. In the event of there being no trust deeds, how did the Board of Education propose to proceed? On what principle would the Board provide either trust deeds or for the election of managers? As the existing constituency was to be destroyed, would the Board map out a constituency in the various areas by which managers should be elected, or would they themselves appoint managers? The Clause was extremely vague, and the Committee ought to have some information on this point.
  (4.13.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 554.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arrol, Sir William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Allhusen AugnstusH'nry Eden

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Balfour, Rt Hn GerablW (Leeds

  Hamilton, RtHn LordG(Midd'x

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bathurst, Hon Allen Benjamin

  Hanbury, Rt.Hon. Robert Wm.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hardy, Laurenee(Kent,Ashf'rd

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bignold, Arthur

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bond, Edward

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Purvis, Robert

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Helder, Augustus

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Randles, John

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset,E.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Bull, William James

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn.J.A (Glasgow

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Ridley, Hon M.W.(Stalybridge

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Ridley,S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cavzer, Sir Charles William

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kemp, George

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Chamberlain, Rt HnJ.A. (Worc

  Kimber, Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chapman, Edward

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Knowles, Lees

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehonse)

  Corbett,A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

  Seely, Maj. J.E.B. (IsleofWight

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lawson, John Grant

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareh'm

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Smith, HC(North'mb Tyneside

  Denny, Colonel

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Spear, John Ward

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lockie, John

  Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

  Stock, James Henry

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxtet h

  Elliot, Hon A. Ralph Douglas

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Faber, Edmund (Hants, W.)

  Macartney, Rt Hn W.G. Ellison

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Arthrtr, Charles (Liverpool)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ(Manc'r

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

  Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Finch, George H.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Walrond ,Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Malcolm Ian

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maxwell, Rt HnSir H.E(Wigt'n

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Flower, Ernest

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. (Yorks.)

  Garfit, William

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gore, HnG.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Younger, William

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Greene, SirEW (B'ryS Edm'nds

  Pease, Herbert Pike(D'rlington

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Groves, James Grimble

  Percy, Earl

  Hood, and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Allen, Charles P(Glonc.,Stroud

  Burns John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Burt, Thomas

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Bell, Richard

  Cameron, Robert

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  1390

  1391

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shackleton, David James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon, Sir Charles

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shipman. Dr. John G.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Leng, Sir John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Edwards, Frank

  Lloyd-George, David

  Spencer, Rt Hn.C.R.(Northants

  Ellis, John Edward

  Logan, John William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lough, Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Evans, Sir FrancisH(Maidstone

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen,E.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Moss, Samuel

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

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

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Toulmin, George

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Harwood, George

  Palmer, Sir CharlesM.(Durham

  Wason, Eugene

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Partington, Oswald

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Price, Robert John

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rigg, Richard

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk,Mid.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

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

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Roberts, John H (Denbigh)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Jones, David Brymnor (Swans'a

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  kitson, Sir James

  Runciman, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Lambert, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Mr.Herbert Glad stone and

  Langley, Batty

  Schwalm, Charles E.

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid they had been discussing the question of the constituency that should elect new foundation managers. He wished to make it clear why he was selecting a constituency which was a denominational one. He took it that the decision of the House had been that these managers must be denominational managers. The question was what was a proper denominational constituency for the election of the four managers of a denominational trust? He selected two different bodies. First of all, the parents. The whole case in favour of dogmatic religious teaching had been that it was the demand of the parents. They argued that the parents wanted to bring up their children in their own faith. He knew the state of things that existed in Wales, and he understood that in England about four-fifths of the parents were not concerned much about any faith at all. In Liverpool about 90 per cent. of the population were outside any place of worship on Sundays at the morning or afternoon service. The accommodation in London would only provide for one-fifth of the whole population, so that if they crowded all the churches in London they would have four-fifths of the population outside. It was an extraordinary thing that these places he had mentioned
  1392
  were the keenest about providing dogmatic teaching for the people of Wales, although they did not attend their own places of worship. The people who did not care enough about dogmas to subscribe a penny towards religion in London, nevertheless returned Members to Parliament who demanded that the ratepayers of Wales should give definite religious teaching to their children just to save them from paganism. Was there any other basis on which the Prime Minister, or any other defender of the sectarian faith, could justify this proposal except that the parents wanted their children brought up in a certain faith? The parent was the best jadge, and no one had a right to judge for him. The parent was the guardian of the spiritual interest of his child. If the parent did not want his child brought up in any particular faith why should it he forced upon him by outsiders? Why not leave the parent himself to select? The subscribers had been gradually wiped out by several Acts of Parliament of which the present Bill before the Committee was the climax. The subscriber had been gradually abolished. He suggested that the parents should select two of the managers for the purpose of administering the trusts in which they had a much larger interest than anyone else. It was a great

  1393
  mistake—and the noble Lord opposite was constantly making it—to assume that the only interest they had got in a school was the interest they had in the subscriptions. The most precious interest was that which the parent had got in the faith of his child. If they were going to give the subscriber of 10s. the right to manage the school and to declare what sort of instruction was to be given in it, the man who sent his child to the school had a right to a voice in declaring what sort of instruction should be given, and especially what sort of religious instruction he wished his child to have. Now he came to the second branch of his Amendment. They should not leave it to the minister practically to elect his own colleagues. This was carrying cooperation rather too far. The Prime Minister would not trust the County Council to this extent. The right hon. Gentleman would not trust one member of the County Council to elect the whole of his colleagues, but that was practically what he was doing with regard to the Board of Management. With all the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman, his reply on that matter was very inadequate and slightly irrelevant. He respectfully challenged the Prime Minister to point to anything in the trust deed that would diminish the one-man power of the clergyman. The clergyman selected the curate, and he could select the subscribers. Really, this was very important, because the whole thing turned on it. The clergyman was cognisant of the needs of the school, and if he wanted £10 he would pick out the people who would subscribe the amount. If anyone went to him and obtruded a, subscription on him—a very unusual thing in any kind of business—he might refuse it. He might say that he had already got his £10 and that he did not want more. The hon. Member asked the Prime Minister to say whether the clergyman could refuse a subscription. In any case, he need not collect subscriptions every year; and the trust deed said that the elected managers were to be elected by "the subscribers of the current year." On the question of the denominational character of the management the Committee had decided; but, accepting that decision, he urged that the laity as well as the clergy should be
  1394
  represented. Otherwise, it was a perfect imposture to put this proposal forward as anything but clerical control.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 1, at the beginning, to insert the words "Two of.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member, in moving his Amendment, told us both at the beginning and the end of his speech that he frankly accepted, for the purpose of argument, the decision at which the Committee arrived earlier in the debate that four of the managers should be foundation managers, but either I misunderstood his speech or misunderstood his Amendment, for I thought the first part of the hon. Member's speech advocated not denominational management, but management including two representatives of the parents irrespective of their denomination.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I accepted for the purpose of argument the statement of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, that the parents were eager for denominational teaching.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman will admit, I think, that it is part of the complaint he makes against the whole of the Bill that in many Church schools in the country there are children whose parents do not belong to the denomination.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEindicated dissent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is the actual fact. It has never been denied by any of the advocates of the Bill, and it has been undoubtedly proved by the opponents. It is a notorious fact. These grievances exist sometimes on one side and sometimes on another. The hon. Gentleman will admit that if his Amendment were carried it would not secure that denominational representation of four foundation managers which he professes to be ready to take for the purpose of argument. I do not deal further with

  1395
  that branch of the Amendment because I think it is dealt with in the ten our of the hon. Member's own speech. The remaining part is directed at preventing what the hon. Member regards as absolute clerical domination over the four foundation managers. I am quite unable to understand from the hon. Member's explanation what there is in the normal trust deed of the National Society to give the clergyman this power of nominating all his colleagues for the foundation management. The hon. Gentleman said that the clergyman would hardly ever require subscriptions, and if he did they would be very small in amount. He said that all the clergyman would have to do would be to go to some subservient person in his parish—
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Sympathetic, rather.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Some sympathetic person in the parish and say to him "Give me 10s. or £1," or whatever is the qualifying sum, and in that way get a constituency who would only return persons in absolute sympathy with himself. I do riot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The task which will devolve upon the managers of the National Society's schools is that of devising a scheme which will as far as possible carry out the intentions of the trust deed. Now the intentions of the deed of that society are plain on the face of it. They are not intended to give clerical control or a clerical majority on the managing body. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that the clergyman of the parish is ex officio a member. It is also true that he may appoint his curate or curates as managers. There might be on the board of management one, two, or possibly three clergymen, but the number of managers of whom this clerical element would form a part was a large and indefinite number. There is no question under present circumstances of dominating any large body of subscribers, and therefore what the National Society managers will have to do is to try to frame a scheme in which the four denominational representatives shall be a reflection of the kind of body contemplated by the original trust deed, and as that original
  1396
  trust deed does not contemplate a clerically dominated body, so I hope the reflection or copy of that trust deed, which will be embodied in the future trustees or governing body of the schools, will not be any more than its prototype clerically controlled or with a clerical majority. Therefore I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is justified in his contention. I do not think I need go any further in the matter. I do not think the hon. Gentleman in his speech, whatever may be said of the Amendment, described the actual kind of constituency he would wish to have for the election of denominational managers, I content myself with the hon. Gentleman's speech, and with showing, I hope with some force, that just as the existing trust deeds of the National Society are not intended to give this clerical domination of which he is afraid, so the trust deeds which are to replace them will be framed on the same model and will be intended to carry out the same result.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that what they desired was that the Government should make some suggestion as to the manner in which the managers would be selected. The right hon. Gentleman did not really seem to appreciate the point of the Amendment. In a large number of cases at the present moment there was a good deal of elasticity in the working of the trust, and managers were brought in who did not fulfil the conditions of the trusts. If this Clause passed as it stood the managers would be the persons signified by the trust deed. He did not wish to go over again the arguments which had been so admirably stated, but it was quite obvious that this possibility of choice would be very much limited indeed, for it would not be necessary for a particular school to have so many subscribers as in the past. The hon. Member for Stow-market said that there was no conspiracy on the part of the clergy on this matter. He did not wish to impute any blame as to why there had been one-man management hitherto; but what the hon. Member opposite wanted to retain was that one-man system, while what they on that side of the House

  1397
  desired was to bring the lay element into the management. There were many cases where it had been very difficult to bring on to the board of managers a man of independent mind. The possibility of choice by the clergyman would be so limited that practically all the foundation members would be under his control. It seemed to him that the Clause, as it stood, was contrary to the spirit of the Bill, and even to what the Government desired; and he hoped that even now the Government would enlarge the letter of the Bill by which the trustees would not be absolutely limited in their choice. There was no doubt that of the four denominational managers there might be two clericals and in some, cases three. The Chairman was to have a casting vote, so that all that was necessary was that the Chairman should secure the appointment of two supporters, and that would give him a permanent majority. Another important point was that it was desirable to have the lay element on the board of management, and the only way in which that could be secured in small country districts would be by enlarging the terms of the trust.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid they were all agreed on one point, and that was that the model trust deed would remain in force after this Bill became an Act of Parliament. The question, therefore, was how this trust deed would operate in rural parishes. Any one who read the trust deed knew that the qualification of a manager was very difficult to attain. First, a candidate for managership must subscribe 20s., and the franchise for the election of a manager was a subscription of 10s. for every manager the subscriber wished to vote for. That franchise was very much out of date and ought not any longer to remain in the country. He understood that where the trust deed could not be carried out in its entirety it was, according to the Chancery doctrine of cy pres, to be carried out as near as possible. So far as he understood, this Bill was intended by the First Lord to remove what he called an intolerable strain—which was the subscriptions—from the shoulders of the subscribers who had to bear it. If that were so, what became of those subscriptions and subscribers? They
  1398
  knew now that the voluntary schools had a fund at their disposal sufficient to meet their requirements, and even to leave a profit. When that took place the necessary successors of the subscribers were the ratepayers, and the power of the subscribers ought really to fall into the hands of the ratepayers. The First Lord said that they ought to disregard the trust deeds, but he thought they ought to enforce them, for there was a certain popular element in them. The First Lord admitted that under the trust deeds one-man management was possible; but what was wanted to be enforced was that there should be some general popular denominational element amongst the four members elected by the denomination. They wanted to make these four members not representative of any one man in the parish, but of the denomination itself; and he thought it ought not to be beyond the wit of man to devise some scheme whereby that would be secured. There were representatives of the Protestant Laymen's League in the House, and surely these Gentlemen were anxious that the Protestant laymen should be represented on the board of managers. He asked the hon. Member for East Toxteth, where the Laymen's League was particularly strong, was he really content with the Government scheme on this point? Did he not think that there should be some popular element in the choice of these four denominational managers? It was quite true that in a great many parishes the majority of the parents were Nonconformists, although their children attended the Church schools. But it was open to the hon. Gentleman to move an Amendment to the Amendment, that the parents who elected the denominational managers should belong to the denomination. They had heard of the inalienable rights of the parents, and here was a case where some justice could be done to them.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid there seemed to be a misunderstanding between the two sides of the Committee as to what the intention of the Clause was, and he should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education which was the right

