Sitting of 22 October 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
  DUMBARTON CORPORATION (FURTHER POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
PETITIONS
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Petitions for the abolition of restrictions: from Paddington; Marsden; Jarrow; Bridlington; Hartlepool; Carlisle; Tyldesley: Guildford; Leicester (three); Great Wigston; Kirby Muxloe; Clock-heaton; and Stevenston; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Martock, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Coalville; Paisley; Banbury; Chipping Norton; Glasgow; Kilnhurst; Camelon; Bonny-bridge; Sittingbourne; Greenstreet; Faversham; Bridgewater; Wensleydale; Paddington; Marsden; Jarrow and Hebburn; Bridlington; West Hartlepool; Carlisle; Guildford; Kirby Muxloe; Great Wigston; Cleckheaton; Stevenston; and Swaffham and Leicester (four); to lie upon the Table.
  FEES FOR BURIAL SERVICES IN PAROCHIAL CEMETERIES.
  Petition from Bermondsey, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  MARINE INSURANCE BILL.
  Petition from Leith, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION IN TRADE.
  Petitions for legislation: from Coalville; Bridgewater; Faversham; Paisley;
  462
  Godalming; Banbury; Chipping Norton; Kilnhurst; Camelon; Lennoxtown; Bonnybridge; Sittingbourne; Teynham; Marsden; Harrow Road; Jarrow; Bridlington; Hartlepool; Carlisle; Guildford; Leicester (three); Great Wigston; Kirby Muxloe; Cleckheaton; and Stevenston; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Deddington: and Guildford; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary for Scotland by the Crofters' Commission on the social condition of the people of Lewis in 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES

  India—Claims of Sirdar Balvant Ramchandra Natu.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the claims of Sirdar Balvant Ramchandra Natu, of Poona, which were sent to the Secretary of the Governor of Bombay on 25th August, 1901, have yet been considered.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The answer is in the affirmative. On the 15th July last Sirdar Balvant Ramchandra Natu was informed that, as his communication of the 25th August, 1901, purported to be a notice under the Civil Procedure Code, Sec. 424, of his intention to file a suit against the Government, no further orders were deemed necessary.

  Indian Volunteers at the Coronation.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will say whether Government servants who took privilege leave in order to join the Indian Volunteer Contingent which came home for the Coronation have been informed that they will not receive any pay for the extra period of their

  463
  detention at home in consequence of the King's illness; and on what grounds this decision has been arrived at.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I am not aware that any such action has been taken by the Government of India, but I will make inquiries.

  Agricultural Banks in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will state what steps have been taken with a view to the establishment of agricultural banks in the various districts of India; have any such banks yet been established; and, if so, will he say where.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord. George Hamilton.) The Government of India appointed a Committee to examine and report on various schemes for establishing a general system of agricultural banks. The Committee reported in the autumn of 1901, and its recommendations are under consideration by the Government of India in communication with the local governments. Agricultural banks have been experimentally started in several districts in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh; but I have no statistics on the subject, nor can I say what action has been taken to establish such banks in other provinces in advance of the general scheme.

  Carriage of Petroleum on Railways.
  MR. SCOTT MONTAGU: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the new regulations proposed by the railway companies with reference to the carrying of petroleum spirit or petrol, making the consignors or consignees personally responsible for all claims directly or indirectly caused through the carriage of the said goods; and whether, in view of the fact that for many years these articles have been carried without any damage or accident, he will approach the railway companies with a view to the modification of the new regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have no information as to the new regulations referred to, but if my hon. friend will furnish me with particulars
  464
  I will consider whether the Board of Trade can usefully approach the railway companies in the matter.

  Imperial Yeomanry—Machine Guns.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when the issue of machine guns to regiments of the Imperial Yeomanry will be completed; and to how many regiments has the gun been already issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) It was not found possible to make provision in the current Estimates for the sum required for the issue of machine guns to all the Imperial Yeomanry. Up to date ten regiments have received guns, and four more are being supplied.

  Army Certificates of Character.
  MR. DAVID MACIVER: To ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the parchment certificate of character (Army Form B 2077) given to all soldiers who served in South Africa, whether he is aware that a rule exists that the men receiving these certificates should not permit them to leave their possession; and, seeing that the Post Office authorities have published a notice calling upon all of its staff returning from the Front to produce the certificates for the inspection of supervising officers, will he state if the men are entitled to obey this order.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) My hon. friend has been misinformed. There is no rule whatever forbidding soldiers to part with their character parchment certificate for proper purposes, and the Post Office authorities are exercising a very wise precaution in calling upon the men to produce their certificates.

  Imperial Yeomanry—Scarlet Fever in Natal.
  COLONEL WELBY: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that recently a battalion of Imperial Yeomanry infected with scarlet fever was moved into Newcastle, Natal, and no proper precautions of isolation taken; that the battalion remained

  465
  infected, and communicated the fever to other corps there, while fresh troops were moved into the place; that before the battalion was isolated a considerable force of all arms was infected, with the result that Indian drafts cannot be sent away, and illness and inconvenience have been caused; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to learning what medical officers are to blame.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am aware of the outbreak of scarlet fever among the troops at Newcastle, but I have no information at present of the cause. Measures have been taken to secure proper isolation. I have no information to the effect that drafts for India have been delayed. I am causing inquiries to be made as to the origin of the fever.

  Alleged Improper Sales at Remount Farms in South Africa.
  COLONEL WELBY: TO ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in his inquiries concerning the remount farms at Clark's Siding, South Africa, he will ascertain whether £1,000 worth of potatoes were grown on those farms during the Government leases and sold to private advantage; also, whether the lessor was allowed to change extra rent for stables, houses, and other buildings which were covered by the leases.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The inquiries being made will include these points.

  Remounts—Lord Lonsdale's Position.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Earl of Lonsdale was employed by him, or by his authority, in the supervision or purchase of remounts, and in what capacity; and does the War Office intend to confine its purchases to the ranks of commissioned officers, and to reject all outside expert advice or experience.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Lord Lonsdale was employed under the authority of the Yeomanry Committee in December, 1899. It has been considered desirable mainly to employ commissioned officers in connection with remount work, but there is no intention whatever of rejecting outside advice and experience.

  Parliamentary and Municipal Representation for Limited Trading Companies— Practice in the Colonies.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he would lay upon the Table of the House any information he may have received from the self-governing Colonies on the position of limited trading companies as to Parliamentary and municipal representation, with a view to showing whether such companies are entitled to vote by their directors or officers, and, if so, on what franchise; and as to the difference between municipal and Parliamentary representation; and if the lists of voters are prepared by a public or private authority; and whether revision courts are held, and by whom, for the consideration of claims to the Parliamentary and municipal electoral list.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I will give the information that I have received from the Colonies on this subject in reply to the questions suggested by the hon. Member.

  Pacific Islanders Resident in Queensland —Exemption from terms of Pacific Islands Labourers Act.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to his despatch addressed to the Governor of Queensland on the 30th August, 1902, whether he can inform the House as to the steps taken by His Majesty's Government to safeguard the interests of Pacific Islanders who have become residents of Queensland, and who will be liable, under the Pacific Islands Labourers Act, to exclusion from the privileges acquired by them as subjects of the Crown.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain) The necessity of dealing carefully with the interests of Pacific Islanders who have become resident in Queensland has been strongly pressed on the Commonwealth Government, and I am confident that they will carry out the law in a liberal spirit. A Despatch from the Governor General on the subject is on its way. I may add that I am not aware that any of these labourers have become subjects of the Crown.

  Flags on Private and Public Buildings.
  MR. MARTIN: To ask the First Lord of the

  467
  Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of issuing a warrant defining what is the correct flag to be flown on land by civilians, and what flag should be flown on public buildings and at schools in Great Britain and in the Colonies.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The questions which have been raised as to the proper use of flags have received careful consideration by the Government, but they are unable to adopt the course suggested. Nor does it appear desirable to undertake the legislation which would be necessary in order to regulate the general use by civilians, or any class of civilians, of any particular flag on land. It is a matter which is best left, as hitherto, to the guidance of custom and good taste.

  Education Bill—Ministers of Religion on the Central Educational Authority.
  MR. FREDERICK WILSON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if ministers of religion, who are precluded by law from serving on Town Councils, will be deprived by the Education Bill of the possibility of serving on the central educational authority.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) Clergymen of the Church of England, Priests of the Roman Catholic Church, and Nonconformist Ministers—(a) Can be members of County Councils; (b) Cannot be members of Town Councils; (c) Can be members of the Education Committee of the local education authority.

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South African War—Charges Against British Officers.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the charges, based upon sworn evidence read out in the Cape Parliament on the 28th August last by Mr. Merriman, against two British officers, stationed at Graaff Reinet, to the effect that they attempted in May last to induce a British subject, Paul Michan, by offering to withdraw certain charges against him, to give evidence of treasonable practices against Mr. Merriman and other members of the Cape Parliament; that, upon Michan's refusing to do so, he had been
  468
  thrown into prison after peace had been declared; and that on the same day charges against the same officers were made in the Cape Parliament by Mr. de Waal—which he offered to substantiate upon oath—the statement made to him personally by two Cape Colonists that similar inducements to give evidence were held out to them when in prison; and will he say whether the officers in question have been given an opportunity to make any explanation as to these charges; and, if so, when and with what results.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ford): I have no information on this subject beyond the published accounts of the proceedings in the Cape Parliament on the 28th August. A report will be called for.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know the names of these two officers? because I do.

  Army Schoolmasters.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the Report of the: Inter-Departmental Committee relative to Army schoolmasters, arrangements have yet been made for an adequate supply of teachers for Army schools; will he say whether children attending any of these schools receive denominational instruction; and, if so, will he state how that instruction is controlled.
  MR. BRODRICK: The provision of an adequate supply of teachers depends on the creation of increased accommodation at the Duke of York's school, which is under consideration. A special examination, however, will be held in December to increase the supply of teachers. As regards the rest of the Question, ministers of any denomination belonging to places of worship to which the troops march on Sundays, or their authorised curates, are at liberty to attend at the school for an hour on one or two days a week to give religious instruction to children of their respective persuasions.

  Coronation Medal for Soldiers Sent Home for the Coronation.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Regulars, who with the

  469
  Colonials were sent home from South Africa in the "Bavarian" for the Coronation, will, as well as the Colonials and Yeomanry, receive the Coronation medal.
  MR. BRODRICK: The reply is in the negative. The Colonials were contingents duly accredited to this country to take part in the Coronation, which they subsequently did, and therefore received the medal. The Regulars and Yeomanry representative units, owing to the postponement, did not take part in the Coronation, and therefore did not receive the medal. It should be remembered that the Coronation medal is a personal gift from the King, and the War Office has no control over the distribution.
  MAJOR RASCH: The men were duly selected, and it was not their fault that they were not present.

  Army Reserve.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the present position of the Army Reserve, and the effect on the numbers of the Reserve of the new proposals for the re-engagement of time-expired men.
  MR. BRODRICK: It would be very misleading to give any figures at the present moment, as many men are on furlough and have not yet joined the Reserve. The number of men who have rejoined the colours is at present very small. I hope to have approximately accurate figures as to the condition of the Reserve at the beginning of December.

  Sanitation at Hong Kong.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the full Reports of the medical and sanitary experts, Professor Simpson and Mr. Robert Chadwick, who recently visited Hong Kong in connection with the plague; and will he say whether it is proposed to remove some of the slum property in the Chinese quarter of the city, with a view to secure improved drainage and sufficient ventilation.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,: The answer to the
  470
  first part of the Question is in the negative; no general scheme for the removal of insanitary property in Hong Kong is at present before me.

  Congo Free State—Frontier Delimitation.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reason has been assigned by the German Government for the forcible seizure in September, 1900, by a German force, of that portion of the Congo Free State which had been leased by King Leopold of Belgium to Great Britain in 1894, and which was subsequently abandoned by Great Britain in deference to French and German objections; and do His Majesty's Government propose to acquiesce in that seizure.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE ROF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,: As I have already explained to my hon. friend on June 2nd last, the information we have received from the German Government does not include any mention of the incidents referred to in the Question. A delimitation of frontier in the region referred to is undoubtedly in course of being carried out. We have no reason to believe that Congolese rights over territory contiguous to our Protectorate have been affected.

  Great Britain and Germany—Secret Treaty.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether a secret treaty exists between Great Britain and Germany; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government propose at some, and, if so, at what future time, to communicate its terms to Parliament.
  LORD CRANBORNE: I am afraid I can only reply to my hon. friend to the same effect as in my answer upon the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, namely, that if there be such treaty, in the nature of the case I am precluded from communicating its terms. I hope that even if he finds this answer unsatisfactory, he will recognise that I can give no other.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The inevitable inference from this is that there is such a treaty.

  Germany and South Africa—Portuguese Possessions.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have made any treaty or convention or come to any agreement with Germany relative to Portuguese possessions in South Africa; if so, have the terms of any such treaty, convention, or agreement, been communicated to Portugal; and will they be communicated to this House, and when.
  LORD CRANBORNE: My right hon. friend and predecessor replied to a similar Question by my hon. friend on 1st February, 1900. † If I assure my hon. friend that it is impossible for me to make a fuller reply than was given upon that occasion, I hope he will accept it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I assume from that, that since that reply, no treaty engagements have been made with Germany in regard to Portuguese possessions in South Africa?
  LORD CRANBORNE: I am afraid I must ask for notice.

  Condition of European Turkey.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now lay upon the Table copies of the Reports addressed to Sir Nicholas O'Conor during the past eighteen months by His Majesty's consular officers in Macedonia; and whether he is able to give any information as to communications addressed by the Powers to the Porte with reference to the condition of European Turkey.
  LORD CRANBORNE: is Majesty's Government will consider whether the Papers mentioned can be presented. His Majesty's Government have urged on the Porte that while adequate measures should be taken for preventing disorders, anything in the nature of excessive or indiscriminate severity should
  † See (4) Debates, lxxviii., 282.
  472
  be carefully avoided. They believe that similar advice has been given by other Powers.

  Transvaal Loan.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government propose to introduce during this session a Bill guaranteeing a Transvaal loan; and, if so, can he state the purposes to which the proceeds of that loan are proposed to be applied.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,: No, Sir, it is not proposed to introduce a Transvaal Loan Bill this session. When one is introduced, of course the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks will be given.

  Registration Duty on Cereals.
  MR. JASPER MORE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the registration duty on imported cereals is paid on the quarter or the hundred-weight.
  MR. RITCHIE: If the hon. Member will look at the Schedule to the Finance Act, he will see that the duties on grain, etc., are calculated by the hundredweight.

  Corn Returns.
  MR. JASPER MORE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that farmers are anxious. to have official returns of malting, as distinguished from grinding, barley; whether there is any objection to ordering this double return as well as the present average composed of both; and, whether the same separate returns could be given of the best wheat as well as of inferior wheat.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,: The suggestion made by my hon. friend is one which has frequently been considered, although I have not recently received any representations from agricultural organisations on the subject. It was found to be very difficult, as I think my hon. friend would agree, to draw any

  473
  clear line of demarcation even between malting and grinding barley, and in the case of wheat there is only a mere graduation from good to inferior. The increased labour involved in the preparation of separate returns as proposed would moreover be very considerable, and legislation for the purpose of amending the Corn Returns Act would be necessary; but neither of them are insuperable objections if my hon. friend can show that the proposal is feasible and of real importance. As at present advised, I am afraid that it is not practicable for me to give effect to my hon. Friend's proposals.

  Religious Tests for Post Office Servants.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to an advertisement in the Belfast News Letter of 13th September for a young lady (Presbyterian) to take full charge of telegraph (sounder instrument) and postal duties at Leenane, county Galway, will he say whether it is the rule of the Department that religious tests are not to be applied; and can he say what is the proportion of Presbyterians to Roman Catholics in the village in question.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: My attention was not called to the advertisement in question till I saw the hon. and learned Member's Question. I am making inquiry on the subject, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  London Telegraphists and the Royal Progress.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the fact that Saturday, 25th October, has been declared a Bank Holiday in London, he will state if he has decided to give the London telegraphists the same concessions on the day in question as were granted to them on Coronation Day.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, the concessions granted will be the same as on Coronation Day. Telegraphists who are required to attend for duty on Saturday next within the County of London will receive either a day's pay or a day's leave at some future time.