  1399
  interpretation. He really thought the hon. Member for Carnarvon had based his Amendment on the assumption that what would happen in a certain number of cases, after this Clause was passed, would be, that under the typical National Society's trust deeds, where subscriptions would be no longer required, the incumbent would remain the one person nominated by the trust deed on the Committee of managers, but three other managers were to be appointed, and in a case where the subscriptions which had been given were withdrawn, and there were no subscribers left, the incumbent would have it in his power to select those three by simply going to three different people in the parish and saying, "If you will each give 20s. you will become the other three managers." In that way those three would be his nominees, and if he should be displeased with any one of them, all he would have to do would be to say that he did not want his £1, and to apply for the amount from somebody else. Their reading of this Clause was that after the Bill was passed, the appointment of managers under the trust deeds would go on automatically as before, except in a case where the Board of Education was appealed to on the ground that the trust deed was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The reply of the First Lord of the Treasury was that in every such case the Board of Education would draw up or approve a scheme. But where was that to be found in the Bill? The Board would have to approve a scheme for the appointment of a committee, but not every scheme for management. His contention was, that except in exceptional cases, where there were no trust deeds, or where the management under a trust deed was inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill, the Board would not come into the matter.
  MR. EMMOTTthought it was no doubt the case that under this Bill a great number of Orders would have to be made, as had been suggested by the right hon. Member for East Somerset, and, under those circumstances, asked whether it would not be worth while to endeavour to arrive at some uniform system. He admitted that the effect of the Bill would
  1400
  be to somewhat diminish the danger of clerical domination. But the question now was, the old constituency being destroyed, how should a new constituency be created? Much was heard of the rights of the laity and their lack of interest in Church matters, and so long as the clergyman remained the autocrat in the parish it was difficult for a Church layman to take such interest. The clergyman was very apt to talk of "my" parish, "my" church, and "my" school, though, on the financial side, it was "your" debt. But debt after the Bill passed would become non-existent and subscribers unnecessary, and he agreed with his hon. friend that two managers should be elected from the parents of children attending the school. But among the strong supporters of this Bill there were some who cared a good deal more for the unalienable right of the parson to dominate everything in the parish than anything else. The probability of the representatives of parents being Nonconformists, and their appointment being inimical to the denominational character of the school, would only arise where there was but the one school amid a population largely Nonconformists, and in such a case he should be prepared to say, let the denominational character of the school cease. It was only fair that the parents of the children attending the school should have a voice in the management.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON,in reply to the right hon. Baronet, said that where the foundation managers were neither more nor less than the number mentioned in the Bill, there would he no further trouble, and no necessity for application to the Board of Education; but if the managers were too many or too few, or if there was no trust deed, upon application made, the Board would follow the trust deed as closely as possible, or the past system so far as it was in conformity with the Bill, so as to obtain four foundation managers.
  MR. TREVELYANgave an instance of a school in the South of England where the voluntary subscriptions amounted to £60, all subscribed by two or three people, and where the managers were elected by virtue of their being subscribers. As a result of the introduction of the Bill,

  1401
  all the subscribers had fallen off except one, and the clergyman was in a position to select his own managers. What would happen in the future would be not the one-man management of which they had heard so much, but more black-cassock management. The "grouping" Clause would further increase the tendency to clerical control, because where six or seven parishes were grouped together for the purposes of appointing one Committee of management, it was not unreasonable to suppose that the clergyman of each particular parish would insist upon being put on the Committee. What were the Government afraid of? Unless there was very good reason for not doing so, parents and communicants would naturally desire that the clergyman should be appointed to the management. After the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment the other side need not be in the least afraid of outside unclerical members coming on the board of management.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid he did not think hon. Gentlemen opposite who had suggested a great number of cases in which difficulties would arise had sufficiently considered how overwhelming were the difficulties in the way of their proposal or any possible proposal on the same lines. As to their suggestion that the other managers, apart from the incumbent, should be representatives of the denomination, if they had been following closely the controversy about Church reform for the last four years, they would know that nothing was so difficult as to say who was and who was not entitled to be regarded as a member of the Church of England. A great many people were anxious to increase the power of the laity in the Church, but in order to determine who were the persons who ought to have extended powers in the management of the Church itself, they must first determine who the laity were, and to attempt to do that by a Clause in this Bill would lead to widespread opposition. Then it was said, why not fall back on the parent? It was perfectly true that the rights of a parent over his child were the greatest rights that could be conceived. But a parent, because he was a parent, had no rights over other people's children. His position was very different from that of a citizen. A citizen was part of a larger whole, and in respect of the whole had certain rights, and therefore there was no
  1402
  impropriety in a majority of citizens determining what was good for a minority of citizens. Therefore they could not have the system of the representation of the laity until they determined who the laity were, and they could not have representation of the parents, because the parents' rights were purely individual over his own children, and consequently they must fall back upon the trust deed, on respect for which the Clause was founded.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he always listened with considerable interest to the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich because he always tried to bring back the Committee to questions of principle, and more particularly on this occasion because the noble Lord had said two things well worth the saying. He had pointed out how excessively difficult it was to find what the definition of a member of the Church of England was, but the difficulty of finding a definition of what constituted a member of the Church of England, did not alter the general proposition that there ought to be lay control. If the Government admitted that, it was for them to suggest a method which would give some satisfaction to the claims of the laity. He did not gather from the noble Lord whether the laity should be represented or not.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid, as the Bill stood at present, that would depend largely on the trust deed.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the trust deed was simply a document which determined the destination of certain property, and he denied that the right of looking after bricks and mortar was to prevail over the lives, wishes, and liberties of individual living men. He was sick and tired of hearing this right of property continually brought forward as if it was to supersede and over-ride the rights of living beings. He would far rather buy out or rent the school. The right hon. Gentleman said that was not the scheme of the Bill, but if the Government would come forward with a proposition of that sort, they would find there would be no difficulty about the money. The bricks and mortar would not stand in the way of what was called for in the interests of justice. The argument of the noble Lord as to the rights

  1403
  of parents being individual was very subtle, but because parents might conceivably have different wishes with regard to their children, were all the rights of the parent to be altogether extinguished and denied because he was an individual man, without the right of saying what should be done with regard to every other individual man's child? The idea was absurd. Parents were a kind of solidarity, and, speaking broadly, the wishes of the parents belonging to the Church of England were substantially the same. They would only obtain substantial justice if they adopted the representative system. Therefore, the dilemma put by the noble Lord did not touch the needs of the case. It was no answer to the proposal, and the only answer that could be made by the Government was a better proposal which would more adequately meet the wishes of the parents. Until that was given they would continue to ask for a scheme, and, in default of receiving one, they put forward this scheme, which was better than nothing. With regard to what had been said by the Secretary to the Board of Education as to the cases where there might be too many managers or too few, in the former case, he supposed, the simple course would be to cut oil one. In that case the existing system would remain, and the clergyman would retain such right of nomination as he at present possessed. If there were too few managers, he assumed that one or two would be added in the same manner as persons were now elected, viz., by the subscribers. In neither of those cases would there be any change from the present system; and all that had been said on that side of the House about the position of subscribers, about the clergyman being able to have many or few subscribers as he pleased, and about the subscribers being few and probably immediately connected with the clergyman, still held good, as the management would be substantially the same as in the past. He assumed, and he thought they had a right to assume after the events of the last fortnight, that every possible advantage would be taken by the clergy of the power given into their hands by the letter of the law, and therefore it might fairly be taken from the answer of the
  1404
  Secretary to the Board of Education that the system would remain substantially unchanged.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said that one satisfactory feature of the debate was that it had definitely put an end to the assertion made earlier in the proceedings that the one-man system of management was not interfered with by the Bill.
  MR. BRYCEdissented.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYdid not understand the right hon. Gentleman to repeat the assertion.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he repeated it in another form.
  Sin ROBERT FINLAYthought it was hardly possible for the assertion to be repeated after this debate. First, there was the control of the local education authority over all the secular part of the education; secondly, on the board of managers, who had the control of the religious education, there were two managers nominated by the local authority; and, thirdly, the clergyman would be one of four foundation managers—there being three others who would certainly put an end to the idea that, even as regarded the foundation managers, it was simply a case of one-man management. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen had entered into the question of whether the alternative scheme of buying out the Church schools would not have been better than the scheme in the Bill. But to a sale there must be two parties. It was not enough for a person to be willing to buy; the owner must be ready to sell. If the owners of the Church schools valued the distinctive teaching for which the schools were established so highly that they declined to sell, what was to be done? Were they to be forcibly expropriated? Was Parliament to take these schools, which were provided for one purpose, and apply them to another, thereby violating convictions strongly entertained by those interested in the schools? He ventured to say that the suggestion of the right

  1405
  hon. Gentleman that that was a feasible solution of the difficulty was one which would be rejected by the bulk of Members on his own side who would object to the expense, and by those on the Government side who were interested in the maintenance of the distinctive principles for the teaching of which these schools existed.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he did not give it as his suggestion. What he said was that the Government ought to have made the offer. The First Lord of the Treasury had spoken as if the difficulty in the way was these schools, but, as he had not made such an offer, he was not entitled to say that that was the difficulty.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYthought the considerations to which he had adverted were a sufficient explanation of why such an offer was not made. It was totally impracticable, and would have been rejected by the commonsense of both sides of the House. With regard to the alleged difficulty of framing schemes for the election of foundation managers in the future, he would point out that the provision that the clergyman was to be ex officio a member and was to appoint his curates, was only a portion of a trust deed which contemplated a considerable number of other managers. The National Society's trust deeds provided that there should be original managers—subscribers—and that future vacancies were to be filled up by election by the body of subscribers. So that, as compared with the body provided for in the Bill, a committee of considerable dimensions was there contemplated. The presence of the clergyman, even with two or three curates, on a large body of that kind, was not at all of the same significance as it would be on a body in which there were only four foundation managers. The effect of any order made by the Board of Education under this Clause would be as far as possible to reflect the true intent and purport of the trust deed, although, of course, it would have to be modified to meet the changed circumstances. It would not fairly represent the effect of the trust deed if, where there were only four managers, it gave three places to the clergyman and his two curates.
  1406
  Obviously, if anything like the proportion contemplated in the Bill was to be preserved, provision would have to be made by which the representation of lay subscribers provided for in the trust deed was perpetuated.
  MR. BRYCEput the case of a trust deed which contemplated five managers, of whom the clergyman was given power to nominate one, and asked whether, in the view of the Attorney General, when those five managers were reduced to four, the clergyman's power of nomination should be taken away.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYdid not think it desirable to enter into details of how any particular case should be dealt with. It was sufficient, at the present stage, to say that the function of the Board of Education would be to make an order that would fairly carry out the true intent of the trust deed, having regard to the altered circumstances. Then the right hon. Gentleman appeared to contemplate that, in future, in a great many cases, there would be no subscribers.
  MR. BRYCE: That there would be very few.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYapprehended that in future there would be a considerable demand for the purpose of meeting the cost of repairs. There might be individual parishes so happily situated in regard to endowments applicable to repairs that subscriptions would be wanted either not at all, or to a very small extent, but throughout the county generally he thought there would be a large demand to meet the cost of the repairs thrown on the managers by this Bill. It was not for him to forecast the future, but one of the possibilities certainly was that the churches interested in these schools would find it convenient to establish something in the nature of a central fund, either for the whole country, or for considerable districts, to which subscriptions might be paid. It was quite within the range of reason that subscriptions might be given either for the repairs of an individual school, or to a central fund available, as required for

  1407
  the repair of any school within the sphere of the operations of the fund. He did not say whether it would be done or not. It would be for the Board of Education to determine these matters according to the circumstances of the case, but it would be perfectly practicable to say that those who were willing to enter into a legal obligation to subscribe, when required, a certain sum per annum for the purpose of repairs, should count as subscribers, as also should those persons resident in the district served by a particular school who agreed to subscribe either to the particular school or to a central fund available for the purposes of the school. He threw out these suggestions simply to show that the difficulties were not by any means to be assumed to be of the nature supposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he felt tolerably confident that the questions, as they arose, would really solve themselves, and that there would not be any great difficulty in making the necessary orders.
  MR. BRYCEasked, in reference to the hon. and learned Member's last suggestion, whether, if there was a diocesan school repair association, the members of the association would be entitled to vote for the managers of a particular school.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid his suggestion did not go to that extent. It was simply that they might be considered as subscribers for the purpose of electing members of the board of a particular school any persons resident in the district served by that school who had entered into an obligation to pay a reasonable subscription, although that subscription might go to a central fund, so long as the fund was available for the purposes of that school.
  MR. BRYCE: A diocesan fund?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYdid not care by what name the fund was called— whether central, diocesan, or anything else. He really could not see that the difficulties were so terrible as hon. Members seemed to apprehend.
  MR. YOXALLsaid the Attorney General had made two
  1408
  suggestions, one of which was very happy and the other far less happy. He had suggested that in the case of a trust deed which provided for a managing body of twelve, of whom three were ex officio, when that the number of foundation managers was reduced to four, the ex officio element should be reduced proportionately. That was a principle the adoption of which by the Board of Education would work greatly to the advantage of education. But when the hon. and learned Member went on to foreshadow the possibility of the subscribers in a given parish, not to the funds of the parish school, but to a diocesan fund for all the schools in the diocese, being regarded under the terms of an order as subscribers for the purpose of electing managers of a particular school, he opened the door to a very dangerous proceeding. He hoped the suggestion was not to be regarded as coming with any official force, or as dieing in the nature of an official forecast of the future policy of the Board of Education. He had applied to these proposals a standard which would measure not how far the Bill fell short of their ideal hut how far it went in advance of the actual state of things. It was something to provide that there should be a committee of a fixed size, one element of which would consist of representative persons. This committee would meet regularly and perform its business according to a schedule, and that would be a distinct advance upon the actual state of things at the present time. He understood that this committee was attacked on the Opposition side of the House for not being sufficiently representative and public in its character, and it was attacked on the Ministerial side from below the gangway because it provided for a possible state of things in which the rights of the trust deeds and the clergymen would be overridden. He was bound to say that in this matter of the education of the children the rights of the trust deeds or the rights of the clergymen ought not to override the rights of the parents of the children attending those schools. He protested against any fetish contained in trust deeds being allowed, to override the rights of the people of the present day. He wished to say one or two words about what hail been claimed as the rights of the clergy. He did not deny that in the rural parishes of England—he did not

  1409
  think it was true so much of the urban parishes—the clergyman had shown himself to he the person most interested in education, and he had given a very large amount of time and a disproportionate amount of his stipend and salary to that purpose. Of the voluntary contributors, the man who had given by far the most in proportion to his means, had not been the wealthy layman but the clergyman. In many cases they had done this out of a sincere regard for the welfare of education and out of a sincere conviction that the principles of the Church of England were the best for the children. But Parliament were now confronting a new issue. They were now dealing with a Bill which proposed to reorganise the local control of elementary schools, and the contention that the services of the clergy in the past entitled them to render the same services in the future, and that the trust deeds must not be affected, was hardly appropriate to the present situation. They were discussing now a new method of local control for denominational schools, and in so doing they had a right to consider as a new departure what was the proper method to adopt. The question was whether there was to be amongst the foundation managers a representative of the parents. He had had some experience of one or two cases where it was provided by the trust deed that a certain element of the managers should be appointed by the parents of the scholars. His experience had not been that the parents of the scholars had been particularly anxious to serve. He did not know that the parents of children attending public elementary schools made at all ideal representatives in the management of the schools, but he was sure that they made a better representative element than no representatives at all. He agreed that the parental element was not the best possible element from the public and representative point of view, but nevertheless it was an advance upon what was proposed by the Government, and he should therefore vote for the Amendment. He wished to renew his protest against the idea that the parent was to have no rights in the matter while the clergyman was to have rights over all the children in the parish. The noble Lord opposite claimed such rights for the clergyman, and why? Simply because he was the
  1410
  clergyman of the parish. The clergyman had certain parochial rights, but he thought it was time that they eliminated clerical rights from the schools, and placed the management upon a proper basis. The whole cost of management now came from the popular purse, and the managers ought to be drawn from the popular will, and neither the rights of the clergy nor the terms of the trust deeds should be allowed to stand in the way.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he rose to have a point cleared up. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, in a speech he made a very short time ago, said that if the trust deed provided for a smaller number, say three trustees, it would then be the duty of the Board of Education to make an Order varying the trust deed and making the number up to four. He wished to ask the Attorney General whether that was so. If that was the case he wished to know under what particular provision of the Bill that result was arrived at. In the Clause under discussion it would be seen that the power of the Board of Education to make an Order depended upon whether—
  "It is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Education that the provisions of the trust deed as to the appointment of managers are in any respect inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, or insufficient or inapplicable for the purpose, or that there is no such trust deed available, the Board of Education shall make an Order under this section for the purpose of meeting the case."
  What did the Act say about endowments? Sub-Section 2 of Clause 7 provided that—
  "All public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority shall, in place of the existing managers, have a body of managers consisting of a number of foundation managers, not exceeding four, appointed as provided by this Act."
  Therefore he should have thought that the Board of Education would have had no power to vary such trust deeds or to increase the number from three to four.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid his right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University had pointed out that the provision made in Section 7 was that the number of foundation managers

  1411
  was not to exceed four. The question of having four might arise if there were to be two managers representing the local authority. He thought his right hon. friend had omitted to notice that if the appointment of managers was insufficient or inapplicable for the purpose then the Board of Education would make an Order to meet the case. If it were necessary that there should be four managers no provision would have to be made unless it was in order to keep up the balance of representation.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he wished to point out an example which would be an extremely common case. There were a number of cases where the trustees were the vicar and churchwardens. Take for example a Welsh parish where the great majority of the people were Nonconformists. The vicar and the churchwardens would be the foundation managers of the school. Presumably the vicar and his churchwardens would be Churchmen. The County and Village Council might put on two other managers, who would presumably be Noncon formists. They would then have a Board of Managers consisting of three Churchmen and two Nonconformists. At Easter, when the people's churchwarden came to be elected, there was nothing to prevent another Nonconformist being elected, and then they would have this school managed by three Churchmen and three Nonconformists. In this case what became of the two-thirds majority which they were promised?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYcontended that the Board of Education could rectify such a case by the making of an Order.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Under what provision of the Act could they do that?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: There is provision made for the making of such an Order—
  "On the application of the existing trustees or managers of the school made within a period of three months after the passing of this Act."
  It was for the Board of Education to say whether in such a case the provision of the trust deed would not be deemed insufficient or inapplicable for the purpose.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he thought the argument of the Attorney General wan entirely unsound, and did not constitute an answer to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that they on this side of the House had at some period abandoned the argument that under the provisions of the Bill the Government would still be perpetuating one-man management. They had not abandoned that argument. He preferred another phrase, however. What they were now objecting to was the perpetuation of clerical management. The interesting speech of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich illustrated the difficulty in which they were, and in which they must continue to be if they were going to preserve these denominational schools for ever. The noble Lord said it was impossible to know who was a member of the Church of England and who was not. The hon. Member believed that theoretically he was himself a member of the Church of England. He preferred the word communicant to member. He did not know the proportion of schools which were managed under the modern trust deed.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I believe, from information which I have at hand, that a great majority of the schools are under the modern trust deed.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he did not know whether the word used was member or communicant, but that did not get rid of the difficulty. The noble Lord's view was that the education of the country ought to be in the hands of the clericals.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I said that religious education in the Church schools should be under the clergy.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the point was that the noble Lord was driven to the position that nobody should take part in the management of the Church schools but the clergy. He was in a hopeless minority in the country and he was in a hopeless minority in this House if hon. Members were able freely to express their convictions. What was wanted in order to check the practices which had grown up

  1413
  in various parts of the country was that the laity should be represented. The speech of the First Lord of the Treasury seemed rather sympathetic, but what security had they that the lay element would be allowed to come in? Surely it was reasonable to ask that the parents should have a voice in saying who were to be the managers of a school. The body of the pious founder would turn in his grave if he knew of some of the things which were now practised. In 999 cases out of 1,000 the clergyman would be one of the foundation managers, but he ought not to be the sole controlling manager. It was necessary that they should know precisely how the number of managers was to be fixed. The First Lord of the Treasury had stated earlier in the evening that the number of managers was not necessarily confined to six, and the right hon. Member for East Somerset had equally clearly said that the number was confined to six. It was important that the Committee should know whether the answer given by the Prime Minister was the right one. The hon. Member quoted sub-Head (b) of Clause 7, and, in view of the Prime Minister's statement in regard to the number of managers not being limited to six, asked what interpretation was to be put on it.
  MR. MALCOLMhoped the Government were satisfied with the new position they had taken up with regard to trust deeds. That position he held to be that they had altered trust deeds and watered them down to suit the purposes of the Bill. The right hon. Member for South Aberdeen had made a remark which passed without any protest from the Government, namely, when he expressed indignation at the idea that trust deeds might overrule the wants and wishes of living men. He should like to know how far this new theory as to the violation of the sanctity of trust deeds was going to be carried. Was it to stop at endowed schools, or would it be extended to other forms of property? If it was not going to be extended, he thought it very invidious to alter trust deeds only in the case of voluntary and endowed schools; but if it was going to be extended, it would be very dangerous, in the future, to institutions which, at least, Conservatives had been proud to defend.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid the speeches of the noble Lord and other hon. Members had proved that the defenders of trust deeds were rather to be found on the Opposition side of the House than on the other. The spirit of the old trust deeds was largely in favour of a fair representation of the laity, which was what they asked for. He did not intend to deal with any of the arguments which had been so admirably and conclusively stated in regard to the main issue, but he wished to refer to the central point of interest in regard to this Amendment. The First Lord had given his own view and justification of what the Bill was going to do, and the Attorney General had given information as to what could be done under the Bill. What he wanted to say was that the Clause they were discussing did not create any machinery for carrying out the objects pointed out by the First Lord, or the suggestions made by the Attorney General. The First Lord had said in the most unqualified way that he did not wish to see this power of constituting any board of managers solely or mainly of clerical elements continued, but this Bill provided no machinery for checking that which, in the First Lord's opinion as well as in his own, was an evil. He had taken the trouble to examine some of the facts in his own division. In one of the towns there were three churches, and the clergy had created great animosity owing to their Ritualistic practices. In one of these churches there were three curates. In another town, the principal Church had no less than five curates; and he challenged the Government to deny that the Clause, as it now stood on the Paper, would make it possible for the incumbent, if not imperative, to place these curates on boards of management. It was really idle to say that the Board of Education had any power to interfere except in relation to the members of the board of managers provided for under Section 7 of the Bill. He was willing to credit the First Lord with perfect sincerity when the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not wish these managerial bodies to he composed entirely of clerics, and when he made the remark, which was of very great interest, that be anticipated that societies like the