  Stornoway Mail Service.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will state on how many occasions during the last three months the Stornoway mail steamer has been late in her arrival in Stornoway, and at Kyle and Mallaig on the return passage; will he say on how many occasions the delay has exceeded half-an-hour, and whether the penalty clause has ever been enforced; and, if not, will he explain why this has not been done.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: During July, August, and September last the mail steamer from Kyle reached Stornoway more than thirty minutes late nearly every day, but on nearly every occasion the mail train from the south was late in arriving at Kyle—frequently more than half-an-hour late. In the reverse direction the contract service ends at Kyle, and the steamer reached that place late on nine occasions only during the period in question, on seven of which the lateness exceeded half-an-hour. The penalty clause in the contract has not been enforced, as it was not considered to apply to the delays in question. At the same time, I am not satisfied with the manner in which the service has recently been performed, and I had already caused a communication to be addressed to the contractor on the subject.

  Hospital Accommodation in Lewis District.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that a man named Graham recently died of typhus fever in the populous district of Ness, Island of Lewis, and that the body remained uncoffined for three days; will he state whether arrangements can be made for speedy interment in cases such as this; and, seeing that the only fever hospital is at Stornoway, thirty miles distant, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of arranging for this district to be provided with a place for the isolation of persons suffering from typhus and other infectious diseases.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM-MURRAY,: The Local Government Board have ascertained

  475
  that no person of the name of Graham has been notified as having died of typhus fever at Ness. They learn, however, that an old man named Mackay died in that district of typhus on the morning of Sunday the 14th September, that intimation of his death was conveyed to Stornoway the same evening, that on Monday morning instructions were wired to have a coffin prepared, that on Tuesday an undertaker was sent from Stornoway, twenty-six miles distant, as the local undertaker would not coffin the body, and that about two o'clock on the same day the remains were coffined under the personal supervision of the chairman of the local authority—all within fifty-six hours after the man's death. The Board are satisfied that, in the circumstances, the arrangements for interment could not have been more expeditiously carried out, and they are assured that the local authority have made arrangements for interring as speedily as possible in such cases. The question of hospital accommodation for the Lewis District is a very difficult one, and is engaging the attention of the local authority and the Local Government Board.

  Crimes Act Prosecutions—Case of Thomas Maher.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a trial at Temple more, on 2nd October, at which two resident magistrates took part, when a week's imprisonment with hard labour was imposed in default of payment of a 5s. fine on Mr. Thomas Maher, a district councillor, for shouting "This is Sheridan's work"; and will he say on what grounds hard labour formed portion of the sentence on Mr. Maher.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,: Mr. Thomas Maher was, on the 1st September, tried with ten others before a Bench consisting of two resident and five ordinary magistrates under the Towns Improvement Act for the offence of riotous and indecent behaviour in the public streets. All those charged other than Maher were acquitted; he was convicted and fined 5s., with 1s. 6d. costs, with seven days imprisonment in default
  476
  of payment. Hard labour was not awarded at all, and the fine was paid on the 3rd instant.
  MR. DELANY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the indecent conduct consisted of?
  MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir.

  Hospital (Limerick) Roads.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of the public road in the town of Hospital, County Limerick; and seeing that, since the late contract expired about four months ago, no repairs have been made to the road, and having regard to the condition of the road from Hospital to Knocklong, will he take steps to remedy the matter.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,: It is the duty of County and District Councils, as the case may be, to keep all public works in good condition and repair, and to take all steps necessary for that purpose. The Local Government Board has power to take action with a view to remedy any default on the part of the local authority in the matter, provided complaint is made to the Board under Section 32 of the Local Government Act, 1898.

  Labourers' Cottages in the Macroom Union.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an application by a labourer named William Creedon for a cottage and plot of land on the farm of Jeremiah Creedon, Parthanknuck, in the Ullanes electoral division of the Macroom Union, was sanctioned at a sworn inquiry held in April, 1901, and the site marked out and approved by the Engineering Inspector of the Local Government Board; I and will he explain why the house was subsequently rejected although the applicant's present abode was condemned as unfit for habitation.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are not accurately stated in the first part of the Question. The Inspector disapproved of the site selected for the cottage, and the District Council was so informed. The case cannot now be re-opened, the Provisional Order having been made absolute; but it will be open to the Council to renew the application, in respect of another site, when proposing a fresh scheme.

  Hard Labour Sentences under the Crimes Act.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the addition of hard labour to a sentence of imprisonment inflicted under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, carrying with it prohibition of service on any local body for five years, it is intended to continue to inflict such addition to sentences for political offences on local representatives.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The disqualification is statutory in Ireland, as in England, under the Local Government Acts applicable to the two countries. Sentences within the limits prescribed by the Criminal Law and Procedure Act of 1887 are imposed by resident magistrates subject to revision on appeal by County Court judges. Those who act in either of these judicial capacities impose sentences in accordance with the gravity of each particular offence proved to have been committed. I decline to accept the suggestion that they harbour any intentions of a general character.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases this effect of imposing hard labour has been pointed out to the magistrates?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. MACVEAGH: Have not two removable magistrates actually announced that they did not know this was the law of Ireland?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Irish Executions—Rules.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the new rules which he has issued for regulating the execution of capital sentences in Ireland, the rule which requires that the executioners shall remain in the prison after the execution, and until permission is given them to leave, is intended to give power to the sheriff, the coroner, or the governor, or to any other person, and, if so, to whom, to detain the executioners for attendance at the inquest should their presence be required by the coroner; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that executioners on two occasions in Cork disregarded the summons of the coroner to appear and give evidence, he will see that powers are given the coroners to detain executioners and compel them to give evidence if required.
  MR. WYNDHAM: These rules are identical in all respects with the rules which obtain in this country. I see no reason for enlarging their scope. The coroner is the only person who can compel an executioner to appear at an inquest, but, under paragraph 5 of the rules, he can be held at the disposal of the coroner by the prison governor.
  MR. DELANY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if he proposes to hang many Irish Members?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in two cases in Cork, although the coroner desired the attendance of the executioner, the sheriff had sent him away to England, and he refused to come back? Seeing that the law has not been carried out, and that there is no record of how the convicts died, will the right hon. Gentleman at least give us some guarantee that unfortunate people are not executed with undue severity?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think there is any need to make a special rule for Irish coroners which does not apply to English coroners.

  Case of Mr. O'Flanagan, J. P.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended

  479
  to hold a sworn inquiry into the case of Mr. O'Flanagan, J. P., Chairman of the District Council of Cordfin, who was recently sentenced to four months imprisonment with hard labour under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, and who is now an inmate of a lunatic asylum.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no objection to a sworn inquiry into the prison discipline of Limerick Prison, or the sanitation of that prison, or the medical treatment which Mr. O'Flanagan received, whether in prison prior to his falling ill, or in the county infirmary, where symptoms of typhoid were developed, provided that the hon. and gallant Member will indicate whether he desires the inquiry to be directed to any or all of these questions, or to others. I should, however, say that I have a report from Dr. Woodhouse, the Medical Member of the General Prisons Board, dated September 18th, which deals with the circumstances of Mr. O'Flanagan's illness and its melancholy consequences, and also a report of an inquiry in August by the Medical Inspector of the Local Government Board on the outbreak of typhoid fever in the city of Limerick. I am prepared to lay these on the Table of the House, since the hon. and gallant Member may consider, on reading them, that a case for further inquiry does not arise. I have no objection to a further sworn inquiry.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the extreme gravity of this case, and the great excitement it has caused in the neighbourhood from which Mr. O'Flanagan comes, he will have the inquiry held without delay?
  MR. POWER: And will the Press be admitted?
  MR. WYNDHAM: All the facts are contained in the two reports I have referred to. I have said I have no objection to a sworn inquiry if one is desired.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: But will it be held without delay?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must first have a specific statement of the points on which inquiry is desired. I have suggested four of them, but if the hon. Member has others in mind perhaps he will put a Question down and I will consider it.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: We want the whole case inquired into, the circumstances connected with the outbreak of typhoid, the prison treatment of the man, his condition at the time he was received, and in fact everything connected with it.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have said that I have not the slightest objection.
  MR. POWER: What about publicity?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the inquiry be open to the Press and the public?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of that. I will do my best to secure the utmost publicity in regard to the circumstances of this case, a publicity which I should welcome, as a great deal of prejudice has been aroused which I should like to see dispelled.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Who is to hold the inquiry?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The Question has been fully answered.

  Sentences under the Crimes Act.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many Members of this House were sentenced to terms of imprisonment with hard labour, by Courts sitting under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act of 1887 between July in that year and September, 1892. How many Members have been sentenced to hard labour by such courts from November, 1901, to the present time. How many persons have been sentenced by such courts to further terms of imprisonment in default of giving bail to be of good behaviour between 1887 and November, 1892, and of these how many were Members of this House. And how

  481
  many persons have been sentenced to further terms in default of bail since November, 1901, and of these how many were Members of this House.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Parliamentary Paper No. 158 of 1889 shows that up to May 16th of that year two Members of this House, Mr. Thomas Condon (East Tipperary) and Mr. Edward Harrington were sentenced to two months imprisonment with hard labour (7th February, 1889) and six months with hard labour (31st December, 1888) respectively. A third Member, Dr. Tanner, was sentenced to hard labour on July 29th, 1889. I have, on my present information, no reason to believe that hard labour was imposed on any hon. Member at a later date. From November, 1901, to the present time, six hon. Members have been sentenced to hard labour by the Court of First Instance, in two cases the hard labour was remitted on appeal. The appeals in the other four cases are pending. In reply to the third paragraph, the number of persons sentenced to further terms of imprisonment, in default of giving bail, between 1887 and 1892, was 106, of whom two (Mr. William O'Brien, Cork City, August 26th, 1889, and Mr. Gilhooly, Cork West, same date) were Members of this House. Since November, 1901, thirty persons have been sentenced to further terms in default of bail, and of these five are Members of Parliament. In the case of one Member the further term was remitted on appeal.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to his figures of 1,601 given the other day?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, applicable to all persons, including Members of Parliament.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: In view of the fact that it happened that all the removable magistrates began exactly at the same time to give hard labour, will the right hon. Gentleman state on what date he issued instructions to them to do so?
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope hon. Members will allow Questions to proceed. That Question does not arise out of the Question on the Paper, and notice must be given of it.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Sir, may I, as a matter of personal explanation, beg leave to say that I utterly repudiate the suggestion that I gave any such instructions? [NATIONALIST cries: "It is true."
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What about your agent?
  MR. O'SHEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the discrepancy—[MINISTERIAL cries of "Order."]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order order! The Question on the Paper has been fully answered. If the hon. Member wishes for further particulars, he can put down a Question on the subject. I quite understand that this subject excites deep interest among hon. Members below the gangway, but still I hope that they will remember the Rule that Questions must be relevant to, and arise out of, the Question on the Paper.
  MR. O'SHEE: Mr. Speaker, kindly allow me to put my Question, and if it is not in order, I will bow to your ruling.
  MR. SPEAKER: After what I have said, I will trust that the hon. Member will not put a Question which does not really arise.
  MR. O'SHEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the discrepancy between the number of Members of this House asked to give bail in addition to the sentence of hard labour imposed on them in the period from 1887 to 1892, and the period from November last to the present time?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is an argument arising upon the answer; it is asking for an explanation of the facts, or what the hon. Member thinks are the facts.

  Blacksod Bay.
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the agreement arrived at between the British and Canadian Governments, whereby a subsidy of £225,000 a year for ten years

  483
  (£75,000 a year from the British Government and £150,000 a year from the Canadian Government) is to be given for the purpose of subsidising a line of steamers running between Liverpool and Canada, and seeing that Blacksod Bay, in the West of Ireland, is the nearest point in the United Kingdom to Canada, he will use his influence with the Government with a view to making Blacksod Bay a port of call for, at least, the mails between Canada and Great Britain.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No such agreement has been concluded.

  Rae Estate, Killorglin.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the inspector who visited the Rae Estate, Killorglin, county Kerry, has yet made his report; and whether he can state what is the cause of the delay in the sale of this estate.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The report has been made to the Land Commissioners, who are now considering the report to be made by them to the Land Judge.

  Sergeant Sullivan, Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland where is Sergeant Sullivan, who was tried for perjury, now stationed; and what is his present rank in the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. WYNDHAM: At Dunshaughlin, Co. Meath, with the rank of sergeant.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it a promotion? What grade of sergeant is he in at present?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will see that does not arise. The Question was where is he stationed, and what is his rank.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Yes, Sir; but I understand that there are three grades of sergeant, and I want to know which is Sullivan's grade. Is it the same as when he was charged with perjury in the West of Ireland, or has he been promoted?
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member wants knowledge as to the distinctions in rank, he must put down a Question.
  MR. DELANY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will promote Sullivan to the position of removable magistrate, for which he is eminently qualified?

  Irish Affairs—Nationalist Demand for a General Discussion.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is yet in a position to say if he will provide time for the discussion of the grave state of Ireland asked for by the Irish Members; and, if so, when.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene, with a view of facilitating the action of the right hon. Gentleman. I had the opportunity of stating on Monday what my view of this matter is, and I said that I cordially supported the claim of the Irish Members. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand him, on this Irish question, which is not, of course, exclusively, but certainly supremely Irish, declines to give a day for discussion on the mere request of the Irish Members, and will only give it if a Scotchman or an Englishman asks him for it. As I am possessed of that qualification [Cries of "Which?"] I am glad to join in making the request.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,: The right hon. Gentleman does indeed appear to have facilitated my answer to the hon. Gentleman. He is mistaken, however, in supposing that I refused a day to the Irish Members because they were Irish Members, or that I am prepared to give it to the right hon. Gentleman because he happens to be a Scotchman. I give it to the right hon. Gentleman because he speaks, as I understand him, as Leader of the Opposition, and on behalf, not of a section of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but of those hon. Gentlemen as a whole, as a body in this House. The right hon. Gentleman desires that there should be a Motion put down on the Paper and discussed, which of course from

  485
  the very nature of the case would be a Vote of Censure, and under those circumstances I am ready, as I have always expressed myself ready, to give the opportunity which the right hon. Gentleman desires. I suppose, perhaps, a week's notice should be given, and this day week would be a convenient day. A Vote of Censure is sufficiently important not to be taken without some notice, and subject to anything the right hon. Gentleman may have to say I shall propose to devote this day week to the Resolution he desires to move.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I be allowed to say that while, of course, we accept the time the right hon. Gentleman is going to give us, we do not concede our right, as representatives of Ireland, to claim to get time for the discussion of the affairs of that country.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that there is some special disability in this matter attaching to Irish Members. I can assure him he has entirely misinterpreted everything that I have said and thought on the subject. I should equally have declined to give a day to any section of hon. Gentlemen opposite unless it had been understood——
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: We are a distinct Party; we are no section. We represent a nation.
  MR. CONDON: We are a Party; we are not a section.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: For the word "section" I would substitute the word "fraction." I should equally have declined to give a day to any fraction of hon. Gentlemen opposite unless it had been supported by the official Opposition. I give it because it has been asked for by the Leader of the Opposition, who proposes to move a Vote of Censure.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No. All I do is—I might almost say, at the instigation and the solicitation of the right hon. Gentleman—to join in asking for a day for the discussion of this matter. The Motion properly and naturally comes from the representatives of Ireland.
  486
  With regard to fixing a particular day, will the right hon. Gentleman reserve the matter for a final decision?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will certainly reserve it, but there seems to be a little ambiguity and difficulty introduced into the discussion by the last remark of the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, it would not be proper for me to dictate who is to move the Resolution. That is a matter entirely to be settled by the Opposition themselves. But it must be distinctly understood that the right hon. Gentleman does not simply come forward as an amicus curiœ, merely because he wants to see a discussion take place; it must be understood that the Motion is arranged under his auspices; that it is in the nature of a condemnation of the Government; and that it is officially supported by the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What I have asked for, and continue to ask for, is that an opportunity should be afforded to the Irish Members to challenge the administration of affairs in Ireland, and to the Government to make a statement of the reasons which have led them to adopt the steps which they are now following in Ireland. Then the House can pronounce its opinion upon the subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I really think the right hon. Gentleman had better make up his mind.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: You had better make up yours.
  MR. MACVEAGH: This is not a debating society.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUK: I think it would be for everybody's convenience that there should be a clear issue on this point, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot go further—if he really cannot take the full plunge this afternoon—I think we had better defer this.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman, departing, I think, somewhat from his usual courtesy, taxed me with not having made up my mind, when I have not altered my statement or opinion from the first. What