  1415
  National Society would draw up a scheme which would carry out some of the objects he had in view. But what he maintained was that that was not provided for in the Bill or in the Clause under discussion. It would be of interest to have an explanation of the meaning which could be attached to what the First Lord had said as to drawing up a further scheme, either with the consent or under the supervision of the Board of Education, or by a society like the National Society. What they were concerned with was the question of the laity having some right to protect themselves—ordinary humble Churchmen who had quite as good a right to be considered, and not merely Nonconformists and their grievances—from extravagances in religious teaching which a large majority of these Church parents strongly objected to. It was a fact within his own knowledge that many of the Church people in the town he had referred to had been obliged to leave these churches and go to villages two or three miles distant if they wished to attend a communion service such as they had been accustomed in former times to associate with the pure and reformed religion of the Church of England. Under this Bill, as it stood, the clergy who had thus acted would have a perfect right and opportunity to be placed in the full management and control of these schools. That was a gross evil. As to the Amendment, he had great doubt as to using the parent as an elector as a practical remedy. On the management there should be a representation of the Church spirit, and not merely of the clerical spirit. This was not a Party question, and he trusted hon. Gentlemen opposite, many of whom he knew shared the views he had been expressing, would support an effort to obtain some modification of the Bill by which the great evils possible under this Clause should not be allowed to occur.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he rose with considerable hesitation to intervene in this debate; first, because his short acquaintance with the House of Commons would, he thought, cause him to transgress some of its Rules before he sat down; and, secondly, because he came in, unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, at the fag-
  1416
  end of a lengthy and much debated Bill, and at the end of the session, when everything that could be said upon the Bill, pro or con, had already been said, and he took it that the audience there were satiated with arguments for and against that measure. But he was encouraged to speak on this occasion because the issue that had been raised during the course of the discussion had been rather wider than he anticipated from the terms of the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. He would like, before touching on some of the controversial points raised, to thank the hon. Member opposite—he did not know where he sat for and he had now left the House—who was kind enough to make a statement in regard to his election to the effect that it was a victory for the principles of some League which he was understood to represent there. He had always understood that amongst hon. Members opposite that election was understood to have been fought upon the Education Bill, and that the reduction of the majority was, in a certain sense, a check to His Majesty's Government upon that Bill. He was sure it must be a very reassuring matter to hon. Members on that side of the House to learn that the Education Bill, as indeed was the fact, had nothing whatever to do with the election, and that, if there was a triumph in that election for the principles of the League which he represented, it was also in that sense a triumph for His Majesty's Government. The Amendment which had been suggested by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs raised certainly a very grave question, as had been shown during the course of that debate, and the hon. Member who spoke last, in a certain sense, raised the particular issue, which was whether one-man control in the conduct of those schools had been sufficiently checked by this Bill. When this Bill was first introduced and when it appeared in all its nakedness before the country, he thought there was a general disposition amongst all classes of the community to consider that it stood very much in need of Amendment. It had received that Amendment during its passage through the House of Commons, and, for his

  1417
  part, he thought that those Amendments had been due as much to the spirit and temper of His Majesty's Ministers in the conduct of the measure as they had been in any sense due to the suggestions from the other side of the House. The question raised was whether what was called one-man management had been sufficiently checked by what had been already adopted in way of Amendment to the Bill. He thought they had gone a pretty long way in checking one-man management under the Bill. In the first place, as was pointed out by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, they had the control over the secular education, then they had the two members of the management committee appointed entirely by local bodies; last of all, they had something which did not appeal to the noble Lord, but did appeal to him very strongly and to many others—the Amendment which stood on record as the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment. He extremely regretted that that Amendment should have had the effect it had apparently had upon the noble Lord, who fell into an unduly pessimistic frame of mind, when he appeared to contemplate, not only the decease of His Majesty's Government, but possibly also the decease of his near relative. If that Amendment had had so serious an effect in that direction he could only hope the House would be reassured by what he could truly state to he the fact—that in his election, at any rate, the effect of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment was of the most gratifying nature. If he came with any mandate to that House—he did not know that he did, and he certainly did not receive any—he took it to be that so far as the principles laid down in the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment were concerned, he was sent there to defend and support them in what the noble Lord was pleased to call all their naked deformity, without dilution or mitigation—and both by vote and speech to carry them, so far as he could, in the support of His Majesty's Government. There were even wider issues raised upon that if question of Church reform and Church policy. The noble Lord had alluded to the difficulty of saying who was and who was not a Member of the Church of England. He thought they were all agreed that there was a difficulty, not only as regarded the membership of the Church of England, but even sometimes a slight obscurity as to what were
  1418
  the principles of the Church of England. He would hope it would be recognised that the Government, in dealing-with the great question of settling the management of those schools, had an enormously difficult task to contend with. Although the word "bargain" was occasionally repudiated on both sides of the House, as a matter of fact the whole basis of that Bill was nothing more nor less than a bargain, concordat, or whatever they liked to call it, between the State and the Churches concerned. He saw no reason why they should be ashamed of admitting that it was. He saw no reason why, as Churchmen, they should be ashamed of admitting that there was under that Bill, in a certain sense, to be a new concordat between the State and the Churches on the subject of the religious education of the young. There was no doubt whatever that what had been done in regard to the religious instruction of the young was something different from what it was to be under that Bill, and the change was simply in favour of giving the laity more control over the education in the future, and diminishing the control which had hitherto been exclusively exercised by the clergy. Turning to the terms of the Amendment, he must confess he would at an earlier stage of that measure have been very glad if the Church, of which he was a member, had seen its way, in the single-school rural areas at any rate, to accept some representation from the parents of the children. He could not share the difficulties, rather he thought of a metaphysical character, which distressed the noble Lord the hon. Member for Greenwich in regard to the rights and duties of the parents. He might have misunderstood him, but he took him to say that although a parent had a right to have his child educated in the full principles of his own religious faith—at, he supposed, the public expense—he had no right to express what his wishes or ideas were in regard to that faith in the only effective manner which, under present-day conditions, he could—by his vote for a representative on the board of management. That seemed to him a hard saying. He did not wish to enter into metaphysical arguments, but he would have thought under modernconditions that it was possible even for a

  1419
  parent to express his ideas by his vote in regard to the education of his child. But they had to recollect that what was suggested by the Amendment went a good deal farther than anything that had happened hitherto in regard to the Bill, even than that awful Amendment, the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment. What was suggested was that that House, without consultation with the Church as far as he knew, without getting an expression of opinion from representative bodies of the Church, should proceed to form a religious constituency which was to send on to those boards of management representatives according to the denominational views of that body. He regarded that as a very extreme step to take. He spoke with very great hesitation in those matters, because he was quite unacquainted with the length to which that House was prepared to go. Certainly, on such questions as the reform and discipline of the Church of England—a matter in which for his sins he had had some little experience, thorny as they were—he did not know how far the House was prepared to go, but he was certain of this, that it was not open to the House to force upon any religious body, whether it were the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, or any other, a system practically of religious constituencies and self-government, without at any rate the appearance of some form of consultation in the matter. Therefore, surely, while some of them on that side of the House might retain the honest opinion that the Church of which they were staunch members would have been better advised had it accepted, in the rural areas at any rate, some representation directly from the parents—at the same time they were not prepared, vi et armis, to force upon the Church, by their vote in this House, what she herself had not expressed her willingness to accept. He wished she could have seen her way to accept it, because he believed, in spite of all the trust deeds, and in spite of the dead hand with which they had to deal, they would be safer in matters affecting the Church of England if, instead of reverting to the past, they had dealt with the immediate and practical problem of the moment; and surely in admitting, as that Amendment suggested, the parents of Nonconformists to a vote
  1420
  for the purpose of sending a representative on to the management bodies of those schools, they might in that sense have welcomed it as tending to broaden the position of the Church of England, to enlist in her cause the sympathies of those numberless Nonconformists who, after all, he believed were not so far alienated from her as some people imagined, and by giving them a direct interest in the religious instruction of their own children to bring them to the conviction that the National Church was not inimical to their claims, but might, in due time and with proper diplomacy in Church and State, come to be once more the National Church of this country.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEcomplimented the hon. Member who had just spoken upon the most admirable debating speech to which they had listened from a new Member of the House. The hon. Member was not privileged to be in the House during the First and Second Reading debates in the earlier stages of this Bill, and before he came to deal with the Amendment the hon. Member gave them a general view of the measure. He should not be allowed to follow the hon. Member in that respect, but he congratulated him upon a most interesting speech. It was specially interesting to those who sat On the Opposition side of the House, because the hon. Member, coming fresh from his constituency, absolutely confirmed everything that had been said upon that side of the House as to the origin of the Bill. The Government had repudiated over and over again the statement that there was any concordat or agreement with the Church, but the hon. Member for East Toxteth twice most explicitly stated that the Bill was the result of a concordat between the Government and the Church. And when he came to deal with the Amendment before the Committee the hon. Member expressed his full sympathy with that Amendment, and gave as his only grounds for not supporting it that it was not part of that concordat. Might he suggest to the hon. Member that the Church had a special representation in the Parliament of the realm, through the bishops in the House

  1421
  of Lords, and that they were perhaps incidentally represented in this House by the nobe Lord the Member for Greenwich and other representatives of the ecclesiastical party. The hon. Member might therefore safely vote on that occasion for the Amendment of which he approved, and see what view the special representatives of the Church—the bishops in the House of Lords—would take of the matter when it came before them in the House of Lords incorporated in this Bill. The hon. Member had gone out of his way to describe his election as a triumph, but he only claimed it as a triumph of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, and his support of the Bill, and even his rejection, on grounds of expediency, of the Amendment now before the Committee, appeared to be based, like his election , on the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment. With regard to the Amendment itself, there might be some on the Government side of the Committee who might be disposed to think the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs had been too specific in the form of his Amendment. A distinguished artist who had written a book on the gentle art of making enemies, had said, while any man could choose his friends, no one could be too particular in choosing his enemies. It might be felt by those who opposed the Amendment that his hon. friend had been too particular. Therefore it was important to understand that, if the Amendment were accepted in

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Allan, Sir William(Gateshead)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Allen, Charles P (Glone.,Stroud

  Douglas, Charles M (Lanark)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Dunn, Sir William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Bayley, Thomas (Derhyshire)

  Edwards, Frank

  Lambert, George

  Bell, Richard

  Ellis, John Edward

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Emmott, Alfred

  Langley, Batty

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Burns, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Burt, Thomas

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Leng, Sir John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Levy, Maurice

  Caldwell, James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Cameron, Robert

  Grant, Corrie

  Lloyd-George, David

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

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

  Logan, John William

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Helene, Norval Watson

  Newnes, Sir George

  principle, the mover would, as he understood, be willing that the other side should amend it as regarded the particular form of constituent body to be adopted. The Amendment had assumed fresh importance since the Attorney General had made an explanation which, for the purposes of the trust deed, anticipated the inclusion of subscribers to a national fund if resident in the district, and it was not clear what "district" meant, because there was nothing in the trust deeds about "resident in the parish," and frequently voluntary subscribers did not reside in the parish at all, but in an adjoining parish, and the moment it was extended in that way to a district fund or a national fund for repairing national schools, it would enormously widen it. The whole scope of the debate had been enormously widened by the admissions of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSpressed for an answer to his question of whether the number of managers was to be limited to six, or whether it was to be an unlimited number, as stated by the Attorney General.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON'Sreply did not reach the Press gallery.
  (6.43.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 109;
  Noes, 218. (Division List No. 555.)

  Norman, Henry

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Tonlmin, George

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wallace, Robert

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Shackleton, David James

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Palmer, Sir CharlesM.(Durham)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Partington, Oswald

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Sinclair, John (Forfarsltire)

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Spencer, Rt HnC.R.(Northants

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Price, Robert John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Tennant, Harold John

  Rigg, Richard

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Mr. Trevelyan and Mr.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  George Whiteley.

  Runciman, Walter

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

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants,W.)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lockie, John

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Finch, George H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Arrol, Sir William

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Rt. Hon. Water (Bristol,S

  Begot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lowther, C.(Cumb., Eskdale)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Macartney, RtHn. W.G. Ellison

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Balfour, RtHn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gore, HnG.R.C. Ormshy-(Salop

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bignold, Arthur

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Bigwood, James

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS.Edm'nds

  Maxwell, Rt Hn SirH.E(Wigt'n

  Bond, Edward

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Milner, Rt. Hn.Sir FrederickG.

  Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex

  Gretton, John

  Montagu, G.(Huntingdon)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Groves, James Grimble

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn LordG(M'dD'x

  Morgan, David J. (Walth'mstow

  Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Butcher, John George

  Harris, Frederick Lever on

  Murray, Rt Hn.A. Graham(Bute

  Champbell, RtHn.J.A.(Glasgow

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick George

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Myers, William Henry

  Cavendish, V.C,W.(Derbyshire

  Health, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Helder, Augustus

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.J. (Birm

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A. (Worc

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Percy, Earl

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Coddirwton, Sir William

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Purvis, Robert

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kenyon, Hn. George T.(Denbigh

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Kenyon-S1aney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Randles, John S.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Keswick, William

  Rankin, Sir James

  Denny, Colonel

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lawson, John Grant

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Farcham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  1424

  1425

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

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

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Stock, James Henry

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Whiteley, H(Ashtonund. Lyne

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Strutt, Hon. Cherries Hedley

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylehone, W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

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

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wylie, Alexander

  smith, H.C(North'mb Tyneside

  Tully, Jasper

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Younger, William

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

  Vincent, Col. SirC.E.H.(Sheff'ld

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  TELLERS FOR TILE NOES

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Sir Alexander Acland

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid the Amendment he now proposed to move was not quite accurate as it stood on the Paper. He moved to insert, after the word "managers" in the first line, the words "of whom one shall be the parent of a child attending the school." That, he submitted, would leave the appointment in the hands of the persons who had the appointment under the trust deed, but it would compel them to appoint a parent of a child attending the school. The Amendment was one that should have the sympathy of the Committee. Hon. Members opposite had used the parents as a cover under which they had urged the importance of having dogmatic teaching in the schools. So far the parent had been made the stalking-horse to obtain other concessions, and it was not asking much to ask that hon. Members should show some slight practical confidence in the parents by supporting an Amendment which provided that there should be among the managers one layman who was the parent of a child attending the school. If the Government were going to reject every suggestion of this kind, they would simply ensure the power of nomination being left in the hands of the clergyman. They had declined to give the nomination to the laity on the ground that the laity could not be defined, or to the parents on the ground that they had rights only over their own children, so that the nomination remained in the hands of the incumbent. The Clause for the grouping of schools had been inserted with a view to improving the administration from economic and educational point of view. But if schools over a considerable area were to be grouped, each of those schools would
  1426
  have a right to one representative on the body of managers, and the incumbent of each parish might reasonably claim to sit on the board by which his own school was managed. There was every probability of that happening, and he thought there ought to be some stipulation that other than clerical representatives should have a right to sit on these boards of management.
  Amendment proposed,
  "In line 1, after the word 'managers,' to insert the words of whom one shall be the parent of a child attending the school.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had always had a certain amount of sympathy with those who wished to see the parents of the children represented on the board of management. But manifestly the proper time to have made such a provision was when dealing with the other two managers. It would only hamper the election of trustees if this limitation were imposed.
  Mr. HERBERT LEWISpointed out that the endowments of voluntary schools had been greatly increased, inasmuch as in future they were to have the rents of the schoolmasters' houses, a share of the fees, and a large proportion of the endowments, and all the supporters of this Amendment asked in return was a, slight increase of popular management. That was surely a very small request. It should be remembered that the model trust deed provided that the clergyman in any case should be chairman of the body of trustees, and there

  1427
  was nothing in the Bill which prevented the continuance of that provision. Therefore, even assuming the parent turned against the clergyman, the latter would still have a casting vote. The Government might very well go to this small extent in enlisting popular sympathy with the schools. The success of the elementary schools in America was due to the popular sympathy they had been able to enlist by giving the public the share of representation to which they were entitled. Under this Bill the public were not given their due share of representation, and, in view of the concessions made to voluntary schools, the least the Government could do was to accept this Amendment.
  MR. BRYCEsaid there was a further reason why the parent representation should be taken out of the denominational managers under the trust deed. The hypothesis on which the Bill had been defended was that the large majority of the parents were members of the denomination to which the school belonged and desired denominational instruction; therefore, it was among those parents that the managers should be sought. As the parent was the person supposed to desire denominational instruction, he was the proper man to voice as a manager the wish of the other parents. The reason the proposal to take a parent out of the popular managers was not warmly accepted on that side was that they desired the popular managers to be chosen with the greatest possible freedom—that the field of selection should not be in the least degree limited.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if the foundation managers were to be chosen from time to time. That was not the scheme at all. The scheme was that foundation managers were to be the trustees under the deed, or under variations of the deed made by order of the Board of Education. Suppose that a parent was appointed one of the foundation managers, what would happen when the parent so appointed ceased to be the parent of a child in the school? The child would grow up and cease to be a scholar. How was a new trustee
  1428
  to be appointed, and what was to become of the old trustee? The Amendment was really unworkable, and was based on a misapprehension as to the manner in which the foundation managers were to be appointed.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that unless on the board of management there were persons connected with the children under instruction the board might be entirely out of touch of everything that went on in the schools. The members might be all bachelors, or they might be old fossils of seventy or eighty years of age who had been managers for half a century, and were really incapable of properly discharging their duties. It was very desirable in such cases that there should be some change. The Prime Minister objected to the Amendment at the present stage. If the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to have it inserted elsewhere, no doubt his hon. friend would withdraw it now, but it ought certainly to be embodied in some portion of the Bill.
  MR. WHITLEYcould find no suggestion in the Bill that the foundation managers were to be appointed for the term of their natural lives. This proposal to put one parent on the board of management was the suggestion of the Government themselves in one of the forms of Clause 7. It was not the fault of the Opposition that the proposal had been dropped, and they were now taking their last opportunity of asking the Government to carry out the principle. Surely it was reasonable that the parents should add one to the denominational managers. There was no fear of them choosing from any other denomination, and they could not rest assured that this representative would be a Churchman, or a member of the same denomination as the school. He was simply asking that the parents should not be overlooked and neglected in this matter. For his part he thought that if the Government refused this Amendment it would be a very thorough exposure of the hollowness of their professions with regard to their desire that the teaching should be according to the wishes of the parents of the children.
  MR. SPEAR (Devonshire, Tavistock)expressed the opinion that if the Government were to accept the Amendment the popularity of the Bill would be increased, because it would give parents some voice in the management of the schools. It was true they would have a voice in the election of County Councils, by whom the Education Bill was to be administered, but working men were unable in most cases to become members of the County Councils, and it was therefore most important that every reasonable opportunity should be afforded them for taking part in the administration of the schools. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had said while a man might have jurisdiction over his own children, that did not carry power over other men's children. But he ventured to say that only the man who had children himself was really qualified to enter into the difficulties and necessities of other men's children attending schools. Consequently he considered it would be highly desirable for the Government to accept the Amendment. He did not agree that there would be no necessity for voluntary subscriptions under the Bill, but the area for which those subscriptions would be collected would be considerably curtailed. The working
  classes would be unable to give the qualifying subscription necessary under the trust deed, and would, therefore, be shut out from the boards of management. If the Amendment were accepted it would obviate that difficulty and tend to increase public confidence in these schools. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had suggested that a manager elected as a parent would cease to be a manager when his child left school, but that difficulty could be surmounted by giving the other managers a power to fill up vacancies, and they could elect the parent of another child attending the same school. This would ensure a continuation of parental representation and would have the additional advantage of ensuring the introduction of new blood occasionally amongst the foundation managers. As one who had loyally supported the main principles of the Bill, he urged upon the Government the importance of accepting the principle of the Amendment, being certain it would tend to the advantage of the voluntary schools and the welfare of the children.
  (7.19.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes, 210. (Division List, No. 556.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, Fred.W. (Norfolk,Mid

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

  Mr. Alfred Hutton and

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Mr. Samuel Evans.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morgan, David J(Waltharnstow

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Arrol, Sir William

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham(Bute)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Myers, William Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Hamilton, Rt Hn LordG. (Mid'x

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Horsey)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Balfour. Rt Hn. GeraldW.(Leeds

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Percy, Earl

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bentinek, Lord Henry C.

  Helder, Augustus

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bhownagree, Sir M M.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bigwood, James

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset,E.)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Purvis, Robert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hope, J.F.(Sh'ffield, Brightside

  Pym, C. Guy

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.)

  Howard. J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Randles, John S.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Rankin, Sir James

  Butcher, John George

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Campbell, Rt. HnJ.A. (Glasgow

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Ridley, Hn. M W. (Stalybridge

  Cavendisk, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ridley,S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Kemp, George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W. (Salop)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A(Worc

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monrn'th

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lee, ArthurH (Hants.,Fareham

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Seely, Maj. J.E.B. (IsleofWight

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Crossley, Sir Servile

  Lockie, John

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Denny, Colonel

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Stock, James Henry

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lucas, Leginald J. (Portsmouth

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Macartney, Rt Hon W.G Ellison

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edward M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Finch, George H.

  M'Iver,Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

  Valentia, Viscount

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Vincent, Col. SirC E H(Sheffield

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Walrond, Rt. HonSir William H

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maxwell, RtHnSirH E. (Wigt'n

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Forster, Henry William

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir FrederickG.

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Gardner, Ernest

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und.Lyne

  1432

  1433

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

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

  Younger, William

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Wilson-Todd, Wm H. (Yorks.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

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

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  New Clause (Managers):—
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he wished to move to insert after the word "appointed" in line 1, the words "for a term of three years." The object of the Amendment was perfectly clear. He did not want the foundation managers to be a sort of life governors of a school maintained out of public money. He did not think that that would be desirable. He should like to know whether there was any term of office for the managers of provided schools, or whether they also would be permanent. He took it that it would be a case of once a manager of a voluntary school always a manager. He therefore moved to insert "a term of three years;" but there would be nothing to prevent managers being re-appointed. It was a very invidious thing to remove a man front office, and it was never done unless the case were a very gross one. It involved so much personal unpleasantness, more especially among members of the same Church, that a manager would not be removed unless the state of things was so bad as to amount to a public scandal. He did not think that a clergyman, who would practically dominate the school, should be called upon to dismiss one of the managers, and create unpleasantness in his own Church. What he suggested was that each manager should hold office for three years. That
  1434
  would apply to a case of this kind. If the Government insisted that the subscribers were to be the constituency, it might be that, in one year, there would only be half a dozen subscribers, as there might be no call for money; but if, a few years later, £100 was wanted to make an addition to the school, then there would be a new set of subscribers, who would not have any representation at all. His final reason was that they were trying a new experiment, and, like every other experiment, it depended far more for its success on the men who worked it than on the theoretical perfection or imperfection of the Bill itself Even if a Bill were a thoroughly bad Bill, first class men might rescue it from utter abject failure; therefore, the class of men who would work the Bill was a very important consideration. If those inert were appointed permanently they could not be changed, and the result might be disastrous. He thought the Government would be well advised to insert some limitation, such as he proposed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 1, after the word 'appointed,' to insert the words 'for a term of three years.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid they had had a similar discussion before in the case of the education committees of the local education authorities. The Committee then discussed the question whether it was desirable to limit, by statute, the duration of office of members of those committees, and came to the conclusion, which he thought a wise one, that it was not desirable to fix by statute their period of office, but to leave it to the local education authority to act according to its own notions as to what would be most convenient, having regard to the circumstances in each case. The Committee having decided in that way with reference to more important bodies, he could not help thinking that it would he unwise, and, at any rate, that it would

  1435
  be very undesirable, that they should limit the term of office of smaller bodies. It was not suggested that a limit should be put to the term of office of managers appointed by the local education authority for provided schools, or of representatives of the local education authority on the management of non-provided schools; and, under the circumstances, it would surely be going into unnecessary detail to introduce such incongruous matter into the Bill now. The matter would come up in due course, because the trustees in making their application to the Board of Education would suggest a term of office, and the Board of Education would, no doubt, accept that suggestion. There was no reason for departing from the practice which the Committee had adopted in the case of the education committees, and fixing by statute a term of office for foundation managers.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid that, personally, he saw no reason

  AYES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Allen, CharlesP.(Glouc. Strond

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Shackleton, David James

  Bell, Richard

  Helme, Norval Waison

  Shipman, Dr. John. G.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Spencer, Rt HnC. R. (Northants

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Taylor, Throdore C. (Radcliffe)

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Thomas, Sir A, (Glamorgan, E.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Kitson, Sir James

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

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lambert, George

  Toulmin, George

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Langley, Batty

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Levy, Maurice

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk,Mid.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Mansfied, Horace Rendall

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Norman, Hemy

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Emmott, Alfred

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Rigg, Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Grant, Corrie

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Mr. Lloyd-George and

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Mr. Samuel Evans.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Runciman, Walter

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clare, Octavins Leigh

  Forster, Henry William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Gibb, Hn.A.G. H. (CityofLond.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Corbett, A. Cmeron Glasgow

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Denny, Colonel

  Grenfell, William Henry

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

  Dornigton, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Gretton, John

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Groves, James Grimble

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Bigwood, James

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Helder, Augustus

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Finch, George H.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Hope,J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  why there should not be a change in the managership from time to time; but to, fix three years, seemed to him to be a most impracticable proposal. It was quite possible that, in certain circumstances, some schools would benefit by a periodical change of managership; but he did not believe that there would be any difficulty in making such an arrangement. On the other hand, it might be difficult to replace a certain set of managers by another set. He did not see why a state of things which was working well should be interfered with. The Amendment was an ideal rather than a real proposal; and he thought it would be better if the Committee confined itself to Amendments which were really practicable.
  (9.13.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 60; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 557.)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Stock, James Henry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Law Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward

  Tully, Jasper

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Purvis, Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Handles, John S.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Lockie, John

  Rankin, Sir James

  Walroad, Rt. Hn. SirWilliamH.

  Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Whiteley,H(Ashton-und-Lyne

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Wylie, Alexander

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Younger, William

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Morgan, David J(Walth'mstow

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Murray, RtHn. AGraham(Bute

  Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

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

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Myers, William Henry

  Spear, John Ward

  MR. CHARLES ALLENsaid he wished to move an Amendment to insert after the word "deed" the words "existing on the 1st day of January, 1902." He would not have moved the Amendment if there had been a chance of getting a larger lay element on the management of the schools, but his object was to meet a state of circumstances and exigencies which might arise under the Bill, possibly resulting in the turning of undenominational schools into denominational schools. Transfers of that kind had taken place in the past, and, in his opinion, they were most improper transfers. For example, in the beginning of the last century schools were often built on land granted by Inclosure Commissioners, the "clergyman, churchwardens, constables, and overseers," as the words then ran in the grant, for the erection of schoolhouses which were to be appropriated for ever afterwards for the benefit of the schoolmaster for the time being. In those schools there were no denominational trusts, and yet because the officers were Churchmen, as, indeed, they were bound to be by law, in many cases those schools had, in the course of time, become denominational. There was one very striking example in Yorkshire in 1816. An allotment was awarded out of common land for an undenominational day and Sunday school under the trustees. In 1850 only one trustee was left, and that
  1438
  was the clergyman; he turned the school into a denominational school, and made it a condition that the superior teacher should be a communicant of the Church of England. Not content with that, the clergyman, by the aid of the Charity Commissioners, turned three other schools into denominational schools. Not only had that been done in the past, but he believed they ran a considerable chance of it being done in the future. On November 13th, Archdeacon Wilson writing for The Times, said—
  "If, as will be necessarily the case, new trust deeds are almost universally adopted for the transfer of these schools, provision may be made that in all Church of England schools the teaching should be in accordance with the principles of the Established Church, and that the removal of all foundation managers shall rest with the Bishop of the diocese."
  While the Secretary to the National Society, Canon Brownrigg, wrote, saying—
  "I shall be much obliged if you will allow me to make known that the National Society have prepared a form of deed under which private owners of school buildings can let such buildings under an annual or longer tenancy to persons who will be in the position of trust managers under an Act of Parliament. We have also a form of conveyance for such owners who wish to put the buildings definitely in trust."
  It seemed to him that this was a matter with which the House ought to deal. It came to him as a revelation. As he understood it, schemes would have to be provided by the existing trustees of the school, but, in his opinion, they ought

  1439
  not to have schemes of that kind. It was a question with which Parliament ought to deal here and now. This Act would do very many extraordinary things, but it ought not to set up the Board of Education as a sort of independent legislative body to deal with such things. It was a serious matter which certainly concerned the House, which the House itself ought to deal with, and he sincerely trusted they would pass the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, after the word 'deed,' to insert the words 'existing on the 1st day of January, 1902.'"—(Mr. Charles Allen.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the hon. Member stated that the Bill would do many extraordinary things. There was one thing it would do, and that was to put the education of the country on a thoroughly satisfactory footing. As regarded the Amendment itself, he hoped the Committee would not think of accepting it. The hon. Member told the Committee some anecdotes about some things that had happened in Yorkshire. He did not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman into his Yorkshire cases; because he did riot know enough of them to form an opinion as to the justice of the judgment which the hon. Gentleman had pronounced upon them. The hon. Member proposed that no deed made after 1st January, 1902, should have effect; but, if these trust deeds were lawfully made, why should not effect be given to them?
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid he was somewhat surprised at the tone of the Attorney General. He did not think that a Scottish gentleman was the best man to appreciate an anecdote. He thought the hon. Gentleman's opinion on his hon. friend's anecdote was as valuable as his opinion on the Bill. The object of the Amendment was clear, it was designed to avoid fraudulent and sharp practices. The Times, which he believed was a very respectable newspaper, published a letter from a real live canon, who advised members of the
  1440
  Church of England to prepare agreements, which would not otherwise have been prepared, in order that the Act might be availed of by members of the Church of England. If the Government were really in earnest in this matter, why in the world should they not adopt the Amendment? If there was a bond fide trust deed made after 1st January, 1902, he was prepared to admit its validity, but if a trust deed were made in order to get benefits under this Act, which the school otherwise would not receive, then a good case was made out for the Amendment.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINSsaid that, as a Manchester man, he desired to resent in the warmest manner possible the coupling of Archdeacon Wilson's name with fraudulent and sharp practices.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHwished to assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that he did not couple the name of Archdeacon Wilson with this in any way.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that nobody coupled the name of Archdeacon Wilson with any practices of this kind. He would remind hon. Members opposite that the words "sharp practice" were used by Canon Henson in regard to the Bishop of London. When they used the words "sharp practice" these were not their words at all.
  MR. MALCOLM: That statement must be contradicted at once. Canon Henson, in a second letter to The Times, specifically denied that his remarks referred to the Bishop of London.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that the words "sharp practice" were used in Canon Henson's letter to The Times, and Canon Henson was discussing the action of the Bishop of London, and if it was not the Bishop of London he was referring to, then he should like to know from the hon. Member for Stowmarket of whom Canon Henson was speaking. The Attorney General had called certain facts which had been brought to his notice "anecdotes." That was an extraordinary thing to say, because his

  1441
  learned friend gave chapter and verse for the facts. He had referred to a dictionary for the meaning of the word anecdote and he found the following definition—
  In its original sense, secret history, or facts not generally known; but in more common usage, a particular or detached incident or fact of an interesting nature."
  It might have added "facts generally known, but not known to the Attorney General." The facts brought before the Committee by his hon. friend were, in his opinion, of a really interesting nature, and afforded ample justification for his Amendment. The supporters of the Amendment desired to increase the number of cases where the education authority, and not the clerical party, would be able to dictate who should be the managers of the schools. He read that afternoon in an organ which supported the Government some comments which showed that the Amendment of his hon friend was absolutely necessary. The organ said this—
  "To-day Mr. Balfour's new Clause relating to managers will be the subject of discussion. This Clause is framed to meet an immediate difficulty that might arise in the application of Clause 7. There are a certain number of voluntary schools, mainly Church schools, which have been built by private benefactors. Such schools frequently have no trust deeds, and so the provisions of Clause 7, with regard to the appointment of the four denominational managers, would not be possible. Mr. Balfour's new Clause provides that under these circumstances, when the trust deed is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, or insufficient, the Board of Education shall make an order. It is not likely that this Clause will meet with any convinced or cogent opposition, as it is obviously necessary to cover the few cases for which it has been framed. We say 'few cases,' as, although there are a considerable number of schools without trust deeds, it is likely that most of such schools will avail themselves of the arrangement by which the National Society has offered to put schools in trust; and it is quite possible that the Prime Minister anticipates such action on the part of the present owners of these schools. It will be remembered that the Bishop of London was urgent on his hearers to obtain trust deeds, as similar as possible to the old ones, for schools that are now unprovided; and Mr. Evans's Amendment, which would have rendered such action impossible, was rejected by Mr. Balfour."
  He thought nothing could be more cogent than the speech of his hon.

  AYES.

  Bell, Richard

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Bolton, Thomnas Dolling

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Burns, John

  friend. What was proposed was really very much like the case of a man who was defending a lawsuit, and who in order to provide for what might happen if he lost put the whole of his property in the name of his cousin. That was what the National Society was inviting these people to do, and the National Society was being backed up by high episcopal authority. Were they on this side not really asking the Committee to take not only the proper but the dignified course in this matter? They were legislating in view of the facts as they were at present, and what these good people were suggesting was that in order to obviate the effect of that legislation, the owners of these schools should set their house in order and create new trust deeds where they did not exist at present.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid that it was impossible to deal with existing trusts except through the agency of the Charity Commissioners or through the action which was proposed under this new Clause. With regard to the other trusts in connection with which Canon Henson's name had been mentioned he said the suggestion was that new trust deeds should be created in those cases where persons, in virtue of their own property, were the absolute owners of a school. In those cases, it was right, or might be right, that they should put into public hands that which had hitherto been in their own private hands. They were, in that way, divesting themselves of their own property for the good of the community. The suggestion of hon. Members opposite was that private owners should be deprived of the right which they now possessed of putting their private ownership into public hands in such direction as they might choose. He hoped the Committee would not be induced to take such a step.
  (9.43) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 73; cogent than the speech of his hon. Noes, 161. (Division List No. 558.)

  Caldwell, James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, David Brymnor(Sw'nsea

  Shackleton, David James

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Canston, Richard Knight

  Lambert, George

  Spear, John Ward

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Langley, Batty

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lloyd-George, David

  Toulmin, George

  Edwards, Frank

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  White, Luke (York, E. R)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Norman, Henry

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid)

  Goddard. Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

  Grant, Corrie

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Rigg, Richard

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  TELLERS FOR TILE AYES—

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Mr. Charles Allen and Mr.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Runciman, Walter

  Ellis Griffith.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gardner, Ernest

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. B. (CityofLond.

  Morgan, DavidJ (Walthamst'w

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Murray Rt Hn. A. Graham(Bute

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gore,HnG R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Myers, William Henry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gretton, John

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Balfour, RtHnGerald W. (Leeds

  Hamilton, RtHn LordG(Midd'x

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Percy, Earl

  Bigwood, James

  Helder, Augustus

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hope,J.F.(Shellield, Brightside

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Purvis, Robert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Johnstone, Hey wood

  Pym, C. Guy

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kemp, George

  Randles, John S.

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Rankin, Sir James

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rasch, Major Frederic Came

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lee, ArthurH (Hants, Fareham

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ridley, Hon. M,W.(Staly bridge

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Denny, Colonel

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lockie, John

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Saekville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Dorington, Rt.Hon. Sir John E.

  Long, Rt. Walter(Bristol,S.

  Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(IsleolWight

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lowe, Francis William

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Dyke, Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

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

  Finch, George H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Stock, Janice Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Majendie, James A. H.

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  1444

  1445

  Thornton, Percy H.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Whiteley, H(Ashton-und. Lyne

  Wylie, Alexander

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Younger, William

  Tully, Jasper

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

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

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Walrond,RtHn.SirWilliam H.

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

  Hood and Mr. Anstrnther.

  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somerset-shire, S.)said that he wished to propose the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Lincoln on behalf of that hon. Gentleman, but with a slight alteration. The Amendment provided that the managers should be men resident in, or who had an interest in, the parish within the school area. He knew of cases where the managers of schools had absolutely no interest in the district, but who lived ten or twelve miles out of the town where the schools were. The Committee would see that a new form of the original Amendment was necessary. He did not think he was asking the First Lord too much, in asking him, to adopt the principle that a man qualified to be a foundation manager should have some direct interest in the school in that area, either by residence, or by being on the register of voters—Parliamentary or County, or Borough Council. That was a safeguard which many, as well on the Government side as on that side of the House, were anxious to see adopted. If the Government accepted the Amendment they would be leaving out of the management no man at all who had any interest in the good conduct of the school, and in the interests of the ratepayers in that part of the county. This was a Conservative Amendment, and in the interest of denominational schools and education. It would prevent packing the management with a particular sect not belonging to the district.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, after school,' insert 'and shall he either residents in or on the register of voters (Parliamentary or County or Borough Council) for a parish within the school area.'" (Sir Edward Strachey.)
  Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought this Amendment was quite an unnecessary one. If the hon. Gentleman would look at the model trust deed so often made the
  1446
  text of recent discussions he would see that practically residence, or a qualification similar to that mentioned, was required in the trust deeds of the National Society. What did that show? To him it showed that the interest in the denominational schools was what they expected it to be. At any rate, if the foundation managers were not resident in the parish, or had no local interest, it was very unlikely there would be any inducement to them to take part in the deliberations of the managers, and they being absentees, and the foundation managers being out-voted, the management of the school would fall into the hands of those not elected to carry out denominational arrangements. They ought not to lay down a hard and fast limitation which might exclude a person resident just outside the technical boundary of the area, who had a great interest in education, awl therefore be specially fitted, and would be perfectly ready, to give his services to the cause of education.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that he had an Amendment lower down on the Paper somewhat of the nature of that proposed by the hon. Gentleman. He had put it there because a clergyman might get at loggerheads with his parishioners and go outside the area, obtain a few subscribers, and bring a proselytising society into the parish. That was not a possibility; it had actually happened. It was obvious that they ought not to have outsiders brought into the parish to inflict on the parishioners views on education of which they conscientiously disapproved.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he wanted to ask his hon. friend who moved the Amendment why he left out the original words in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lincoln?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Because the Chairman would have ruled them out of order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I was not invited to do so, but I will do so now if desired.
  SLR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he was extremely sorry that the Chairman's remark had prevented him from addressing some interesting remarks to the Committee.
  Question put and negatived.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid he hoped that he need hardly make any apology in moving the next Amendment, because both in and out of the House it had been stated repeatedly, and by none more frequently than by the First Lord himself, that it was intended that the local authority should have absolute supremacy in all matters relating to secular instruction.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is not this already in the Bill? There is no necessity for repeating it.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid it was not altogether in the Bill. He presumed the Chairman was referring to Section 6, but there were other portions of the Bill to which his Amendment would relate. His object in moving it was to prevent constant disputes and litigations which would arise unless some definite announcement was made. He trusted the Amendment would be accepted by the Government. It could not do any harm, and would define with perfect clearness what was the position of the local authority in regard to secular instruction.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 5, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'Or the absolute control of the local education authority in all matters relating to secular instruction.'"—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. They were providing by the new Clause that—
  "If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Education that the provisions of the trust deed as to the appointment of managers are in any respect inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, or insufficient or inapplicable for the purpose, or that there is no such trust deed available, the Board of Education shall make an order under tins Section for the purpose of meeting the case."
  1448
  That was not in any way inconsistent with the absolute control of the local education authority over secular instruction. The two matters had no connection whatever.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he wished to move, as an Amendment, to leave out of line 5, after the word "Act," the words "or insufficient, or inapplicable." He thought these words were unnecessary, although they might have some secret meaning to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the obvious meaning of "insufficient" was to be found in the provisions of Clause 7, which stated that—
  "All public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority shall, in place of the existing managers have a body of managers consisting of a number of foundation managers, not exceeding four, appointed as provided by this Act."
  And—
  "Where the local education authority are the Council of a borough or urban district they may, if they think fit, appoint for any school provided by them such number of managers as they may determine."
  He really thought that the meaning of theword "insufficient" was soobvious that it would hardly be complimentary to the intelligence of the House if he were to say another word.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYbegged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHANNINGmoved as an Amendment—
  "In line 5, after the word 'insufficient,' insert 'to secure a reasonable representation of the lay members of the denomination.'"
  The First Lord had said that he did not consider it desirable that the four denominational managers should be clerical managers, and the effect of the Amendment was to keep that point within the purview of the Board of

  1449
  Education and to enable the Board to include adequate representation of the laity in their Order.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the answer to the hon. Gentleman had been given in the reply to the mover of the last Amendment. The word "insufficient" was not used in regard to laymen's representation, but of the number of managers. Supposing the trust deed only provided for two managers, it would be unsatisfactory if the Board of Education were unable to raise the number to four, even if one, or both, had to to be clergymen.
  MR. CHANNINGbegged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. MACNAMAIRAsaid that there was no provision in Clause 8 which provided that the repairs, alterations, and improvements of the school-houses should be made by voluntary contributions, and he wished to move an Amendment by which such provision out of voluntary subscriptions should not be excluded.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is in order.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved to add at the end of the first sub-Section the words:—
  "Provided that in no case shall there be more than one priest, clerk in holy orders, or minister of religion appointed as foundation manager on the committee of management of any school."
  He said he would be able to establish the fact that it would be quite possible under this Bill to have four clergymen as the foundation managers, and in such a case the Board of Education would not say the trust deed was insufficient or inapplicable. At the present time there were cases in which the only managers of denominational schools were the ministers of the denomination—indeed, he was not sure that that was not the case in the majority of the schools, and, at any rate, it was clear that a clergyman who was anxious to get complete control of a school could so manipulate the trust
  1450
  deed as to appoint his own colleagues, to the absolute exclusion of tile laity. Such a state of things was unsatis factory. It was not desirable that there should be a largely preponderating clerical voice in the management of these schools. The system he advocated was in existence in Wales; the result had been satisfactory, and no denomination could complain that the power of the education authority in Wales was being used for sectarian purposes. A clergyman would be put on the board of management as a professional expert, not as a citizen, and would naturally take a professional view of most things. In the interests of their Bill, the Government should take steps to prevent the majority of the board of management from being composed of clergymen. The Secretary of the Board of Education would probably tell them he did not believe such a thing would happen. But was it not desirable to put in some safeguard to prevent the possibility of its happening? The natural tendency would be to give a preference to the clergyman when selecting the managers, and he thought the Government would be well advised in introducing sonic safeguard against the whole of the managers being clerks in holy orders.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 8. at the end .of sub-Section (1), to insert the words, 'Provided that in no case shall there be more than one priest, appointed as a foundation manager on the committee of management of any school.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid in that while throughout these debates he had earnestly desired to maintain the denominational religious teaching of voluntary schools, he had never shown or expressed in any way any desire to perpetuate clerical control. Nevertheless, he was not prepared to accept a clerical disqualification. He was fully prepared to admit that occasions might arise when there might be an unfair preponderance of clergymen on these bodies, but he was also equally certain

  1451
  that in some sparsely populated districts in rural England it might be very difficult to make up their body of four foundation managers without admitting two clergymen. He was not prepared to accept a professional disqualification (and it was nothing more nor less than that) for places as foundation managers, and on that ground, as well as on the ground of the balance of convenience, which was, he thought, against the hon. Gentleman's proposal, the Government could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the hon. Baronet had admitted the possibility of an unfair preponderance of the clerical element, but at the same time he objected to the imposition of any disqualification. Might he point out that at the present time the trust deeds imposed a disqualification upon the laity. If that disqualification was imposed on the laity, there should be, not a disqualification but a limitation, on the other side, of the number of clergy upon the governing body of the school. The Government were agreed that it was unfair that boards of managers should be constituted unduly of the clerical element, and he ventured to urge on the Committee that his hon. friend's Amendment pointed to an easy solution of the difficulty.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid there was no doubt some difficulty in finding a satisfactory form of words to limit the clerical element, but he thought the admission of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education that there might be cases of an undue preponderance of the clerical element on these bodies made it incumbent on the Government to provide that such an abuse as that should not occur. It was to be regretted that the Government had not suggested some means whereby they might obtain a majority of laymen on these bodies. In these circumstances, though he admitted that the words of his hon. friend were, in a sense, an undue limitation, he should certainly support the Amendment.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid it appeared to him that the lay subscribers might be trusted to take care of themselves. Speaking for the great Northern counties, he was absolutely sure that clerical
  1452
  supremacy was impossible, and he deprecated in the strongest possible manner the imposition of the suggested disqualification. He was very much surprised at some of the observations which had fallen from hon. Members opposite. They appeared to have no confidence in public bodies unless they felt certain themselves to have a majority on them.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan had stated that those who were on the Opposition side of the House only showed confidence in the people who were of their own opinion. That was an unworthy and unjustifiable charge. The whole object of the discussion on the Bill was that public bodies in this country should be trusted in regard to these matters irrespective of what their political opinions might be. He challenged hon. Members opposite to controvert that statement. This Bill was putting upon public bodies already overburdened further duties. The Secretary to the Board of Education spoke of large localities where the number of members might be increased, but in that case they (the Opposition) would not object to the clerical element being pro tanto enlarged. He thought the hon. Baronet and the First Lord of the Treasury had no desire that this should be a clerical control Bill, but the hon. Baronet said the effect of the Amendment would constitute a disqualification of ministers. But he would point out that the Amendments from the Opposition side had been addressed to questions which were calculated to make the Bill work better. They thought there must be on these bodies a preponderance, or, at any rate, a very large lay element. Reference had been made to subscribers, but where were the subscribers going to be under the Bill, and what were they going to subscribe? There was a further matter he had been trying all the evening to find out, who were to be the other foundation managers besides the ministers, and for the life of him he could riot make out. They were tearing up practically the great majority of the trust deeds so far as the appointment of managers was concerned, and as they were dealing with the case of grouped schools, it was quite possible on the management of these schools they might have a preponderating clerical element.

  1453
  That was a thing which should be guarded against, because if it did happen it would be bad for the working of the Bill.
  MR. J. W. WILSONsaid that, considering the very limited electorate which was evidently going to represent the subscribers, he thought it was desirable, in the interests of public confidence, that some indication should be given as to the constitution of the four denominational managers. His hon. friend said he did not like disqualification. Would it not be less objectionable to state the minimum number of lay members to be on the body. Personally, he agreed that it was rather too strict to limit the clerical representation to one. There might be two vicars in adjoining parishes who ought to be on the body.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid his proposal was one clergyman for each school.
  MR. J. W WILSONsaid he thought it would be more likely to meet the general view, if, instead of limiting the clergymen to two, it was proposed that there should be two laymen on the body. There was nothing to fear from that. One of the two clerical members would have a casting vote; and, he thought, it would tend to establish that confidence which they all desired when the Bill was passed, whatever they might now say or fear—and he hoped the Bill would work smoother than some of them feared—if two laymen were on the board of management. He was not speaking entirely from theory in the matter. He had seen one of the best schools in a large town in his own constituency materially damaged by a trust deed being brought out in an emergency, and the vicar bringing down both his curates to out-vote the remaining member of the committee. The result was that the secretary, who had clone most efficient work, and also another member were lost to the school, and the school had scarcely recovered yet. It was an ill-judged thing for the vicar to have done, yet it was possible, and he did it. It was for that reason that he wished to have two lay members on the Committee.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan pleaded for a free choice being given.
  1454
  He should not be indisposed to give a free choice as regarded a body elected by anything like a wide constituency; but the elective element for the bodies they were now considering might practically be only one person. It was quite possible that the new trust deeds might be framed in such a way that no one but ministers of religion should be elected managers. The Board of Education would have no power of controlling that at all. They knew how active the clerical element could be; and he thought some such Amendment as that of his hon. friend was very desirable. They did not desire to put any disqualification on ministers of religion at all. All the Amendment proposed was that there should be only one minister of religion out of four. There might be a board on which the vicar and his two churchwardens took the clerical view, the other three members taking the other view, and, in that event, the vicar's presence meant a second vote. It should be remembered that they had already provided for the denominational character of the teaching in the schools; and whether the managers were laymen or clerical men, there would be no question as to their controlling religious teaching. But the infusion of the lay element would be most salutary and necessary, as it was well known that clergymen of all denominations were not the best business men. That was conceded by every one. Having protected denominational teaching in the schools, they ought to consider who were the best people to manage the schools. The Secretary to the Board of Education said that the Amendment would put a disqualification on clergymen; but clergymen were already disqualified from sitting in this House, simply and solely because they were not men of business. However inefficient the House of Commons now was, it would be still more inefficient if a clerical element were introduced into it. He found further, that under an Act of Parliament clergymen were not allowed to farm more than eighty acres, winch again showed that they were not good business men He was not a farmer himself, but he was told that even very good business men could not always make farming pay, and he was quite

  1455
  sure that clergymen could not make it pay. In 1835 the wisdom of their forefathers said that no minister of religion should be allowed to sit on a Town Council, which, of course, meant that they were not fit to manage the affairs of a town. [An HON. MEMBER: What about County Councils?] Clergymen were admitted to County Councils when the Conservatives came into power; but he thought he had shown that their forefathers considered that the parson was not a fit and proper person for business, although the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich might advance countervailing arguments to show that Parliament had ordained differently. His hon. friend's Amendment was a very fair one, because it dealt with all clergymen alike, and if accepted, it would go to the root of the matter, because it would not only deal with the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church, but with all other ministers of religion. The Amendment dealt with all denominations alike, and its object was to have the

  AYES.

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc.,Strond

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Rigg, Richard

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bell, Richard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Runciman, Walter

  Brown ,George M. (Edinburgh)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Samuel. Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Shackleton, David James

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Burns, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Lambert, George

  Spencer, RtHnC.R(Northants

  Cameron, Robert

  Langley, Batty

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lough, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Maenaroara, Dr. Thomas J.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Whiteley ,George (York,W. R.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Edwards, Frank

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norman, Henry

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Gla-gow)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  PaultOn, James Mellor

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

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Gladstone, RtHn.Herbert John

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Price, Robert John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Priestley. Arthur

  Mr. Lloyd-George and

  Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Mr. Samuel Evans.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Allnusen, AugustusH'nry Eden

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bailey, James (Wal-worth)

  management of the schools in the hands of business men.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that he wished to remind the hon. Gentleman that he and his party had objected to the destruction of School Boards; and yet, on School Boards, there were large numbers of ministers of religion. Therefore, the argument about clergymen was double-edged, and could be turned with effect against hon. Gentlemen opposite. He also wished to point out that there might be clergymen who were not connected with any staff or Church in a district, but were owners of property, and proper persons to be on these bodies. They would be excluded under the Amendment.
  (11.0.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 88; Noes, 194. (Division List, No. 559.)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Groves, .James Grimble

  Percy, Earl

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Hanbury, Rt Hn Robt. William

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Helder, Augustus

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Purvis, Robert

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Randles, John S.