  487
  I have done I have described to the House. The right hon. Gentleman having stated that he would not give this day, which I think ought to be given, at the instance of the Irish Members, I am willing to do them and the House and the public and the good government of Ireland the service of joining in asking for a day. The Motion will be an Irish Motion, and it will be for the House to pronounce its opinion upon it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the last thing I wanted to do was to show discourtesy to him, and if anything I have said can be so interpreted I was quite unconscious of it, and I at once withdraw and apologise. But may I again repeat exactly what I feel the circumstances to be? It is, so far as the Government and this side of the House are concerned, a matter of complete indifference whether the Resolution, for which, if it be a Vote of Censure, I am prepared to give time, is moved by an Irish Member or by the right hon. Gentleman himself, or any one on the Front Bench. If I may offer an opinion, I think it possible that the most convenient course would be that an Irish Member should move it, as being especially acquainted with that side of the case. But that is no affair of mine. What is an affair of mine—and the right hon. Gentleman will see that I am really doing this in the interests of what I regard as the general principles of Parliamentary practice—is that it should be understood that, whoever moves the Motion, it should be adopted by the Opposition as a whole, not by every individual, of course, but by the Opposition as a whole, that it is in the nature of a direct condemnation of the conduct of the Government, and that it is supported officially by right hon. Gentlemen on that Bench.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I only wish to say that I entirely repudiate, on behalf of my hon. friends, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that we must submit our Motion to the censorship, the revision, or the approval of any Party in this House, and I am perfectly sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will put forward no such preposterous and insulting demand. The right hon.
  488
  Gentleman the Leader of the House has apologised for any discourtesy as unintentional in his language towards the Leader of the Opposition. May I say that he has, I think, quite unintentionally, employed towards us, and, which is more important, our country, most insulting language. We claim to be a nation, and we regard the use of such words as "section" or "faction," as a deliberate insult to a nation whose civilisation, I may say, preceded and may also succeed that of this country.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I appear to be very unfortunate in my expressions. I think the hon. Gentleman will see, if he will permit me to explain, that the very last meaning my words were susceptible of was the suggestion of insult to himself, his friends, or his country. I was trying to describe what I conceived to be the proper course for the Opposition as a whole. Talking of the Opposition as a whole, I described the representatives from Ireland as a section. [NATIONALIST cries: "You said 'faction'"] whereupon the hon. Member for Cork interrupted me with great vehemence and repudiated the phrase "section." Thereupon I cast about me for a more neutral phrase, and I used a word which, at all events in my school days, I never thought had a political, religious, or specially national reference. The word was "fraction" [NATIONALIST cries: "You said 'faction.'"] Ever since I have been connected with fractions at school I have thought the word purely neutral in its reference. I used it on this occasion because it simply connotes the fact that eighty Irish Gentlemen are only a certain portion of the total number of the Opposition, which amounts, I think, to about 260. The date of the civilisation of Ireland, which I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman preceded that of this barbaric country, really docs not invalidate the fact that eighty is only a fraction of 260. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing but that pure statement of fact was intended to be implied by what I said.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I said I did not think the right hon. Gentleman intended discourtesy; I only said that his language must be regarded by us as insulting language which could not be allowed to pass without protest. But

  489
  I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman what is really a much more important matter than his language—are we or are we not, after this tangled conversation, to understand that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to the representatives of Ireland a day for the discussion of the exercise of coercion in their country?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hoped that I had been lucid in my explanation, and that there was hardly anything to be added. I am perfectly ready to give a day to the Opposition for the discussion of a Motion condemnatory of the Government's Irish policy. I did not ask that that Motion should be placed in the hands of an English Member, or even seen by an English Member, or subjected to revision by the right hon. Gentleman, or to any of the processes to which the hon. Gentleman appears to object; all I say is that it must be put on the Paper as a Motion of the Opposition as a whole, and intended to be supported by them as a whole.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I may recall to the right hon. Gentleman the familiar lines:—
  "The Spanish fleet thou canst not see—because It is not yet in sight."
  This Motion is not in sight. I do not know what Motion may be made by the Irish Members; and he invites those sitting in this part of the House to pledge themselves to support a Motion of the terms of which they are totally ignorant. No, Sir, I stand by what I have said already. We think it is the duty of the Government to give this day. We think it is scandalous that it should be refused; and we shall form our opinion upon the case made out by the Irish Members and the Government respectively.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: May I suggest that it is about time to drop the subject? If we are not going to get a day given to us, it is just possible that we may be able to take it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. gentleman is perfectly at liberty to do anything consistent with the Rules of the House. As regards the observations from
  490
  the right hon. Gentleman opposite, would not the best course be, in these circumstances, to wait till the Resolution is put down on the Paper, and then he can inform me and the House of the view which he takes?
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the House that there is no Question before it.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Then I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he has observed that the President of the United States of America has addressed a message of sympathy to the United Irish League Convention at Boston, and whether, in view of the future relations between this country and America, he can make any announcement that this country is not indisposed to learn wisdom as to Irish affairs from President Roosevelt, as the head of a great friendly nation—the greatest nation in the world.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLrose.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This discussion must cease.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I must press for an answer today.
  MR. SPEAKER: I followed the hon. Member's Question. It is not a Question that was in order or could have been put on the Paper. It is not a Question asking for information.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: On the question of order, Mr. Speaker, allow me to submit that a message by the President of the United States—[Interruption]—you are not going to closure the President of the United States here. [Renewed interruption.] I submit that this message——
  MR. SPEAKER: I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to let me at least hear what the hon. Gentleman is going to say.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Thank you, Sir. I was about to submit to you that this message of the President of the United States of America is an international fact of the first importance to the future of this country, and that it would not be a friendly thing to the

  491
  head of a great nation like the Americans that his message should be treated as if the disposition were to avenge his insult to the Chief Secretary and to his "removables" in Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to consider the matter important, but it is not the subject-matter of a Question at Question time.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg, then, to ask leave of the House to move the adjournment for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—videlicet, the important question as to the future relations between this country and the United States raised by the message of President Roosevelt to the convention of the United Irish League in Boston.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am precluded by the Standing Orders from accepting that Motion for the Adjournment. I am prohibited from accepting any Motion which is not a definite matter of urgent public importance. The relations between this country and the United States of America are not a definite matter. They might cover an immensely wide field of argument. If the hon. Member were to look at the precedents he would find that Motions of that description have always been refused from the Chair under the Standing Order.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I respectfully put it to you that the Motion does not deal with the general relations of this country and the United States, but with a definite matter?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have just decided that point, and I have no doubt as to the correctness of my view. I cannot allow the subject to be re-opened. I assure the hon. Member I am always ready to accept any Motion from any quarter of the House which is in conformity with the Standing Order.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: The fault is none of yours, Mr. Speaker, but I hope it will be noted in America that American opinion and Irish opinion are closured and gagged in this House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the business will be tomorrow night?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Tomorrow both at the morning and evening sitting, we shall discuss education; also on Friday.

NEW BILL
  INNKEEPERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Liability of Innkeepers," presented by Mr. Broadhurst, under Standing Order No. 31; supported by Mr. Gretton, Mr. Bousfield, Sir Brampton Gurdon, Mr. Levy, Mr. Seely, and Sir John Brunner; to be read a second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 299.]

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 8:—
  MR. BRYCE(3.0) MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.) moved—
  "In page 3, line 7, after 'conditions,' to insert 'and provisions.'"
  The right hon. Gentleman said that 'provisions" appeared to be the more appropriate term as far as some of the items were concerned.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEformally moved—
  "In page 3, line 7, after 'conditions,' to insert 'are complied with.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BRYCEhad on the Paper the following Amendment—
  "In page 3, line 7, at end, insert—(a) The managers or trustees of any school which, by its trust deed, is to be used for the purposes of instruction as an elementary school shall transfer the school buildings to the local education authority either by way of lease for

  493
  a term of years renewable for ever or absolutely, pursuant to Section 23 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and shall not be entitled to receive any consideration for such transfer other than a nominal rent by way of acknowledgment in case such buildings are transferred by lease. Provided that such managers or trustees may reserve, out of such transfer, to trustees to be nominated by them for that purpose, the use of the school buildings when the same are not being used for school purposes, and may provide for the giving of any religious instruction, over and above that which may be given by the teachers, either before the opening or after the close, or both before the opening and after the close, of the ordinary school hours under the direction either of the last hereinbefore mentioned trustees or of such person or persons as the last-mentioned trustees may from time to time appoint."
  THE CHAIRMAN: said that this Amendment was not in order, because it would negative what has gone before. The local education authority are to maintain the schools on certain conditions, but the first condition the right hon. Gentleman proposes to insert is that the schools should cease to exist.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the Amendment need not necessarily carry that interpretation. He was dealing simply with the question of the property in the schools, and the Amendment did not raise the question which the Chairman seemed to apprehend.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that the phrase "provided by" was accepted, subject to a definition to be inserted later.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said he desired, on a point of order, to submit that the Amendment was inconsistent with words which had been already passed. They were now dealing with schools not provided by the local authority, and the effect of the Amendment, which referred specifically to Section 23 of the Act of 1870, would be to make such schools provided schools.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he did not think that the Attorney General could justify the point he had taken. There was nothing in the Amendment which affected the trust under which the property was held by the trustees. It was really a question as to where
  494
  the legal estate in the schools should be vested; and, therefore, he submitted that the Amendment was in order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, because the Amendment states that any school, which by its trust deed is to be used for the purposes of instruction as an elementary school, shall be used for other purposes. It seems to me as if I had undertaken to keep something alive on certain conditions, and that the first condition I proposed was that it should be killed.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the Amendment would not have that effect. It provided that the buildings should continue to be held under the trust, but in the particular manner indicated. There was nothing more in the Amendment than was in Section 23 of the Act of 1870.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think it would convert non-provided schools into provided schools.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked if the Amendment would not be in order if it read that the managers "shall, if the local authority think fit." That would give the local authority power to exercise an option, and if the option were not exercised the Amendment would be necessary.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he would be prepared to accept that Amendment to his Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think that would be a very fine difference. It seems to me it would be ridiculous, when defining the conditions under which a school is to be kept alive, to propose as the first condition that it should cease to exist.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he saw that point, and accepted the ruling of the Chair with reference to it. The Amendment of his right hon. friend, according to the ruling of the Chair, was, in effect, that the schools should be extinguished; but the proposal he (Mr. Lloyd-George) proposed to submit was an entirely different one. It was simply to give to the local authority the option of taking over the schools, not that the schools should be extinguished. In that case the provision would be necessary in order to conduct the schools not taken over.
  MR. A. T. BALFOURsaid that if the Amendment were accepted, it would give the local authority the option of not maintaining, but destroying, the non-provided schools.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that his Amendment intended that non-provided schools should be maintained. The Amendment which he desired to move only related to the building—it related to nothing but the building. Consequently, what the Committee had already determined with regard to provided schools did not touch this point.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think that if there is to be an option in the local education authority the option ought to be inserted after the words "local education authority." We had a discussion as to whether there should be an option or not when the discussion took place on the question to leave out "shall" and insert "may," and the Committee decided that there should be no option.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for the Otley Division which he proposed to move dealt with an important point, and ought to have the consideration of the House. It was—
  "In page 3, line 7, at end insert—(a) If the managers of any such school shall not fulfil the conditions which must be fulfilled in order that the annual Parliamentary grant may be obtained, the liability of the local education authority to maintain such school shall cease, and such school shall no longer be deemed to be a public elementary school."
  But, before moving that Amendment, he desired to ask, upon a point of order, whether the raising of this question here would prevent the subsequent discussion which might take place upon an Amendment, which was put down upon the Paper to come in at the end of the Clause, as to the general penalties to be imposed for failing to comply with any of the conditions in Clause 8. He raised that point of order because he did not wish to exclude the discussion on sub-Section 2.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Which Amendment is the hon. Gentleman referring to?
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he referred to the last Amendment but one on page
  496
  42 of the White Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rossendale, namely—
  "In page 3, line 35, at end, add—(4) If the persons providing the school make default in performing the duties imposed upon them by sub-section (1) (d) of this section, the local authority may, with the consent of the Board of Education, undertake the discharge of such duties, and shall be entitled thereafter, so long as they shall think fit, to use the school buildings and premises for the purposes of a public elementary school, paying nevertheless for such use to the persons providing the school a fair rent, to be determined in case of dispute by the Board of Education, and the school shall thenceforth be deemed to have been provided by the local education authority."
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is quite clear that it would be useless to have the discussion twice over, but I must leave the hon. Member to decide whether he takes the discussion now or later. So far as the point of order goes, I see no objection to moving that if certain things are not conditions they shall be made so.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the Committee had already passed words providing that the liability to maintain existed only so long as these conditions were complied with.
  MR. BRIGGcalled attention to the fact that he also had an Amendment down on page 38 of the Paper dealing with the same matter.
  MR. DUNCANsaid that, as the Amendment proposed to be moved by his hon. friend the Member for Rugby stood in his name, he would like to say that, as he understood, the conditions which had been discussed on a previous occasion were not quite the same as those in the Amendment which he had put down, but related rather to the conditions to be observed for obtaining the Parliamentary grant.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYexplained that this matter also was dealt with, because the Committee passed the words "public elementary schools," and under the Act of 1870 a school ceased to be a public elementary school if the conditions necessary to obtain the grant were not observed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is the law as it at present exists. If a school docs not fulfil the conditions necessary in order to obtain the Parliamentary grant it ceases to be a public elementary school; therefore the Amendment is unnecessary.
  MR. WHITLEYsubmitted that the present position was that if a school violated the conditions necessary for obtaining the Parliamentary grant it did not get the grant. What happened then was that the local authority was still liable to maintain it, and the fine was upon the ratepayers, who lost the grant but had still to maintain the school.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the words of the Section already passed made it obligatory for the local authority to maintain public elementary schools. If the conditions were not observed the school ceased to be a public elementary school.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid the school would not cease to be a public elementary school simply because it lost its grant.
  SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid his Amendment carried the question much further. It provided that if a school did not obtain its grant it should still be maintained by the local authority, and so become a school provided by the authority.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That does not arise out of this Amendment. This Amendment does not alter the present state of the law, and if it does not alter the present state of the law it appears to be unnecessary. The first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Sowerby Division ought to come up as a separate question. The second Amendment has been already determined by Clause 7. The next Amendment on the Paper has also been determined by Amendment made. Then, there is an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rugby to insert, at the end of line 7,
  "(a) The managers of the school shall make provision to the satisfaction of the local education authority for religious instruction based upon reading of the Bible: provided that no religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught or used."
  498
  The Committee has already decided that the local authorities have no control over religious instruction.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked would it be in order for the hon. Member to move the second part of the Amendment. The first part had been disposed of but not the second, and he submitted that it would be in order to move the second part.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The local education authority would have to decide whether any "religious catechism or religious formulary" was used. That would give the control. It ought not to be inserted here.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid it had nowhere been decided that there should not be control over religious instruction.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That question was raised and debated on a Motion made to leave out the word "secular."
  MR. M'KENNAsaid that that would be complete control over religious instruction. What was proposed here was partial control.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The debate was taken upon the question whether religious and secular instruction were both to be under the control of the local authority.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, because he thought sub-Section (a) raised the point upon which they came to close quarters as to what was the position of the managers under this Bill. The number of managers was settled by Clause 7, but there was no definition there of the things they had power to do and what they had not power to do. That was intended to be settled by Clause 8, but the structure of the Bill had been altered by the reconstruction of Clause 7. As the Clause originally stood there was a reference to the position of the managers under the Act of 1870, but that had now disappeared from the Bill, and therefore there was no indication that the