  Bigwool, James

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Rankin, Sir James

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Ranch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bond, Edward

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset,E.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hope.J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas. Thomson

  Butcher, John George

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cavendish, V. C. W(Derbyshire

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Kemp, George

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain, RtHn J.A (Worc.

  Kenyon, Hon Geo.T.(Denbigh)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Chapman, Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W.(Salop.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Charrington, Spencer

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William .Edward T.

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

  Lawson, John Grant

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lee, ArthurH(Hants., Fareham

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Corbett, A.Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sinith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Spear, John Ward

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loder, Gerald. Walter Erskine

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Denny, Colonel

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Long, RtHn Walter (Bristol,S.

  Stock, James Henry

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lowe, Francis William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Talbot, RtHn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon Sir John E.

  Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw.M.

  Dyke,Rt. Hn.Sir William Hart

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tully, Jasper

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn SirJ (Manc'r

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Fielder, Edward Brocklehurst

  Malcolm, Ian

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Finch, George H.

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Montagu, Hon.J. Scott(Hants.)

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  More, Robt. Japer(Shropshire)

  Whiteley, H(Ashton-und.Lyne

  Forster, Henry William

  Morgan, David J(W'Ithamstow

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham(Bute

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gibba, Hn.A.G.H(CityofLond.

  Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'ml'ts

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Gore. HnG.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Younger, William

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

  Parkes, Sir Gilbert

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Parker, Ebenezer

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Gretton, John

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved an Amendment, the object of which was to secure that the local authority should have the same power to apply for an order under the Clause as was given therein to the trustees or managers. He urged that it was of the very first importance that the local authority
  1458
  should have such power. They ought not to have to wait three months to see that the management was on a businesslike footing. What was to happen to the school while the local authority were waiting to see whether the managers or trustees would make an application?
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 9, after the word 'of,' to insert the words 'the local education authority or.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the only result of allowing these competing schemes—
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, interposing, said there was no question of competing schemes. It was simply a question of an application for a plan.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that in his opinion it was certainly intended that the trustees or managers should be allowed to send up plans for consideration. He did not imagine that the initiative in constructing plans should rest with the Board of Education. There might be—though he hoped not—some little friction in the initiation of the new system, but he did not believe it would be mitigated or shortened by the Amendment. He thought it ought to be left to the trustees of the school to initiate any suggestion as to the form which the new management should take.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he did not see in sub-Section 1 of the Clause any provision directing managers or trustees to send up a scheme, though there was nothing to prevent this being done. If the intention was as the First Lord had suggested, words to that effect ought to be inserted. Under the Clause as it stood there was nothing to give the local authority a locus standi; they would not necessarily know what was passing or have an opportunity of interposing if they thought fit. One advantage of the Amendment was that it clearly implied that the local authority might make direct representations to the Board of Education when they found it desirable to do so.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLpointed out that if no applications were made within three months the local authority might move in the matter. The whole object of the Clause was to give the trustees and managers an opportunity of applying, and it was only fair that the privilege should be given them.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid the Act was to come into operation on March 26th next. If the local authority were to wait three months after the passing of the Act before taking any steps, he was afraid it would be very difficult to get the Act into operation by that date. That was a reason for allowing the education authority to approach the Board of Education with a plan. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would at any rate favourably consider an Amendment with the object of facilitating the getting of the Bill into operation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURpointed out that the existing provision on this subject was that the Act should come into operation on an appointed day. The appointed day was March 26th, 1903, or such other day, not being more than twelve months later, as the Board of Education might appoint, and different days might be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of the Act for different local authorities. There was, therefore, a great deal of elasticity under the arrangement at present proposed. He would remind the hon. Member that, owing to the delay which had taken place in the date at which the Bill would be passed, the Government had proposed as an Amendment a few days ago that the year should be extended to a longer period—eighteen months, he thought—but that, owing to circumstances which the Committee would remember, they did not move that Amendment.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERwas glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman still considered the advisability of postponing the date at which the Act should come into force, but he hoped March 31, 1903, would not be left in the Bill, as it was an absurdly early date.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYdid not read the Clause as providing that schemes or plans should be submitted to the Board of Education; it simply provided that where the trust deeds were faulty, inapplicable, or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, the Board of Education should make an Order, but, that such Order should be made only on the application of the managers or trustees for a period of three months. The

  1461
  function of the Board was to have regard to the principles on which the education had been carried on in the past, and not to consider any scheme or plan. The local education authority ought certainly to be put on a par with the managers or trustees in the matter.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that the important thing was that, whether the application was made by the trustees or the managers or the education authority, notice should be given to everybody else concerned. As, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, these Orders were to be made once for ever, it was only fair that everybody interested who would be bound by the orders should, before the orders were made, have due notice of the application by whomsoever it was made.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the real issue was whether a school should be left for three months without managers. He thought it would not be at all detrimental to the working of the Clause, as no schemes were involved, if the local authority were given the same right of immediate application as was to be conferred on the trustees and managers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was an enormous variety of trust deeds, and a quite unnecessary additional load of work would be thrown on the local education authority if they were given the task of examining the deeds of every voluntary school in their district, with a view of framing a scheme in conformity with those deeds. The local authority would have a great amount of other

  AYES.

  Allen, CharlesP(Glouc.(Stroud

  Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

  Leng, Sir John

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Levy, Maurice

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lough, Thomas

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Caldwell, James

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Cameron, Robert

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Norman, Henry

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pease, J. A. (saffron Walden)

  Greiner, William Randal

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Price, Robert John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lambert, George

  Rigg, Richard

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Laylarnl-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  work to do, and there was no reason they should have thrown upon them additional work, which the trustees or the managers would be well qualified to do, and which the local authority would not be specially qualified to do. There was no premium on delay in this case; the managers would lose, instead of gain, by not finding a scheme; for, until they did so, they would not get a shilling of the rates.
  DR. MACNAMARA: What about the school in the meantime?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the school, in the meantime, would go on as at present. He hoped the Committee would riot drag in the local authority to do this work for other people until those other people had shown themselves incompetent to do it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had misinterpreted his own Bill, as the rates would be paid to the persons who for the time being were prima facie the managers and until some one went to the Board of Education, and showed that they were not the managers. What they wanted was that sonic one would have the right to approach the Board of Education. It was absurd to suppose that the existing managers should show "to the satisfaction" of the Board that they were not proper managers.
  (11.34.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 70; Noes, 183. (Division List No. 560.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan E.)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Toulmin, George

  Spencer. Rt. Hn. C.R(Northants

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R)

  Mr. Lloyd-George and

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Dr. Macnamara.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gore, HnG.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Goscgen, Hon. George Joachim

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred,

  Percy, Earl

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gray, Ernest (West, Ham)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS.Edminds

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gretton, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Groves, James Grmble

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Hamilton, RtHn LordG(Midd'x

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Balfonr, RtHn GeraldW.(Leeds

  Hanbury,Rt Hon. RobertWm.

  Purvis, Robert

  Balfour, Kenneth R(Christch.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Randles, John S.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bhownaggree, Sir M.M.

  Health, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bigwood, James

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bond, Edward

  Hoare, sir Samuel

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hope,J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Blucher, John George

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kemp, George

  Secly, Maj.J E. B.(IsleotWight

  Cecil, Lord Hush (Greenwich)

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.3

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Chapman, Edward

  Law, Andrew Boner (Glasgow)

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Clare, Octavins Leigh

  Lawson, John Grant

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

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Farcham

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Lergh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stock, James Henry

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S.

  Talbot., Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter(Bristol,S

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cust, Henry John C

  Lowe, Francis William

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Denny, Colonel

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamH.

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Lytteton, Hon. Alfred

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Welby, Lt.Col. A.C.E(Taunt'n

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Whiteley, H(Ashton-und.Lyne

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Dyke,Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Milner, Rt.Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Montagn, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wilson, J.W (Worcestersh. N.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Wilson Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  More, Robt.Jasper (Shropshire)

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

  Finch, George H.

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mdtow

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Younger, William

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Myers, William Henry

  Gibbs, HnA.G.H.(CityofLond.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St.Albans)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

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

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Clause amended by inserting after the word "existing," in line 9, the word "owners."—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid he wished to move an Amendment to add, at the end of line 15, the words "Before such Order is made, reasonable notice thereof, with a copy of the draft Order, shall be given by the Board of Education to the local education authority." Who was to show, to the satisfaction of the Board of Education, that the provisions of the trust deeds as to the appointment of managers were inconsistent with the provisions of the Act? Trustees would not take upon themselves a responsibility of that kind. In reply to the previous Amendment the First Lord of the Treasury said it was not fair to allow this additional burden to be placed upon the shoulders of the local education authority—meaning, 'of course, the burden of making a new plan. He did not think there would be this difficulty, because the local authorities would have very experienced officers to deal with questions of this kind. In relation to this particular question there could be no burden upon the local education authority. All they wanted was that a draft order should be sent to the local education authority within a reasonable time of its being made. Surely they were entitled, under the circumstances, to see a copy of the plan. Their local knowledge would supplement that of the trustees, and they would be able to show where the plan was incompatible with the general plan of the county. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make this small concession.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 15, at the end, to insert the words, 'before such Order is made, reasonable notice thereof, with a copy of the draft Order, shall be given by the Board of Education to the local ,education authority.'"—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEurged the Government to accept this Amendment. It was a reasonable proposal, and it was in accordance with the usual practice that all parties should have notice.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I think the provision made by this Amendment is not an unreasonable one, but at the same time I think that due notice should also be given to any other parties interested.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid he was quite willing to amend his Amendment by adding the words "and to existing owners, trustees, managers, and other persons who may appear to the Board of Education to be interested."
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he desired to have some information in regard to the order of business tomorrow. He wished to know where the new Clauses would come in.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think that tomorrow my duty will be to continue with the Government Clauses, and when they are completed to go on with the Clauses standing in the name of private Members until the hour of eleven o'clock is reached. If before that hour all the new Clauses are disposed of we shall then proceed with the schedules. If at eleven o'clock there still remain some Clauses standing in the name of private Members discussion will cease and the schedules will be taken.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Prime Minister whether in these circumstances he contemplated taking the whole of the schedules under the Closure Rule without any discussion.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSquoted from the Closure Resolution proposed by the Prime Minister, and said that the effect of the present arrangement would be that they might not have an opportunity of discussing the Government Schedules at all.
  THE CHAIRMAN: What the hon. Member has just quoted applies to what is to be done before eleven o'clock is reached. At eleven o'clock the particular paragraph which the hon. Member has quoted comes into force.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I had supposed that the discussion would be on Government Clauses and the Schedules, and that only when these were disposed of the Clauses of private Members would have been taken, but, of course, it is not for me to interpret the Rule.
  MR. CHANNINGasked if the First Lord of the Treasury could see his way to meeting the wishes of the House by moving to report Progress at half-past-seven on the Clauses, with a view to putting down the schedules for the evening sitting.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that is impossible.
  MR. BONDasked if the new Clauses standing in the name of private Members would be put in the order in which they appeared on the Paper, or would they be taken after the schedules.
  THE CHAIRMAN: They will be taken in the order as they appear on the Paper.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. ALFRED DAVIESsaid he had just a word to say upon this Bill. He supported the Second Reading of this measure, but since then he had received reliable intelligence to the effect that the three
  1468
  millions which was voted for the Boers as free grants was being wasted. Money had been given to Boer farmers some weeks ago, and he was informed that they were now actually in a worse condition than they were before. Cattle had been given to them which were diseased, and in consequence many of them had died. He had also been assured by the same authority that nothing had been done to rebuild the many farm-houses which had been burned during the war, and altogether he was told that not only was the money being wasted, but the Boers were being pauperised. He wished to ask whether the Colonial Secretary felt satisfied that the free grant of three millions was being administered for the benefit of the Boers in the best possible way, and he also wanted to know, if the right hon. Gentleman was not satisfied, whether he was going to take any action in the matter.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): It is impossible to say how the money is being spent now. It is being spent under the superintendence of Lord Milner, and the House may rest assured that the money is being expended in the best possible way for the benefit of the Boer population.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time and passed.
  Mr. SPEAKER,in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at three minutes after Twelve o'clock.