  499
  managers under the Bill were in any respect in the situation of the managers under the Act of 1870. The Act of 1870 gave no particular powers to the managers, who were usually the proprietors of the schools, and they were only in the position of private persons who earned grants by the fulfilment of the conditions proposed. The situation was now altogether altered. The managers admittedly were not managers in the sense that was understood under the Act of 1870, and it was to be regretted that the word "managers" should have been applied in this case. These persons were a totally different class of persons, with different attributes and different duties altogether. What the Committee desired to know exactly was, what were the powers of these managers, and what were their duties, and whether they had any powers or duties except those contained in Section 8. The practical working of the Bill, especially in the rural districts, would depend entirely upon the managers. Anyone who considered the character and situation of the rural schools was bound to see that the management must be conducted by the people on the spot. The education authority would meet in the county town, many miles from most of the rural schools. The Committee who were to be the legislative authority of the County Council would also in all probability meet in the county town; they could not be distributed among the thousands of rural parishes. The direction of the business of the schools would therefore have to be done by the managers. What he wanted to know was in whose hands that management was to be. With reference to the provided schools, it was entirely in the hands of the education authority, as that authority would appoint its own managers and masters. But in half the schools of England, according to the Bill, the management was not to be in the hands of persons appointed by the education authority. In his speech at Manchester, the First Lord of the Treasury, referring to the existing state of education, asked what any foreign nation would think of such a system. They would, of course, object to any system under which half the elementary schools in the country were private
  500
  concerns, but they would be even more astonished that when the Government were setting up a national system of public education they did not give the education authority the right to appoint the managers and teachers in the schools. That, however, was the system proposed by the Bill. In half the elementary schools in the country the education authority, so far from having any general control, was so constituted that, in regard to religious education, it was to have no control at all. A statutory majority of the managers, appointed entirely outside the national education authority, was to deal with the question of religious education, and the education authority, both in its entirety and through its representative upon the management, was to have nothing to say in the matter. Sub-Clause (a) dealt with the managers and secular education, and the Committee were told that in regard to secular education the managers were to be under the control of the education authority. But how would the scheme actually work? The education authority was to have one representative out of six on the management. The remaining five were not to be under its control at all, and yet the education authority was said to have sole control of the secular education. The first question he desired to ask was, as the education authority was to have no right of interference with religious education, what right or authority were the private managers to have over secular education? What was to be their function in the matter? The Attorney General had said the managers would act as a whole. If they acted as a whole they would place the education authority in a statutory minority. Was it intended that the managers, who were in no respect under the appointment of the education authority, should interfere with secular education? That was really a critical question when they came to consider the meaning of the assertion that the control of secular education was in the hands of the education authority, and it was one upon which everybody wanted to be informed. This authority was not derived from anything that formerly existed, because in former times these

  501
  were private venture schools, receiving certain grants on certain conditions, but in all other respects entirely their own masters. That, professedly, was not to be the case in future. There was to be a national system under a central education authority. The only way in which the education authority could have complete control was through its own agents or representatives. That control was impossible if the work was to be carried on through agents, with regard to whom the education authority had no executive power or power of dismissal. That complete control ought to be in the hands of managers representing the education authority, whereas it was obvious on the face of the Bill itself that the control was in the hands of persons not representative of the authority. But let the Committee consider how the scheme would work. The education authority would give instructions to its representatives on the management to propose certain things in regard to secular education. Suppose the management by its majority refused to accept those directions, by what right could that statutory majority dispute the instructions? By sub-Section 2 any dispute between the managers and the authority was to be referred to the Board of Education, so that the right of the managers to dispute the directions was assumed. But if the sole control of secular education was to be in the education authority, what right had those who were not representatives of that authority to interfere in the matter at all? Secular education was the main business of the school, religious education being confined to a very limited portion of school hours. If in regard to that secular education the local authority was to have undisputed and indisputable control, what were the other managers to do during the greater part of the day? What voice or authority were they to have? If the Bill intended to give the sole control to the education authority, the other managers had no business or authority whatever during the main portion of school hours. That was the religious education with which they did not allow the education authority to interfere. By what right were those persons to interfere in secular education which the Government said was to be
  502
  entirely at the disposal and under the control of the education authority, and therefore their representatives and agents? The other managers were not the agents of the education authority at all. It was said that they were to carry out the instructions given to them, but those instructions ought to be carried out by the persons who were the usual channel of instruction. This involved the daily work of the secular education of the school, upon which questions would arise and must arise. He was aware that the First Lord of the Treasury had put down an Amendment in the following terms—
  "Where the managers of a school fail to carry out any direction of the local education authority under this section as to the secular instruction to be given in the school, that authority shall, in addition to their other powers, have the power themselves to carry out the direction in question as if they were the managers."
  The only way in which the education authority could carry out such a direction would be for them to carry it out themselves, as if they were the managers. How were they to carry out such a direction except by an agent or a representative of their own? Who was to determine whether the managers of the school had failed to carry out that direction? How was that going to be ascertained? Was this Amendment to supersede sub-Section 2, because that sub-Section allowed a dispute to be raised upon the question of whether the directions were or were not right which were given by the education authority to the managers, and that was to go to the Education Department at Whitehall. What right had the managers to raise the question at all? If the education authority was supreme, then the directions of the representative of that authority ought to be unquestioned. When this Bill was first launched, it was said that the education authority would have sole control, and that they would be able to bring public opinion to bear as against the action of the majority of the managers, but calling public opinion to bear against the executive was not having sole control. Therefore, the whole conception of this proposal was contrary to the idea of control being given to the education authority. He had put this Amendment down in order that they might have a clear statement from the

  503
  Government of what they considered to be the rights, if any, of intervention or interference on the part of any of those managers, except the representative of the Education Department with regard to secular education. There was another point which he thought had not yet received a satisfactory explanation, and that was how far the Education Department under their Code would still govern secular education in those schools. They had not yet had a clear statement upon that point. The late representative of the Education Department in this House said it was a very good thing that each education authority should form its own opinion as to the subjects to be taught. If that were so, he should like to have a clear answer upon it. In answer to an observation reminding the right hon. Gentleman of a statement he made in a speech at Bradford, he said that he wanted the education authority to have a variety in their subjects, but the Education Department would fix the standard. But supposing that the education authority fixed a very low list of subjects, was the Education Department in London to interfere with regard to the subjects taught as well as in the standards to be applied to the subjects? That was a very important matter, upon which they had not yet had any information. He wanted to know whether the authority of the representative of the education authority was to be as exclusive in respect of secular education as the authority of the denominational managers in respect of religious education? With regard to secular education, was the main business of the schools to be conducted solely under the direction of the education authority? That seemed to him to be the only condition which fulfilled the statement made by the Government which enabled them to have entire control in secular matters. Upon this Amendment he thought they ought to arrive at some conclusion on that subject, and he specially wished to know the effect under sub-Section 2 of this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman had studied sub-Section 2, and he had begun to see some difficulty in it which had induced him to put down his Amendment on page 40. He must have seen that if sub-Section 2 meant what it said, it allowed the
  504
  managers, or a majority of the managers, to question upon every subject the instructions of the education authority and report to Whitehall. They had been told that this only referred to questions of secular education which trenched upon religious education. That was a very large subject. He had always regarded with the highest respect and admiration the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Education Department, but he was the child of the champion of denominationalism, and before he sat on the Front Bench he was a convinced denominationalist. That would be a great advantage to the denominational managers in matters of this kind. There was the further question of the instructions of the Education Department with regard to secular education. That was a question upon which they ought to have a distinct declaration. It seemed to him that such a proceeding as he had alluded to was absolutely inconsistent with the declaration in Clause 5 of the Bill that the education authority was to be responsible for and have control of all secular education in public elementary schools. If the Government intended that the majority of the denominational managers was to have any voice whatever in the secular instruction and management of the school, it would be an absolute contravention of the declaration in Clause 5, and the instruction to them to carry out directions of the local education authority meant nothing at all. He moved the Amendment in order that the Committee might test the validity of the assertion, that the absolute control of secular education would be left to the education authority.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 8, after the word 'managers' to insert the words 'or managers representing the local education authority.'"
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was largely directed towards extracting information from the Government on a point which I honestly thought had been explained, and admirably explained, over and over again. I am not fortunate in my

  505
  attempts to make the right hon. Gentleman understand the position of the Government, but I will make one more effort, to the very best of my ability, to give a clear and popular account of the position in which I think this manager question stands. Let it be remembered that the Government, in taking up the problem of education, found a system based on the Act of 1870, under which Act there are two kinds of managers. There are tire managers of the board schools and the managers of the voluntary schools. These two sets of managers had separate powers and occupied different positions. The managers of the board schools were the creatures of the School Board, could be removed by the School Board, and had to carry out the directions of the School Board. On the other hand, the managers of the voluntary schools had, subject to the Education Department, not only the management but the control of their schools. Well, we had to deal with the two different classes of managers we found in existence. As regards the managers of the School Boards, we have left them practically as we found them, putting in the place of the School Board the education authority; but the managers of the provided schools will bear the same relation to the education authority as the managers under the School Boards now bear to those School Boards. Very well, so much for the managers of the provided schools. Now I come to the other description of managers—the managers of the voluntary schools. Their powers which we found in existence we have not left unchanged by this Bill. On the contrary, we have excised from some of those powers certain very great responsibilities, and we have excised from further powers certain large fragments. We have left to them the appointment of teachers, as the House knows, because we regard that as essential to the denominational character of the school, which we mean to preserve. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like that arrangement. They desire not to preserve the denominational character of the school, but I am not going to enter into that at present. We think it ought to be preserved, and we think a convenient way of preserving it is to leave one essential—the appointment of the teachers—to those managers, and to see that among the
  506
  managers there shall be a majority representative of the denomination. But we have taken away from the managers in the first place the right to be a homogeneous body representing the denomination, because we have provided that two of their number shall not necessarily represent the denomination at all, but shall, on the contrary, represent either the major or the minor local authority. We have, in the second place, taken away from them the control of secular education, and it is on that, apparently, that the right hon. Gentleman's mind is so deeply exercised. If I rightly apprehend him, he feels two great difficulties on that subject. One is the reference to Whitehall, which he appears to think is given under sub-Section 2, and which causes him the greatest anxiety—anxiety so great that I do not think he has addressed us once on any topic in connection with the Bill without referring to it. His other anxiety is lest the control we have avowedly given to the education authority over secular education should, though strongly given in words, be ineffective in fact, and it is in these circumstances that the education authority have to act through a body of managers, of whom a majority would represent the denomination. The difficulty as regards the reference to Whitehall will, I venture to think, be more properly dealt with when we come to sub-Section 2, instead of in this preliminary discussion. Let me repeat now what I stated before, that without going into minutiae and refinements, the broad principle we desire to see adopted with regard to secular education, is that the education authority shall be the sole controlling power, subject, in the first place, to the minimum requirements laid down by Whitehall, which, I presume, the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to abolish, and which I think no Gentleman on that side of the House who supports him wishes to abolish. In the second place, the appeal to Whitehall is not on the subject of the control of secular education, but on any dispute as to whether a thing is secular education or not.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is not in the Clause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is in. I am, in response to the right hon. Gentleman, giving the view of the Government. I am endeavouring to give a general

  507
  view of our intentions. We desire within the sphere of secular education that the education authority shall be supreme, but it is evident that, as you preserve the denominational character of the school—and we mean to preserve that, it is part of our policy—there might conceivably be a collision between the managers and the education authority in which the managers would say, "We are quite willing to obey the education authority in regard to matters of secular education, but this is going beyond their province, and they are trespassing into the region of religious education." Hon. Gentlemen may object to that view, but I think that that may happen, and we think that the House cannot leave it there. We think you cannot make the education authority judge in its own case as to the exact limitation of power, and you must, therefore, give it to some third party, and we say that you should give it to the Education Department. Therefore, I hope I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that the reference to the Education Department is not as to the manner in which the education authority is controlling secular education, but only as to whether the controlling authority, as regards secular education, is or is not trespassing beyond its legal function. Then I come to the second difficulty. The second difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman, if I may respectfully say so, is the only one which seems to be distinctly and clearly germane to the Amendment put on the Paper. It is as to whether those managers, being by hypothesis, as regards two thirds of their number, representative, not of the education authority but of the denomination, will prove the proper instrument or machine for carrying out the directions of the education authority as regards secular education. Well, I do not think the danger is a real or practical danger, but if it be, I venture to say that it will be absolutely provided for by the Amendment I have put on the Paper, and to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I think that is a much better method of dealing with it than the one he has proposed.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was to be a substitute for sub-Section 2.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It wants a much more lucid power of expression than I have to make my statements clear to the right hon. Gentleman. I have explained that sub-Section 2 is not intended to interfere with the power of the education authority as regards secular education at all. Therefore, my Amendment on page 40 has nothing whatever to do with sub-Section 2. It is not a substitute for it, but is in addition to it, and it is, in my opinion, a better way of meeting the difficulty than that of the right hon. Gentleman. While I do not describe the precise methods by which the education authority is to carry out its views, the right hon. Gentleman, if I understand him rightly, says that it is to be done by means of two managers who do not necessarily belong to the denomination.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Two managers who are appointed by the education authority.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They are not appointed necessarily by the education authority.
  SIR. WILLIAM HARCOURT: My Amendment is that they are to be "managers representing the education authority."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not the most convenient way. I daresay it would produce a great deal more friction. I venture to think that my way of dealing with the matter is the better way, but I will defer the discussion of it until I move the Amendment.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the First Lord had given what he said was a popular sketch of this Clause and of his proposed Amendment. When he listened to the right hon. Gentleman the impression which was on his mind was "What an extraordinary, ridiculous, cumbrous, inconvenient system! He could not conceive a system which, in working, would be more certain to lead to friction, difficulties and delays. The right hon. Gentleman began by telling the Committee that there were two sets of managers—the managers of the School Boards, and the independent managers

  509
  of the voluntary schools. As regarded the School Board managers the change which the right hon. Gentleman had made was enormously for the worse, because the School Board system was perfectly convenient in towns where the School Board was at hand, and could keep the managers under its hand, and pull them up if they were doing wrong. That was not a system which could be put in force where the managers were at a great distance, and where the education authority could not keep them under its direction in the same way as in a town. Therefore, as regarded provided schools the change was clearly for the worse. Then, when they came to the non-provided schools, the right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that the arrangement he proposed was adopted in order to secure denominational control, and therefore the managers were to retain the appointment of the teachers. What did that mean? It meant that they were to have a second set of managers who were neither to be independent nor dependent—monstrous creatures combining something of both independence and dependence. They were to split up education and make a difference between religious and secular instruction, and appoint a set of managers with power over the one and not over the other—a set of managers who by the very terms of their appointment must be divided into two hostile factions. They would be a semi-independent body with dependence in name on the local authority at a distance, but they would be practically independent, not only because one part of their functions had been withdrawn from the local authority, but because it would be impossible for the local authority to exercise effective control over them. Now surely the simple course would have been to do one of two things—either to have the managers entirely independent or else a smaller area should have been chosen. Either they could have taken an area in which they would have had an independent body of managers, such as in the existing areas, or else have made the managers absolutely dependent on the central authority for all purposes. There was a large range of questions which lay on the borderland of secular and religious instruction, and the Clause, as
  510
  proposed to be amended, provided for friction between the two sets of authorities. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to his Amendment, which it would be out of order to discuss at present, but that Amendment did not appear to him to meet the difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman only said that if the managers did not obey the local authority they would be superseded. But what machinery was there in the Bill to do that? The local authority would have to act through these managers—that was, to tell the managers who were already disobedient to obey the orders which they disobeyed, or that the local authority would carry out the orders themselves. Who were "they"? They were managers in office at a distance, it might be, of forty miles from the education authority which had no direct power to compel them to carry out their orders. He thought, in the whole circumstances, the suggestion of his right hon. friend, that the local authority was to depute managers as their agents to compel the other managers to carry out their orders, was a perfectly practical suggestion. The difficulty was one which the right hon. Gentleman had not faced. It was a difficulty inherent in the nature of the case, and inherent in an attempt to set up an authority which was to be at the same time independent and dependent. The right hon. Gentleman said that they must not make the education authority the judge in their own case. What did that imply? It implied that the managers were not to be under the control of the education authority.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid ho had never denied or concealed that the Government meant the managers to have control over religious education, which was outside the sphere of the education authority. There were two spheres of education—religious and secular.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he denied that these spheres could be separated as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. The teachers were to give both religious and secular instruction, and it would be perfectly impossible to prevent questions arising constantly in which the two spheres would collide, and in which the managers would defy the local education

  511
  authority. The control of the education authority would not be an effective control, and that was the reason why, from the first, he had felt that the plan of the right hon. Gentleman could not be a final settlement. It would be impossible for the education authority to give the kind of control which was needed. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the religious question as the only question in which difficulty could arise, he forgot all the other items of Clause 8. Controversies would arise about the accounts, with regard to repairs and many other points; and, therefore, by providing, under sub-Section 2, an appeal on all questions—because its terms were perfectly general—they were encouraging the managers to set up their authority against the local education authority. Therefore he could not receive either Clause 8 as it stood, or as amended by the right hon. Gentlemen, as meeting the difficulty. He believed that when they came to sub-Section 2 they should find that the difficulties would be greatest in regard to the financial part of the work, because the managers would have no motive of economy. If all the managers were to be appointed by the education authority, they could choose men who would carry out economic administration; but the majority would be independent, and not liable to be dismissed like School Board managers. Therefore, there was neither one security nor the other. He knew that that was very largely in the minds of the County Councils. He had received many communications pointing out that the greatest difficulty in the Bill would be the impossibility of enforcing economic administration on the managers. It was quite impossible that a proper control over expenditure would be effective. The only way that could be done was to make the managers absolutely dependent on the education authority, and until that was done the system proposed in this Clause would remain a standing difficulty and an obstacle to the proper working of the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he had made an explanation which went beyond the rigid limits of the Amendment, but he hoped that that would not be taken as an excuse for discussing the whole matter.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he wished to ask the leave of the Committee to make a few remarks on what had fallen from the Leader of the House, in what the right hon. Gentleman called his popular exposition of the working of the Bill. The words of sub-Section 2 raised the question of how the control of education was to be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman was no doubt perfectly clear as regarded what was in his own mind, but he was not clear as to what was in the Bill; and that was one of the great difficulties hon. Members were in, and which led to anticipations of future confusion. The right hon. Gentleman in his popular exposition spoke of the managers as if they were in some degree the present managers, rather than a new body. What were they now? In the ordinary rural parish in a county in the South of England these gentlemen were acting under trust deeds which made them necessarily communicant members of the Church of England. They were four in number including the Chairman, but, under the Bill in the agricultural counties, they would be strengthened to five communicants of the Church of England by the election of one by the County Council. The appointment of the head master of the school was left in the hands of the managers—which meant really the Chairman. Up to the present time the managers had never been called together, and the Chairman and the head master conducted the whole business of the school. The managers were only called in to sign the accounts of the school. How then was the county authority to be maintained? The finances of these schools were not of a character for which the county authority would like to be responsible, and they would have to be closely scrutinized? But how was the authority of the education authority to be exercised? In the ordinary rural county when a conflict came it would be between the majority of five managers, who were communicant members of the Church of England, and the representative of the Parish Council. The right hon. Gentleman assumed in his popular exposition that, while he gave the appointment of the teachers to the majority of the managers, in every other

  513
  matter the education authority would be supreme; but they did not find words to that effect in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman arbitrarily told the Committee that his opinion was perfectly clear that, for example, the county authority would have the choice of the books to be used in the school, and yet the managers, and not the county authority, were to have the choice of the teachers. But that was not in the Bill itself. The right hon. Gentleman had so clearly expressed his view as to the limitation being expressed in the sub-Section which had been asked for on the previous day, that it was impossible to say which power was a part of secular control and which was not. It was a difficult matter to discuss, and he would not anticipate the discussion. Obviously, the question of finance was the greatest difficulty that would arise.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid a large number of the schools now managed by the School Boards were leased to them for short periods. The moment the School Boards were swept away, those buildings would revert to the educational bodies which built them. His point was that those buildings for some time past had been maintained, and their furniture and fittings would have been provided, by the local authority. Upon the question of the administration of these adjuncts to education, a dispute might arise, which dispute would be settled by the four denominational managers appointed under the Bill. He thought such a dispute ought to be settled not by the representatives of the denominational managers, but by the local authority who had had to provide the school. In the small country School Board area in which he resided there was a great apprehension as to what would occur when these schools, which had been filled up and maintained by the School Board, were handed over to the control of the denominational owners.
  THK CHAIRMAN: That point does not seem to arise here.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEthought it arose on that part of the Amendment that, in the event of any disputes arising
  514
  they should be settled by the representatives of the local authority. He wished them to have the authority.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That point is not covered by this Amendment; it will require an Amendment dealing with that class of schools.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that nothing could be clearer than the statement of the Prime Minister as to the intention of the Government, but he desired to emphasise what had been said by his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, that the intention of the Government was not put into the Bill. Everybody knew that when the Bill became an Act it would be construed from what appeared on the face of the Act itself, and no one was allowed to go behind it and look into the statements of the right hon. Gentleman to see what was intended. There were two ways in which the matter might be dealt with. The first was by limiting the power and authority to be given to the education authority and giving greater powers to the managers; the second, and he submitted the better way, would be to give uncontrolled power to the education authority, and carve out of that the powers to be given to the managers. The powers of control over the denominational schools were in the hands of trustees, and the intention was that the trustees should no longer bind the new statutory body if it was a new statutory body subordinate to the education authority. If that was so it ought to be made plain in the Act what the powers of the new statutory body were to be. That was done in the Act of 1870, and it should be borne in mind that in Clause 7, as altered, there was no reference to the Act of 1870, although there was a reference to it in the clause as originally drawn. He did not know whether this new statutory body, the new managers of the "not provided" schools, were to have any of the powers which managers had under the Act of 1870. In that Act there were powers given to the managers of the denominational schools to require a public inquiry when the Education Department said there was not accommodation enough for the education of the children. Did that power vest in this new statutory body? He did not know, but if it did it ought to appear in the Bill.

  515
  They also had powers in certain cases to acquire land under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. Were all these powers to be vested in this new statutory body? He did not know. It had been stated that they did, but the Bill did not say so. It would be quite as open to the Prime Minister to say they had to fix the salaries of the teachers. Nothing was said about that, but it was well known that the intention of the Government was that the local authority should fix the salaries of the teachers, and therefore that would not come within the power of this new statutory body. Nothing had been said about the appointment of the teachers. If they were to have the control of the appointment of the teachers, it would appear to follow that they should also control the salary of the teachers; but the fact of the Prime Minister having stated the intention of the Government showed that the powers of I this new statutory body were absolutely undefined. The Government having created this body had not defined its powers. According to the provisions of the Bill it was open to anybody to argue that they had or had not the appointment of the teachers or the fixing of their salaries, and it was therefore necessary that these powers should be defined.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENmaintained that there ought to be a clear understanding of the principle on which they were going to proceed. He thought there ought to be a complete transfer of all the schools to the new authority. At present the Bill left the matter absolutely vague. The draftsmen of the Bill ought to let the Committee know clearly what the authority was. If these schools and managers were to occupy their present position, except so far as the position was modified by the modifications of the Statute, it would be necessary to discuss at length every point with regard to the rights of managers. If on the other hand it was proposed to transfer these properties to the local education authority, then the attention of the Committee could be devoted to the Clause which it would be necessary to insert in the Bill to preserve the right of a denomination to deal with the school simply for the purpose of giving denominational teaching.
  MR. LLYOD-GEOEGEsaid the Committee could not discuss in detail the matters which the Prime Minister had touched upon, but there were one or two particular questions upon which they were entitled to get an answer. The Committee were on the threshold of the position of the managers in their relation to the education authority, and they ought to know what were the views of the Government. From the statement of the Prime Minister they presumably did know, but the right hon. Gentleman's statements were not upheld by the Bill as drafted. He was sorry to think that the Prime Minister had gone back upon a statement he made yesterday, and rather suggested now that there should be an appeal not only on the question of ultra vires but also upon such matters as repairs and structural altera-ations. That showed that the Prime Minister had not clearly thought out in his own mind what the relations were to be between the managers and the local education authority. As far as secular instruction was concerned, would the control of the local education authority over the managers be as complete as the control of the same authority over the managers of board schools?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I understand the question, the hon. Member asks me whether the education authority will have the same complete control over secular education in the non-provided as in the provided schools. I answer in the affirmative. If he asks me whether the control is the same in both cases, it clearly is not, because they cannot dismiss the foundation managers.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that that was a point they could not now discuss. He wanted to know whether the managers were merely the agents of the education authority in the case of secular education. Supposing the education authority were not satisfied with the staff of the denominational managers, could they order them to recast the staff?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: And if they refuse, the new Amendment of the Prime Minister will come into operation, and the managers can be suppressed.
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: So far as I understand the question, the education authority can say "We think your teachers are inefficient."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Or unfit.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes. "You must dismiss them, or some of them, because they cannot carry on the secular work of the school," and they can call upon them to reorganise their staff. If they refuse, then the education authority can do as it pleases without them.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsubmitted that that could not be done, except by some such means as the Amendment before the House proposed. Then there was the case of promotion. If a teacher did his work extremely well, could the education authority order his promotion? That was a very important question. The Prime Minister had said the education authority was given complete control over secular, and the managers over religious, education, but who was to have control over subjects lying between the secular and religious spheres, as, for example, what had been called civics, or the teaching of the duties of citizenship? The Prime Minister must surely begin to realise that the whole scheme of the Bill as it stood now must break down in practice. It was a dual system, it would lead to friction and quarrels, and the whole thing would end in confusion.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYexpressed the opinion that in practice the scheme would work with great smoothness. All the difficulties started by learned Gentlemen opposite did credit to their ingenuity, but they were not difficulties that would be experienced in practice, He thought that the Opposition had no reason to complain of any want of definiteness on the part of the Government in answering the point which had been raised. The hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan said it was extraordinary that there was nothing in the Bill to show that the managers might not fix the teachers' salaries. It was clear that the hon. Member had not read the words which had been inserted at the opening of the Clause, stating that the local education authority should have control of all expenditure required for the maintenance and efficiency of all public elementary schools "other than
  518
  expenditure for which, under this Act, provision is to be made by the managers." If those words did not give the fixing of the teachers' salaries to the education authority, he really did not know what words would. Hon. Members opposite had presented a succession of difficulties in the way of understanding the Bill. He had the greatest respect for the powers of mind and intellect possessed by those hon. Members, but if those powers were devoted to not understanding the Bill, he defied any draftsman to make the measure clear. The Amendment proposed that in the event of the managers not carrying out the directions of the local authority the manager or managers representing the authority should carry them out. But suppose the representative of the minor authority was in entire sympathy with the foundation managers: surely it would be most unreasonable to say that the local education authority, if the managers as a whole were recalcitrant, were to be compelled to put the carrying out of their directions into the hands of two men, one of whom might have declared himself to be in entire sympathy with the foundation managers.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Attorney General does not understand what I meant by the Amendment. I did not mean to include anybody who was not a representative of the Board of Education. I put in the words "manager or managers" because it is not yet determined how many representatives of the education authority there should be. My Amendment proposes that the carrying out of the directions of the authority should be in the hands of a manager or managers representing the education authority.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYaccepted the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and was sorry if he had misunderstood him. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to make it compulsory on the education authority to carry out their desires through their own representative—if there was only one—on the board of managers. Surely it would be inexpedient to make that compulsory. That representative might not be the fittest person for the purpose, and he certainly failed to see the sense of so tying the hands of the authority. They were to have the right of carrying

  519
  out their directions through anyone they chose to appoint as their agent. Why in the name of common sense should they be restricted to choosing this one man? The proposal was not a good one, and he hoped the Committee would not accept it.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid the First Lord of the Treasury had now made a statement as accurate as his speech at Manchester was misleading. The right hon. Gentleman now laid the power of the voluntary managers on the trustees; they were to have the same powers as the old managers, subject to such deductions as were made under the Bill. A day or two previously the First Lord had declared a certain amount to be unnecessary because the local authority had control over the expenditure as the Clause then stood, but the Attorney General had now stated that what gave that control were words which had since been added.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I never said anything in the slightest degree resembling that. What I said was that these words made it perfectly clear beyond the risk of any possible misapprehension.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid they now came to the excised part of the powers of the managers. They were now to obey the directions of the local education authority. He submitted that those directions would represent no greater power than the Board of Education at present possessed. The Board could already insist upon the qualification of teachers, require particular subjects to be taught, demand a certain standard of efficiency, and insist on the suitability of the buildings and the sufficiency of the accommodation. Those were the subjects, and those only, which would come under the definition of "matters relating to secular education." The great matter relating to secular instruction, viz., the appointment of the teacher to give that instruction, was admittedly to remain in the hands of the voluntary managers. Did the sub-Clause mean that the local authority could regulate the duties of the teachers? Was it proposed to give the voluntary managers a right of appeal to the Board of Education on the question of financial control?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise to order. I have done my best to make the position of the Government clear, and, perhaps, in doing so travelled somewhat beyond the Amendment Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to go on discussing questions which have nothing whatever to do with the Amendment?
  MR. M'KENNAsaid he was only endeavouring to get at the facts, but if the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to answer the question, he would not press it. The position would be that the education authority would have only such powers over education as now belonged to the Board of Education. They would have no control as to the appointment or the duties of the teachers; they would have no real control over the school at all.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand the matter, the Amendment is one, not to say in what respect the control of the education authority should exist, but to improve the machinery by which it should be exercised. The hon. Member is discussing the area of the control, not the machinery.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: My Amendment is not a question of ma chinery exclusively.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Entirely.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Not so. It is a complaint that under the present system the control itself is too limited.
  MR. M'KENNA franklyadmitted that the speech he wished to make went beyond the strict terms of the Amendment, but he was only following the lines taken by previous speakers.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The discussion has taken a somewhat wide range, but I thought it had narrowed down again, and I was hoping it would remain within the narrower limits. It is desirable that it should do so.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid he would confine himself to the single point that the local authority, in case the managers disagreed, were to operate through the

  521
  single managers appointed by them. The authority, having the power of the purse, could stop the salary of any teacher, but the managers could refuse to obey the local authority, and retain the teacher in their employ, although he would not be able to recover his salary. The Amendment proposed that in such a case the power of the existing foundation managers should be ousted, and the manager appointed by the authority have sole control. That was essential. It was perfectly clear that, if the scheme was to be carried on at all, power must be given to somebody—whether this particular manager or someone else—under the control of the education authority to dismiss the teacher and pay his salary to some suitable person. He should therefore support the Amendment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he wished to say a word on the merits of the Amendment itself. He thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be calculated to defeat the original purpose of the Bill. He did not think the Bill would work if this Amendment were accepted, for the object of the Government was to bring the control of education under the local
  authority; they had already provided for the managers of the schools; there was to be the Education Committee, of which they knew nothing; the Education Department were to have certain directing powers; and now this Amendment introduced a fifth authority. He aw no reason for setting up a representative of the local authority, which would impair the original purpose of the Bill, namely, the handing over of education to a single authority. He agreed that they should entrust the local authority with all the powers they could. As to the passing of the Bill, he had rarely seen such slow progress made with a measure, and it did not look as though the Bill was meant to pass. He would certainly commend to His Majesty's Government the advisability of being conciliatory and make all the concessions they could which would not affect the principle of the Bill. Although he wished to be conciliatory, he should be unable to support the present Amendment.
  (5.18.) Question put—
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes, 256. (Division List No. 404.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Kitson, Sir James

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Dunn, Sir William

  Langley, Batty

  Allen, Charles P Glouc., Stroud

  Edwards, Frank

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Emmott, Alfred

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Leng, Sir John

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Levy, Maurice

  Beaumont, Went worth C. B.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bell, Richard

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Black, Alexander William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lough, Thomas

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Brigg, John

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

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Mather, Sir William

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Burns, John

  Harwood, George

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Burt, Thomas

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Morley, Rt Hon. John(Montrose

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Moss, Samuel

  Caine, William Sproston

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Newnes, Sir George

  Caldwell, James

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Norman, Henry

  Cameron, Robert

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Cawley, Frederick

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Partington, Oswald

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Crombie, John William

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Jones, William(Carnarv'nshire

  Price, Robert John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Rea, Russell

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rigg, Richard

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halitax)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Williams Osmond (Merioneth)

  Runciman, Walter

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

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Tomkinson, James

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

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Toulmin, George

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wood house, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wallace, Robert

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R.(Northants

  Wason, Eugene

  and Mr. William M 'Arthur

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Aird, Sir John

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Helder, Augustus

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Denny, Colonel

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hogg, Lindsay

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

  Digby, John K. D. Wing field-

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Horner, Frederick William

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Doughty, George

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Durning Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bignold, Arthur

  Dyke, Rt. Hon, Sir William Hart

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Bigwood, James

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Bond, Edward

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Kemp, George

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Brassey, Albert

  Finch, George H.

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fison, Frederick William

  Kimber, Henry

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Knowles, Lees

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Butcher, John George

  Flower, Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

  Forster, Henry William

  Lawson, John Grant

  Carew, James Laurence

  Foster, Philip S) Warwick, S. W.

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Garfit, William

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'rick

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon J A (Worc.

  Greene, Hemy D. (Shrewsbury

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Chapman, Edward

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Charrington, Spencer

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Groves, James Grimble

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Maclver, David (Liverpool

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hain, Edward

  M'Arthur Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

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

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Milvain, Thomas

  524

  525

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Myers, William Henry

  Robinson, Brooke

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H. (Sheffield

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

  Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellesley

  Rutherford, John

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Percy, Earl

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

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

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund, Lyne

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Pym, C. Guy

  Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

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

  Randles, John S.

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

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Spear, John Ward

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Stanley, Edwards Jas. (Somerset

  Younger, William

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Renwick, George

  Stroyan, John

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the words of the Clause to the word "school," in line 10, inclusive, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question, 'That the words of the clause to the word "school," in line 10, inclusive, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 254; Noes, 143. (Division List, No. 405.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Cust, Henry John C

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Aird, Sir John

  Butcher, John George

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow

  Denny, Colonel

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Carew, James Lawrence

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cavendish, R F. (N. Lancs.)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Dorington, Rt, Hon. Sir John E.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Doughty, George

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A (Worc.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Chapman, Edward

  Dvke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

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

  Charrington, Spencer

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Bartley, George C. T.

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

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

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Finch, George H.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bignold, Arthur

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bigwood, James

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Fison, Frederick William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Bond, Edward

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Fitzroy Hon. Edward Algernon

  Boulnois Edmund

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Brassey, Albert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Flower, Ernest

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Forster, Henry William

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Garfit, William

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Rutherford, John

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

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Greene, Sir E W (Bu'y S Edm'nds

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Greville, Hon. Roland

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Groves, James Grimble

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Gunter, Sir Robert

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

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hain, Edward

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Milvain, Thomas

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Morrell, (George Herbert

  Spear, Hon Ward

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Myers, William Henry

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stroyan, John

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Strutt, John. Charles Hedley

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Helder, Augustus

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

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

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Higginbottom, S. W

  Percy, Earl

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hobhonse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Horner, Frederick William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Houston, Robert paterson

  Pym, C Guy

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

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Randles, John S.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lloyd

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Kemp, John

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Reid, James (Grecnock)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Renwick, George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Kimber, Henry

  Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Knowles, Lees

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Younger, William

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

  Robinson, Brooke

  Lawson, John Grant

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Burns, John

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Burt, Thomas

  Dunn, Sir William

  Allen Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Edwards, Frank

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Caine, William Sproston

  Emmott, Alferd

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Cameron, Robert

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Bayley, Thomas(Derbyshire)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Bell, Richard

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Black, Alexander William

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Grant, Corrie

  Brigg, John

  Crombie, John William

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Brunner, Sir John Tomhnson

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Harmsworth, R, Leicester

  528

  529

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon, Sir Arthur D.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. Jno. (Montrose

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Moss Samuel

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

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

  Norman, Henry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)

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

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Partington, Oswald

  Tomkinson, James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Toulmin, George

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Joicey, Sir James

  Perks, Robert William

  Wallace, Robert

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swans'a

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Price, Robert John

  Wason, Eugene

  Langley, Batty

  Rea, Russell

  Weir, James Galloway

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reckitt, Harold James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Leng, Sir John

  Rigg, Richard

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Lough, Thomas

  Runciman, Walter

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Woodhouse, Sir. J. T (Huddersf'd

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Shackleton, David James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  M'Laren, Horace Rendall

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone

  Mather, Sir William

  Soares, Ernest, J.

  and Mr. Wm. M'Arthur

  (5.48.) Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Clause to the word 'school,' in line 10, inclusive, stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes,267; Noes, 135. (Division List, No. 406.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Aird, Sir John

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Butcher, John George

  Denny, Colonel

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Carew, James Laurence

  Digby, John K. D. (Wingfield-

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

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

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Doughty, George

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Baird, Colonel James Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn, Sir William Hart

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Chapman, Edward

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Emmott, Alfred

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

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

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Finch, George H.

  Bigwood, James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bond, Edward

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Fison, Frederick William

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  FitzGerald Sir Robert Penrose-

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Brassey, Albert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Flower, Ernest

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Forster, Henry William

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Garfit, William

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Runciman, Walter

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rutherford, John

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Greene Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds

  Lowe, Francis William

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Grenfell, Hon. Ronald

  Lucas, Regmald J. (Portsmouth

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Greville, Hon. Roland

  Macaroney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Groves, James Grimble

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Hain, Edward

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

  Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Hamilton, Rt. HnL'rd G(Midd'x

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Spear, John Ward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Stanley, Edwd Jas. (Somerset)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Myers, William Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Stroyan, John

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Naiper

  Helder, Augustus

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. JG.(Oxf'dUniv

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Percy, Earl

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hogg Lindsay

  Pier point, Robert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Vincent, Col Sir CEH (Sheffield

  Horner, Frederick William

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Walrond Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pym, C. Guy

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Randles, John S.

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rankin, Sir James

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Willoughby de Eresby. Lord

  Kemp, George

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Kennway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Renwick, George

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Richards, Henry Charles

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

  Kimber, Henry

  Ridley, Hn M. W. (Stalybridge

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Wyndhanm, Rt. Hon. George

  Knowles, Lees

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

  Younger, William

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Robinson, Brooke

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Burns, John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Burt, Thomas

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Dunn, Sir William

  Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

  Caine, William Sproston

  Edwards, Frank

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Caldwell, James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Cameron, Robert

  Farqubarson, Dr. Robert

  Bell, Richard

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Black, Alexander, William

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Brigg, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Crombie, John William

  Grant, Corrie

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

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

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  532

  533

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Soares, Ernest, J.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Harwood, George

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Moss, Samuel.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norman, Henry

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Palmer, Sir Charles, M. (Durham

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

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Partington, Oswald

  Tomkinson, James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Toulmin, George

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Joicey, Sir James

  Perks, Robert William

  Wallace, Robert

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Walton John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Jones, William (Carnarv'shire

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Price, Robert John

  Wason, Eugene

  Langley, Batty

  Rea, Russell

  Weir, James Galloway

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reckitt, Harold James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Leng, Sir John

  Rigg, Richard

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Lough, Thomas

  Schwann, Charles E.

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

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Shackleton, David James

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Mr. M'Kenna and Mr. Charles Hobhouse.

  Mather, Sir William

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  MR. M'KENNAsaid his task in moving the Amendment he now proposed to move had been rendered easier by the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury. They now knew what the functions of the managers, under the Bill as it stood, were to be. They were to have all the powers of the old voluntary school managers except those destroyed by Clause 8. It had been urged that the only way to preserve the denominational character of these schools was to give them the management of all matters save secular instruction. The First Lord had reminded the Committee that all instruction was either religious or secular, but as a matter of fact there was a large body of instruction which could not be described as either one or the other, and it was with the powers in connection with that instruction that his Amendment proposed to deal. The Amendment would give to the local education authority full power over the management of the schools in everything outside denominational instruction; it would give, for instance, to the authority which found the money the control of the articles purchased with its own money. The Amendment was one that could hardly be resisted. It did not touch the question of the appointment of the teachers, which was a matter appertaining alike to religious and secular instruction. He merely asked, in order to make the
  534
  position of the local authority clear, that in matters relating to the management of the schools, other than religious instruction, the local education authority should be supreme. In view of the frequent declarations made by the First Lord of the Treasury that he desired to give full control to the education authority over secular education he could not see what grounds could be found for resisting the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed.
  "In page 3, line 10, after the word 'school' to insert the word 'and as to all matters relating to the management of the school other than the religious instruction given therein.' "—(Mr. M'Kenna.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Gentleman wanted to reverse the procedure adopted in the Bill, which was to work on the plan provided by the Act of 1870 and to excise from the existing powers of the managers those which might interfere with the proper control of secular education by the education authority. He thought the plan provided in the Bill was a better plan than that provided in the Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked where in the Bill the existing powers of the managers under the Act of 1870 were preserved? There were no words giving these new bodies the powers possessed by the old managers. Orginally there was a reference in Clause 7, but that had been cut out of the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid they had to deal with the question of managers on a later Clause; it was not relevant to this Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the new Clause which he had put down on the Paper, he would see that the point was touched on there.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISthought the right hon. Gentleman was proceeding in an extraordinary way. The proper course surely would have been to excise the smaller powers from the greater and not the greater from the smaller. The sphere of the denominational managers was much smaller than that of the educational authority. There were a great many questions as to which the Committee were entirely in the dark as to whether they came under secular or religious instruction, and those matters should undoubtedly and without qualification be controlled by the local education authority. With regard to furniture that had to be provided for religious as well as secular purposes, which head did that come under? The provision of school books admittedly came within the sphere of secular instruction, but there was nothing in the Bill to show it. Did the granting of prizes and certificates come within the sphere of secular instruction? In his opinion all these matters should be controlled by the secular authority. Would the granting of holidays on saints' days come under religious or secular instruction? That, he imagined, would appertain to both; but surely the right to grant holidays ought to be in the hands of the local authority; yet there was nothing in the Bill with regard to matters of that kind. Unless the Amendment was adopted there would be innumerable cases of friction between the two bodies. The promotion of teachers was certainly a matter within the sphere of the secular
  536
  control, and also the imposition and remission of fees, as it was possible to discriminate in matters of this kind distinctly to the advantage of those attending a particular school. These questions ought to be cleared up. The Committee ought not to discuss this matter with their hands tied, as they were at the present time. The question of the exclusion of scholars from the schools should also be left to the local education authority. He appealed to the Prime Minister to free the country and the local education authorities from the difficulties in which they would be placed for many years to come if these matters were not dealt with, and trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not leave the ultimate decision to the Board of Education, which, with great respect, was under a political head and subject to partizan control.
  MR. BRYCEdid not think this Amendment ought to be regarded in a controversial spirit. The first part of the Amendment was to secure that the division between secular and religious instruction should be an exhaustive one. The proper way for the Government to provide for it would be to declare that everything except religious instruction should be under the local education authority. Some Amendment of that kind would crystallise the position. Another point as to which it was desirable to have a clear understanding was, who should have control of the timetable. That was a matter of great importance to the schools, because on it depended the times for religious and secular instruction. He supposed the local education authority would have complete control.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONthought there was real substance in the Amendment. At present the managers of the denominational schools had both the management and the control, but when the control was to be given to one body and the management to another it was important that a distinction should be made between the duties which were to be given to each body. The present managers were responsible to the Education Department alone and all the powers

  537
  which were not taken out of their hands by this Clause would, by presumption, be left in the hands of the managers. It was most important to make clear all the matters for which the managers were responsible. What he asked was that where this Clause did not make over any specific duties the residuary duties should he in the hands of the managers through the local authorities.
  DR. MACNAMARAurged that some general words should be added which, whilst not touching religious instruction, would in a general way cover the whole of school management. Otherwise there would be much friction between managers and local authorities. He had had ten year experience on the London School Board, and he had brought with him the code of management which the London School Board had found it necessary to compile, which he would hand to the Prime Minister, who, he thought, would find it instructive.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not believe that in practice much difficulty would arise from the division proposed. He thought the best course would be to adhere to the Bill.
  MR. MOSSthought that most of the discussion might have been avoided if the duties of the two powers had been defined exactly. If the powers to be exercised were left vague there would be discussions throughout the Hill as to what the duties of the bodies concerned should be. If the right hon. Gentleman would follow the Amendment he would see that everything except religious instruction was left to the local educational authority, which was exactly what he himself wished apparently. If that was so the right hon. Gentleman could not have any objection to his own intentions being expressed in the Bill.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid that to those who had had something to do with the management of schools the points raised by his hon. friend were of eminently practical importance. Outside the ordinary school work, nothing was of more importance than the encouragement of the children by the giving of prizes. He instanced a case in which out of 159
  538
  Prizes given in a particular school only nine were for secular subjects, the other 150 being awarded for religious knowledge. Surely hon. Gentlemen who had sons at public or other schools would not be satisfied if the only prizes they won were Scripture prizes. Why should a system be allowed to continue which permitted managers to offer rewards in such a lop-sided way? All sides of education, not merely the religious, ought to be considered, and the local authority ought to have power to adopt a different practice if they found managers acting in the manner he had instanced. Reference had been made to the selection of text-books, but what about the pictures on the walls of the school? Pictures now played a very important part in education. The education authority would pay for those pictures: who would choose them? Many of those in voluntary schools were extremely obnoxious to the parents of Nonconformist children. Were the public to have no control in such a matter? Satisfactorily to work this Clause would be impossible unless some definite system were laid down as to who was to control matters of this kind.
  MR. RICHARDSsaid he knew of a country School Board which was trying to empty a voluntary school by giving, at the expense of the ratepayers, an excessive number of prizes.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to the Amendment.
  MR. RICHARDS, referring to the pictures, asked whether the hon. Member suggested there were any pictures in voluntary schools which were not accurate representations of history.
  THK CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that question either is relevant.
  MR. RICHARDSasked then whether the Board of Education would make a list of pictures which might not appear because they were obnoxious to Nonconformist parents.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the meaning of the Amendment was perfectly clear. The managers would be managers

  539
  with regard to both secular and religious education. The whole of the management would be in their hands. All the Amendment asked was that the managers should obey the directions of the education authority, except in matters relating to religious education. Put in that way, he thought there was no answer to the case of his hon, friend
  MR. M'KENNAsaid that in consequence of the perfunctory answer he had received, he felt bound to go to a division. The local education authority paid the bill, and therefore ought to have the control of the school.
  (6.38.) Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 265. (Division List, No. 407.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rigg, Richard

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Bell, Richard

  Humphreys Owen, Arthur C.

  Shackleton, David James

  Black, Alexander William

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Burns, John

  Langley, Batty

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Burt, Thomas

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Caine, William Sproston

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Caldwell, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Cameron, Robert

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower.)

  Campbell-John Bannerman, Sir H.

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lloyd-George, David

  Tomkinson, James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Wallace, Robert

  Crombie, John William

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, Eugene

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mather, Sir William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Moss, Samuel.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Newnes, Sir George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Norman, Henry

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Flower, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Palmer, Sir Charles. M. (Durham

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Partington, Oswald

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Grant, Corrie

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Yoxall, James Henry

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

  Perks, Robert William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. M'Kenna and Mr. Herbert Lews.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Price, Robert John

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Rea, Russell

  Harwood, George

  Reckitt, Harold James

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arrol, Sir William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Aird, Sir John

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Garfit, William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

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

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gordon Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlet

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bartley, George C. T.

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

  Milvain, Thomas

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrell, (George Herbert

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Brassey, Altert

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Murray, Rt HnA. Graham (Bute)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Myers, William Henry

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gretton, John

  Newdegate, Francis A. N

  Brown, Alexander H. (shropsh.

  Greville, Hon. Roland

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Groves, James Grimble

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Butcher, John George

  Hain, Edward

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Carew, James Lawrence

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton. Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Carvill, Patrick Goe. Hamilton

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Percy, Earl

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Chapman, Edward

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

  Purvis, Robert

  Charrington, Spencer

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pym, C. Guy

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Helder, Augustus

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Randles, John S.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Ratcliff, R. F

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Renwick, George

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Kemp, George

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, John

  Digby, John K. D. (Wingfield-

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon

  Kenyon, Hon, Geo. T (Denbigh)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kimber, Henry

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn, Sir William Hart

  Lawson, John Grant

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Finch, George H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S)

  Spear, John Ward

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanly, Hn. Arthur (Ormskird

  Fitz Gerald Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Flower, Ernest

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Stroyan, John

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Strutt, John Charles Helley

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Arhur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  542

  543

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

  Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE. (Taunton

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

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Wriglitson, Sir Thomas

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Valentia, Vicount

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Younger, William

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H. (Shef'ld

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

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

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Question put and agreed to.

  MR. WHITLEYsaid the Amendment standing in his name would not have been necessary if the Government had accepted the Amendment which had just been voted upon. The Government having declined to allow the education authority to lay down rules to guide the managers, it had become necessary to raise this point. At the present time the methods of voluntary school managers were exceedingly lax. He did not think he would be stepping beyond the mark if he said that in three-fourths of the voluntary schools there was no regular meeting of the managers, and one-half of them did not attend. The one act which these managers had to do as a rule was simply to sign Form 9 when taken round to them either by the vicar or the head teacher. If the managers were going to have these important duties without the local authority having power to lay down what methods they should follow, then the Committee should introduce some words which would give regularity to the meetings and methods of the managers. He asked that the managers should be obliged to hold at least one meeting per month, with the exception of the month of August, and that they should keep proper minutes of their proceedings. It was extremely desirable when any decision was arrived at that there should be a record as to who was present at that meeting. Unless some such Amendment was accepted it would be quite possible for managers to go on in the old lax way with only one manager present at a meeting, and there was no security that the decisions would be arrived at by the full meeting of managers. He had an Amendment on the Paper providing for a quorum of three. On this point he thought the proper thing for the Committee to do was to lay down a certain time once a month for meetings, and it was not too much to ask the managers to meet once a month for eleven months in the year,
  544
  and they should appoint a secretary to keep a record of their proceedings which, he presumed, would be open to the inspection of the local authority. This was so reasonable an Amendment that it did not require any further argument, and he begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 10, at end, to insert the words 'shall hold at least one meeting in each month excepting August, and shall keep proper minutes of their proceedings.' "—(Mr. Whitley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the objection raised by the hon. Member was that under the present system the managers, or a majority of them, absented themselves from their duty and left matters very much to the clergyman of the parish. That could not happen after this Bill was passed. If it were true that denominational managers did treat their duties in the lax manner suggested, he did not believe there was any danger that the duties to be discharged by the managers would be left to one of their number, because he would find himself conjoined with two other managers. The result would be that the school would not be managed by one single individual, because he would find himself conjoined by two other members. He thought it was not necessary to add such a minute provision to the Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether there was any provision in the Bill at all to compel the managers to meet. If the did not meet there could not possibly be a majority. His hon. friend said that they should meet, and if the denominational managers did not attend the other members would be able to congratulate themselves on having a majority. There were at present five or six managers in every parish, but, as a

  545
  matter of fact, they did not meet, and there was nothing in the Bill to prevent that system continuing. The clergyman took upon himself the whole functions of the managers, and he was the correspondent of the Education Department-There was nothing in the Bill to prevent him doing exactly as he had done in the past. What was wanted in the Rill was a provision to compel the summoning of a meeting. The right hon. Gentleman was proceeding on the assumption that his Bill was all right. He intended fairly, but he was dealing with a number of men he knew nothing about, and once there was the slightest difficulty they would act up to the letter of the law. There was not a single syllable in the Bill to compel the clergyman to summon a meeting of the managers from one year's end to the other. The right hon. Gentleman had said that practically the Amendment was embodied in the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said the Bill did anything so absurd as to prescribe the number of meetings.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that really showed how much the right hon. Gentleman knew about local government. He talked of the absurdity of prescribing the number of meetings the local authority should have. Did not the right hon. Gentleman know that the Local Government Acts prescribed when meetings were to be held, and even the times of meetings had been laid down by Statute. It was something like trifling with the House to suggest that a proposal of this sort should not be incorporated in the Bill.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the Local Government Act of 1S88, introduced by a colleague of the Prime Minister, prescribed when meetings of County Councils were to be held, and similar provision was made in the Act of 1892, introduced by a Liberal Government, in regard to parish councils. The last-mentioned Act provided that no parish council meeting should be held before six o'clock in the evening. In view of these facts, what was there absurd in the request of his hon. friend the Member for Halifax? He thought
  546
  the committee through which the local authority was to act should also be compelled to meet. There was nothing in the Bill compelling the committee to meet.
  MR. BRYCEhoped the First Lord of the Treasury would give serious attention to the proposal. With many denominational schools there was no system of regular meetings of managers, but simply a meeting to pass accounts, and a resolution delegating to the Chairman all the functions of the managerial body for the rest of the year. They should not allow that state of things to arise in future. He suggested that there were three ways of dealing with this matter. The right hon. Gentleman could accept the Amendment, but if he liked he could make the meetings quarterly instead of monthly; the second way was to give power to the local education authority to make bye-laws fixing the time when the managers should meet; or, thirdly, a schedule could be put in the Bill, containing a sort of code for the direction of managers in this and other matters.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not wish to treat this in a perfunctory manner. He could not understand how, with a body of representative managers, the work could be carried on without meetings.
  MR. BRYCEsaid it was no unusual practice for no meetings to be summoned except for passing the annual accounts.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURadmitted that there were Members in the House more practically acquainted with these affairs than himself. His work had lain in other directions, but he should have thought that when Parliament entrusted a body of managers with certain work it would not be competent for that body to delegate its functions to one member. It seemed to him clear that a clergyman could not act without the representative managers. He really could not see that there was any practical danger at all. Were they seriously to suppose that the education authority were going to hand over all their money to be illegally distributed by a single individual without the consent of the whole body of managers? He believed the Amendment

  547
  useless, as he ventured to think he had shown, but he would be willing to consider, at a later singe of the Bill, whether it might not be possible to provide that, where an education authority thought it necessary to require a meeting, that meeting should be called.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he thought the right hon the First Lord of the Treasury had considerably under-rated the evils that were going on at the present time. He knew of a case where no meeting was ever summoned, and all that needed to be done was to get the accounts signed by two individuals. Such a practice could be carried on still, unless the local authority was empowered to withhold grants from the schools. He understood the First Lord to say that that danger would be averted by the fact that one of the representative managers would write up to the education authority that he was not being consulted in the management of the schools, and that then the education authority would withhold the grants, and so bring the managers to reason. That was a most important statement, although it was not in the Bill just now. The First Lord had argued that this was too minute n point for much controversy. He was disposed to agree with that, but he again pressed on the right hon. Gentleman the suggestion urged by the hon. Member for North Camberwell that some general power should be given to secure that all these minute points should be met either by the managers or the local education authority. There would be a number of questions which would come up in the debatable land, which did not come, as this did not come, directly under the head either of religious or of secular instruction. To whom did this debatable land belong? Who was to be the residuary legatee of powers that did not come under any special definition in the Bill? Were they to make the education authority or the managers residuary legatee? Of course those who agreed with him would like it to be the local education authority.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he was glad to hear his right hon. friend promise to give further consideration to this point. It was a very real
  548
  one. He quite agreed that the conditions in the future would differ very materially from those in the past; but they must recollect that large numbers of conditions were laid down in existing trust deeds. Many trust deeds made full provision for calling meetings, the person who was to call them, and the way in which they were to be conducted. Now, they were not rescinding these arrangements by this Clause. There was nothing, so far as he had noticed, in the Bill itself, or in the proposed Amendment, which would set at naught such provisions. It had been suggested that if the two appointed representatives were not called to a meeting they should take steps to call one themselves. He should have thought himself that the Clause which gave the local authority control over secondary education included the power to call meetings of the managers; but if there was any doubt about it, it should be made clear. He hoped the managers would not have much control, but they would have a guiding influence over the schools; and, if Churchmen and Nonconformists were-to work together, it should be under well-considered regulations, so that there should be no feeling of unfair dealing on the one side or the other. Let the appointed managers realise that whatever was done by the majority was done in accordance with rules fixed by the House of Commons. He knew full well many a school that had gone to utter ruin through the failure of the managers to meet, and there was a possibility of a school drifting into evil ways unless provision was made for regular meetings. He trusted that every local education authority would be charged with the duty of laving down regulations which should prevail throughout the whole of their area for the proper conduct of every school under their control.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that this matter had been a subject of judicial decision. It had been laid down by the courts of law that unless the visiting committee of a board of guardians, which had very important duties to discharge, was properly summoned by the Chairman, that committee had no power to act. The right hon. Gentleman was not justified in assuming that this matter was too minute

  549
  for the House of Commons to deal with. It was thoroughly discussed in 1870, and in the Education Act of that year it was laid down in the Schedule in the strongest manner, that the smallest School Boards in the country were bound by these Schedules. Not only that, but the provisions were found inadequate, and they were further laid down with the utmost minuteness in the Act of 1873. If Parliament now deliberately neglected to lay down similar provisions with regard to the other schools, it would undoubtedly be held that this was a purposed neglect, and that they were not subject to rules for the proper convening and holding of meetings.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean had undoubtedly a very wide knowledge of these matters. He would carefully consider whether, as regarded meetings of managers where secular education was concerned, anything should be done by way of a Schedule to the Bill.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he wanted to ask the First Lord what objection there was to the Amendment being inserted at tins point. In all the words the right hon. Gentleman had addressed to the Committee he gave no hint as to why this modest request should not be granted, or as to why the managers should not be Compelled to keep minutes of their proceedings.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he wished to point out to the hon. Member that if his Amendment was dealt with now the matter could not be dealt with when the Committee came to the Schedule.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he was willing to withdraw his Amendment on the assurance of the First Lord; but he asked that the words to be inserted in the Schedule should be put down on the Paper at an early day. If that were done it would prevent many Amendments on the Paper being moved.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could not give the exact day when he would place the Amendment on the Paper, but he would do it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee report Progress, to sit again Tomorrow.

EVENING SITTING.
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR WYNDHAM, Dover), in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it proposed to give legislative sanction to an agreement between the Royal Dublin Society and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. At present, under the Probate Duties (Scotland and Ireland) Act, 1888, a sum of £5,000 was administered by the Royal Dublin Society for the improvement of horse-breeding in Ireland. The society was prepared, willing, and, he believed, eager to transfer the administration of this annual grant to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and the Department was equally anxious to administer the fund. He hoped and believed the House would come to the conclusion that the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction was the proper body to administer this fund.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman could assure the House that the Bill had the sanction and approval of the Royal Dublin Society, it was not a measure that ought to be contested. If there was one body which had been more successful in administering the affairs of Ireland than any other, it was the Royal Dublin Society, which had now been in existence for 142 years or thereabouts.

  551
  A great part of its money had been usefully applied to promoting the breed of horses and cattle, and the Society had instituted a horse show which had obtained European celebrity. All he asked then was the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that this transfer had the full sanction and cooperation of the Council of that society.
  MR FLYNNsaid he did not often find himself in disagreement with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, but he could not quite follow his argument, and he certainly thought the Department of Agriculture was the best fitted to administer the money. At the same time, no Irishman desired to detract from the merits of the great horse show at Ballibridge, which had obtained world-wide celebrity. There was no desire on the part of the Irish Members to oppose a Bill of this kind; on the contrary, they would be glad to see it pass; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would press upon the Department the fact that it was not necessary to the carrying out of their work in the development of horses and cattle, that every official who was appointed should be either an Englishman or a Scotchman. At present the policy of the Department in this respect seemed to be "that no Irishman need apply" for no matter how eminent or capable an Irishman might be, however well fitted he might be for a post under the Department, the fact that he was an Irishman; seemed to be a disqualification in the eyes of the Department. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would impress on the Department that in future such a policy must not be pursued.
  MR. O'DOWDregarded the Bill as a step in the right direction. At the same time he hoped that this Department would not become a second Local Government Board, and that the Committees which were now working all over Ireland in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture would not be treated in the way the Local Government Board treated local bodies. He had for years been a member of a council which had adopted the technical scheme, and which had taxed the people for the purpose of backing up the Department in giving
  552
  agricultural and technical instruction with a view to improving the condition of the people in the West of Ireland, and he trusted that in the future the recommendations of the County Council would receive more attention at the hands of the Department.
  MR. CULLINANcomplained that the Department sent ignorant and incompetent Englishmen and Scotchmen to lecture the Irish farmers on agricultural matters, and he had only that day read in a local newspaper the fact that a County Council had felt it to be its duty to condemn the action of one of these Scottish experts. The Irish people did not want to be Anglicised, and many Councils were becoming disgusted with the class of teachers selected by the Board. The Department too was looked upon with a certain amount of suspicion by a great number of people who were beginning to think that this endeavour to develop the industries of the country, to improve the breeds of stock and to grow better crops was really intended to create a fictitious value for the land in the interests of the landlords. He hoped at any time there would be a great improvement effected in the methods of the Department.
  MR. HUGH LAWsaid they were all agreed as to the desirability of the transfer, but they desired an opportunity of discussing the work of the Department. It was very important that the Department should be national in fact as well as in name, and that it should be in harmony with the general feeling of the country. Moreover, there was undoubtedly a necessity for more elasticity in its working; at present it was too much bound up in red tape, and the result was that it strangled new industries. Only that day he had had brought under his notice a case in which a lady had started a blackberry jam industry, which had found employment for a considerable number of children and others. She obtained a grant of £10 from the Agricultural Committee of the County Council, and set to work. But the Department subsequently declined to sanction the grant, on the ground that the Technical and not the Agricultural Committee should have sanctioned the

  553
  proceeding. It was doubtful if there would be any more blackberry jam made in that district in future.
  MR. MURPHYsaid there was a very strong feeling throughout the country as to the manner in which the Department filled vacant appointments, and he hoped that it would cease to make "no Irish need apply" its motto in the appointment of officials.

  EXPIRNG LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONhad on the Paper an Amendment to provide for two Schedules; one containing a List of Acts to be "continued until repealed." and the other containing a List of Acts to be continued, in whole, or in part, till the 31st December, 1903. The hon. Member said he understood that his Amendment was ruled to be out of order.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think it is out of order, because it proposes to make various expiring laws into permanent Acts of Parliament, and that is not within the scope of the present Bill.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I take it that your objection is to the form of words I employ. The object of this Bill is the continuance of certain Acts of Parliament: surely it is for the House to say for how long they shall be continued. The Bill proposes to continue certain Acts until 1903; is it not competent for me to move to substitute 1953? What I propose to do is to divide the Acts into two schedules.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he had intended to propose a similar Amendment, although in a somewhat
  554
  different form, and although he had great respect for the ruling of the Chair, he must confess he did not see the validity of the ruling in this particular instance. Why could they not have in the schedule a column stating for how long each Act should continue? He failed to see why such an Act as the Ballot Act, which had the approval of the entire House, should not be rendered permanent. He should have thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee was in order, but if not, he wished to know if his suggestion to carry out a similar object would he in order.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that, with all due respect, he would strongly urge the view that if the proposal of his hon. friend were accepted it would mean that, in an obscure way and by a side wind, the Committee would ho making perpetual Acts, which, up to the present, had been renewable from year to year.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: As regards the point of order raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundee, I am quite clear on the subject. Every Act continues in force until it is repealed, and the proposal of the lion, and learned Gentleman to continue certain expiring laws for fixed periods, or till repealed by Parliament, would be out of order. I do not give that opinion as from myself only have consulted the authorities of the House, and I am fortified by their opinion also.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Clause I stand part of the Bill."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he ventured to repeat the hope he expressed last night that this was the last occasion on which the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill would be presented in its existing form. After the admissions which had been made by the First Lord of the Treasury, the inclusion of the Ballot Act and the Employers Liability Act in the Bill could not be defended for a moment, it was the universal view of the House that that was a scandal. The Prime Minister himself admitted the force of their contention, which was that when the Bill had to be brought in again, permanent Acts should be made permanent, and temporary Acts should be continued as;

  555
  at present. He ventured to appeal to the Attorney General for an assurance that a different policy would be pursued in the future.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he quite agreed with his hon. and learned friend that it was absurd that an Act like the Ballot Act, which had been accepted by all parties as one of the irrevocable laws of the country, should have to be renewed from year to year; but he strongly protested against the doctrine that legislation which Parliament deliberately meant to be experimental and temporary should be made perpetual by such a summary process as putting it into the schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Hill. Of course hon. Gentlemen would understand how the Irish Members felt on the question, but apart altogether from the fact that Acts dealing with fundamental rights in Ireland wore included in the Bill, there were other questions, many of them accepted by both Parties in the House on the strict condition that their operation should be confined to a certain number of years, in order to see how they worked. That was a proper way to deal with many social experiments; and while he joined in the appeal to the Attorney General to say that measures which had practically become part of the constitution should not be subject to this process year by year, he wished to safeguard himself and his hon. friends against the idea that they would not regard it as a serious danger to make perpetual measures which Parliament in its wisdom had declared to be experimental and temporary.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he wished to assure his hon. friend who had just spoken that the very last idea they had was to force on any section of the House, by indirect means, measures which were objectionable to them. There was obviously a clear distinction between controversial Acts and Acts which were universally accepted. He wished to join in the appeal to the Attorney General, who he knew would be sympathetic, to remove what he considered a great blot on their mode of legislation. They were not only re-enacting a large number of obsolete Statutes, but were positively incorporating in the fourth column five or ten times as many extraneous references to other Acts of Parliament, and yet they acted on the assumption that
  556
  the people were familiar with the law and were bound to obey it at their peril. That mode of legislation was a disgrace to the present century. They saw how Germany had devoted a very large sum of money, as well as the best minds in the country, to the preparation of a code. That course was also being taken in comparatively new countries like Egypt; and when they realised the great advantage to the French nation of the Code Napoleon, he thought the time had come when there should be, on the part of law reformers, the strongest possible protest against what he could only call a marine store mode of legislation. The present Bill was the penance which Parliament had to suffer for the scandalous mode in which so much of its legislation was effected. This patchwork kind of legislation was as discreditable to the Legislature as it was injurious to the best interests of the country.
  MR. ROBERT SPENCERsaid he quite agreed that the Ballot Act should be made permanent. He wished to ask the Attorney General, however, why the Sand Grouse Protection Act should only be extended for one year.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must discuss that on the Schedule.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he agreed in the abstract with what his hon. friend said as to the Bill not being a desirable mode of legislation; but what had been said by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division showed that there was some difficulty in giving practical application to the very excellent principle which had been laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman. To the main principle advanced he should be disposed to give his most entire and hearty assent; but he would point out that it was largely a matter of Parliamentary time, and that the subject was only one branch of the larger subject referred to by his hon. friend the Member for South Islington, viz., the codification of the law. He did not quite agree with his hon. friend as to the excellence of the Code Napoleon, as, when he had to look up a question of French law, he had to examine a mass of decisions. If we codified our laws

  557
  it should be on a more complete and thorough plan than that of the Code Napoleon.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he would mention the Egyptian Code.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he thought the Egyptian Code was better than the Code Napoleon. With regard to the particular subject before the Committee, he did not think it could be looked upon apart from the general subject of which it was a branch. If that subject was to be dealt with, the House should be content to delegate to a Committee the task of dealing with the details.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Even as regards the Ballot Act?
  SIR. ROBERT FINLAYsaid that there were a number of other Acts, and the Committee would have to deal with the subject as a whole. The difficulties which would arise from an Act being made permanent involved questions of such nicety and detail that he could foresee several weeks of Parliamentary time being consumed in Committee of the Whole House on the subject. There was very great jealousy on the part of the House to delegate a task of that character, and as long as that jealousy continued, he was afraid that the prospects of codific ation were somewhat remote. He had the most entire sympathy with the general principle enunciated, but he could not undertake on behalf of the Government that the subject would be dealt with next session. No undertaking could be given until they knew how the House would be disposed to look at the larger question, and how much Parliamentary time would be available.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid he desired to call attention to the fact that there was no reference whatever, except in the preamble of the Bill, to Part II. He asked for an explanation.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Motion made and question proposed, "That the Schedule be added to the Bill."
  MR. FLYNNsaid that he handed in an Amendment to the schedule yesterday which was of a perfectly clear and comprehensible character. He now found that his Amendment appeared three times over, and each time referred to a different Act. His object was to omit the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881; but he was also apparently inviting the Committee to omit the Corrupt Practices Act, 1854, and the Corrupt Practices Commission Expenses Act, 1869.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will state the lines in the Schedule he wishes to omit, I will call upon him.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that although he handed in the Amendment in proper form it appeared in such a manner as to make him seem ridiculous.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I can only judge by the Paper in my hands at the present moment, and in that I find that the hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out lines 30 and 31. If any hon. Gentleman has an Amendment before that, I will call on him.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid he desired to omit in page 2, lines 39 and 40, which referred to the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1860. That Act, which was now obsolete, was to enable the Board of Works in Ireland to advance money to owners of land for the erection of labourers' cottages. Since the passing of the Act of 1 883, he had never heard of the Act of I860 being put into operation, although he was specially interested in the housing of agricultural labourersin Ireland, especially in Munster. If any hon. Member representing an Irish constituency would say that within his experience that Act had been used since 1883, he would withdraw his Amendment. The Act of 1883 put on the local authority the duty of providing labourers' cottages, and he did not see why an obsolete Act should be included in the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, to omit lines 39 and 40."—(Mr. O'Shec.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid before the Amendment was disposed of it might be well to hear what the Attorney General for Ireland had to say on the subject.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,said that the Act of 1883 enabled loans to be made to the local authority for labourers' cottages, whereas the Act of I860 enabled loans to be made to the owners of land for that purpose.
  MR. T. P O'CONNORasked if, as a matter of fact, any loan had been issued under the Act for years.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he could not answer that question offhand, but he thought that the Act of 1883 had to a great extent superseded the Act of 1860, but at the same time it was not desirable to repeal it.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON moved to omit in page 3, the Promissory Notes Act, 1863, and the Promissory Notes (Ireland) Act, 1864. It was suggested on the previous night that these Acts had been incorporated in the Bills of Exchange Act.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that his hon. friend was mistaken. The Acts dealt with the validity of promissory notes between £1 and £5, and, if repealed, there would be some doubt as to whether such notes were valid or not.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the Acts it was proposed to omit suspended the operation of certain other Acts, which restrained the issue of such notes. The proper way to deal with the matter would be, not to make the suspending Acts permanent, but to repeal the original Acts themselves.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. POWER MR. POWER (Waterford, E.) moved to omit from the Schedule the Prosecutions Expenses Act, 1866. He wished to know if the expenses of the prosecutions which were now taking place in Ireland were authorised under the Prosecutions Expenses Act, 1866. If that were the case it would be the duty of the Irish Members
  560
  to have an explanation of some of the things that were now occurring in Ireland.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the Act did not apply to either Scotland or Ireland.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he should like to refer to the Locomotives Act, 1865, which he took as a sample of the kind o legislation against which they were protesting. He had prepared a synopsis as to the effect of the Act now being extended for another year, and he found the state of the law, which everyone was assumed to know, was apparently as follows. By the provisions of the Act a person carrying a red flag was required to precede a locomotive. That provision was reenacted with Amendments by the Highways and Locomotives Act, 1878, which, in its turn, was repealed by the Locomotives Act, 1898. He would ask the Committee whether they thought that it was a satisfactory state of the law to enact a penal statute for one year, which had been amended by four permanent Acts. He confessed he did not comprehend them all himself, yet the people were expected to understand the law and obey it. He fully appreciated the sympathetic expressions of the Attorney General, but it was time to give serious attention to this state of things, and if no steps were taken by the Government, or some one more qualified than he was, he certainly should endeavour next session to secure the appointment of a Select Committee to remedy this matter. He should not, however, move in the matter now.
  MR. O'SHEE MR. O'SHEE moved to omit from the Schedule the Locomotives Act, 1865. In Ireland they had steam-rollers in operation on the roads, and in front of each there was a man with a red flag. Experience in the rural parts of Ireland, however, showed that motor cars were far more dangerous in passing vehicles or pedestrians than steam-rollers; and unless a provision were inserted requiring a red nag to be carried before every motor car, he should object to the renewal of the Locomotives Act. It was

  561
  unfair that a man should have to be employed to precede a steam roller with a red flag, when they were told that County Councils had no right even to regulate the speed of motor cars at the present time. Some of the County Councils in Ireland endeavoured to ascertain from the Local Government Board if they had any power to regulate the speed of motor cars, but they were referred to some Department in England.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped the Committee would not think it necessary to enter on a full discussion of the fascinating subject of motor cars. No doubt the law was not in an entirely satisfactory condition with reference to motor ears, but that was in a great measure due to the fact that the House insisted on dealing with the question itself; and he confessed he almost despaired of any satisfactory solution being arrived at until the House saw its way to appointing a strong Committee to consider the matter.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he thought it was rather a large demand that a motor car should be preceded by a man carrying a red flag. Even a speed of ten or twelve miles an hour would be rather much for the man with the flag.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid that for the protection of the public, ho would suggest that every motor car should be preceded by the steam-roller, and every steam-roller by a man with a red flag.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DALZTEL(10.10.) MR. DALZTEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs) moved to omit from the Schedule the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875. He said this was a measure which was obviously passed by way of an experiment, and which was intended to be limited in its operation, in order to give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion on its success or non-success. No hon. Member would deny that there was very good ground for an alteration in the law as far as this Act was concerned. First of all, he contended that the expenses of returning officers were
  562
  in many cases too high. It was simply ridiculous that a presiding officer who might live only a few miles from the polling place should be entitled to charge expenses for three days. He should have thought that, in such a case, expenses for one day would be quite enough. Then as to ballot boxes, they went dancing about at five or six different Parliamentary elections, and each candidate had to pay for them. That ought not to be. Ballot boxes which were used three or four times ought not to be charged in every case as if they were new. Another objection he had to the Act was that it placed the expense of the election on the shoulders of the candidates. The elections were not the candidates' elections, but the elections of the country; and that candidates should have to pay for them seemed to him exceedingly unjust. It was not a Party matter at all, and was really expenditure which ought to be paid out of the National Exchequer, in which case the expenses would be kept much lower than they were at present. The fact that the expense of an election was so very high was a barrier in many cases to men taking their seats in the House of Commons, and if the Act were not renewed they would see a very much larger number of labour Members in the House than at present, to, he believed, the advantage of the House. Another point was that some reasonable notice ought to be given of the candidates who were to be nominated. At one of his own elections, no other candidate had even been mentioned up to the morning of election. He thought his return was perfectly secure, and on the day preceding the nomination he travelled to a place 200 miles from his constituency. He received an intimation that he had better be careful. He returned by the night train; and next day, not in the morning, but at one minute to one o'clock in the afternoon, a nomination paper was produced nominating a gentleman who had never been in the constituency. A somewhat similar case occurred in Ireland. It was thought that as he did not expect to be opposed, he might not have provided the necessary security; and if he had not taken the precaution he would have lost the election, and the constituency would be represented by a man it had

  563
  never previously seen or heard of. It ought not to be possible to snatch a seat in such a manner, and he would therefore suggest that proper notice should be given of the candidates who were to be nominated before security was required. If the Committee refused to sanction the renewal of the Act, the Government would have to take definite action in the matter, and introduce a new Bill during the present session.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, to leave out lines 5 to 8, inclusive."—(Mr. Dalziel.)
  Question proposed, "That lines 5 to 8, inclusive, stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he thought the Committee would be sensible that some provision must be made with regard to the expenses of returning officers in Parliamentary elections. No one would wish that the measure should be allowed to lapse, and on this Bill the provisions of the Act could not be amended.
  MR. DALZIEL: Then, introduce a new Bill.
  SIRROBERT FINLAYsaid he ventured to submit to the hon. Member that that course would be very unreasonable. The hon. Member was very indignant with the law on the subject. He said that the expenses were excessive, and that candidates should not have to bear them. That opened up a very large question, on which it would be improper to enter on a Bill such as that before the Committee. Then the hon. Member referred to another matter, no doubt of great importance, but which had really little or no relation to the Act under consideration. He referred to notice being given of candidates to be nominated, but that did not depend on the Act.
  MR. DALZIELsaid the words of Act were "the end of the two hours appointed." His contention was that it should not be two hours but twenty-four hours.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the hon. Member wanted to amend the law relating to Parliamentary elections in order that twenty-four hours' notice or a
  564
  week's or a month's notice, should be required before candidates were nominated. That might or might not be reasonable, but it could not now be dealt with. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with having expressed his views on the subject.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the Attorney General had not told the Committee what would happen if the Bill were not renewed. It would not interfere with elections; it would simply mean that the expenses, in the first instance, would fall on the returning officers. It would therefore be necessary to pass a Bill immediately, or to let the returning officers bear the expense for a time, afterwards indemnifying them. It was simply a question of another Bill. As this was the only opportunity of protesting against an iniquitous and abominable system which was used for the benefit of propertied candidates, he should support the Amendment.
  MR. O'SHEEsupported the Amendment. The question of the payment of returning officers' expenses had been discussed for many years, and Labour candidates and organisations had over and over again claimed that those expenses should be paid out of the national exchequer. Irish Members suffered less from this grievance than Members from other parts of the United Kingdom, inasmuch as elections in Ireland were generally not contested, and the expenses consequently were small. But that was no reason why the Nationalists should not support the Amendment on the principle that no man ought to be debarred by his poverty from obtaining a seat in Parliament.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that, although this question had not been said to have a personal aspect for the Labour Members, he might be allowed to say that, in his opinion, the expenses of men who came to the House of Commons to do the country's work ought to be borne by the country. The House of Commons was not the worse, but the better, for the presence of the Labour Members, who in no way detracted from its dignity, or lessened the influence of its discussions. To take only one item—why should the ballot-boxes used in an election be charged to each candidate, seeing that the same boxes served for the election not in

  565
  one constituency only, but in several? Before he could he nominated as a candidate he had to produce a deposit of £350. It was impossible for a man of his class to produce such a sum, and why should the society to which he belonged be burdened with so heavy payment? He hoped an attempt would be made to take this burden off the shoulders of the individual candidate and place it either on the rates or the national exchequer.
  MR.T.P.O'CONNORthought that, while the Attorney General was justified in saying that the present was not the proper opportunity for making such a change in the law as had been suggested, a promise might very well be given that the Government would seriously consider the existing state of the law. It was most desirable that, the House of Commons should have within its walls representatives of every class of the community, and that no barrier
  whatever, especially of a pecuniary character, should be put in the way of such representation. There were a lot of trifling but vexatious expenses connected with elections which it was to the interest of nobody to maintain, and he hoped the subject would receive the attention of the Government.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he sympathised with the views which had been expressed on the other side, and he believed they were shared by many Unionist Members. It was a question not for Labour Members only, but for the nation at large. There should be no impediment placed in the way of any man becoming a candidate for a seat in this House.
  (10. 38.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 160; Noes, 103. (Division List No. 408.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Doughty, George

  Kenyon Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

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

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

  Finch, George H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Bignold, Arthur

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Bill, Charles

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Blandell, Colonel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Bond, Edward

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

  Malcohn, Ian

  Brassey, Albert

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Milvain, Thomas

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Moore, William (Antrim, N)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

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

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cavendish, V. C.W. (Derbysh're

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gretton, John

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Myers, William Henry

  Chapman, Edward

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Percy, Earl

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Helder, Augustus

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Purvis, Robert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Randles, John S.

  Cust, Henry John C

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ridley, Hon M. W. (Staly bridge

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

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

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Stewart Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Stroyan, John

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

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

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Younger, William

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

  Valentia, Viscount

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland

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

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Spear, John Ward

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther-

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Okelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  O'Shee, James John

  Allan, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rea, Russell

  Bell, Richard

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Black, Alexander William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brigg, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rigg, Richard

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burns, John

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Caldwell, James

  Leamy, Edmund

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Campbell-John (Armagh, S..

  Leng, Sir John

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lloyd,-George, David

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lough, Thomas

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Spencer, Rt Hn CR. (Northants

  Crean, Eugene

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cullinan, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, Donal

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Crae, George

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Kean, John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Delany, William

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, David Alfred(Mertbyr

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Moss, Samuel

  Toulmin, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murphy, John

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Edwards, Frank

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Ffrench, Peter

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

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

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Young, Samuel

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Griffith, James

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Dalziel and Mr. John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo. N

  Wilson (Durham).

  MR. FLYNN(10.48.) MR. FLYNN moved the omission of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881. He described the title as a misnomer, and contended that the Act was in reality a peace-disturbing Act. When the Act was passed Ireland was in a state of peace and quietude, and now Ireland was still more peaceable. [At this stage the result of the Devon port election reached the House and was greeted with Ministerial cheers.] He begged to thank hon. Members opposite for the highly appreciative way in which they had received his remarks, and he was glad to see that even the Colonial Secretary joined in the jubilation. Irishmen
  568
  did not enjoy even the liberty which Russia granted to her subjects, and in Cork or Dublin they were simply Outlanders in their own country, and they did not enjoy those equal rights which were the first privilege of free citizens. At a time when it was urged that in every hamlet and village rifle shooting should be practised, he was anxious to see men trained in the use of firearms in Ireland, and therefore he hoped that this disabling Act would be removed from the Statute-book. Even in South Africa the Government had been compelled by the duress of circumstances to allow the conquered Boers the right to carry arms,

  569
  although by this Act they denied that right to the inhabitants of a nation who lived only three hours journey from the shores of this country. No Irishman had a right to carry an ordinary fowling piece to shoot crows with, without going before a removable magistrate appointed by the right hon. Gentleman, and humbly beseeching to have that right granted him. Not only this, but any ordinary constable had a right to take any man into custody if he suspected the concealment of arms. In such a case the constable could go and arrest all the inhabitants in a house in which the concealment of arms was suspected, even without a warrant. He might desire to carry a fowling piece to shoot pheasants, or snipe, or other game, but in order to do so he would have to go before a magistrate and prove that he was a loyal citizen of the highest possible character, and practically prove that he was a true blue. In any foreign country, such as France or Germany, an Act of this description would be denounced as tyranny incompatible with the freedom of the twentieth century. A young ragamuffin of the criminal class in London could purchase a pistol or a revolver without any trouble, but a respectable man in Ireland could not carry a revolver or cartridges, or even a fowling piece for sport, without going before the magistrate, Questions had been put by the Irish Members as to why a county councillor in Ireland who possessed the confidence of his fellow citizens could not obtain a licence to carry firearms. He went before a removable magistrate, who refused to grant him a licence to keep a gun which he required to scare away the crows from his fields. Could they find an example of tyranny plainer than that? Upon certain dates in July and August each year, they heard of His Majesty's subjects firing off cannon in the North of Ireland. What became of those cannon for the rest of the year? If it was an offence to carry a fowling piece, surely it was a greater offence to fire off cannon. They all knew that those cannon were concealed somewhere, but they never heard of any arrests in connection with them. Irishmen were not allowed the right to carry firearms even to protect their own property. He protested against this Act as it was protested against twenty years ago when it was
  570
  first passed. The Act was then quite uncalled for, but it was now ten times more uncalled for than it was before, and it had become an insult to Irishmen.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, to leave out lines 30 and 31."—(Mr. Flynn.)
  Question proposed, "That lines 30 and 31 stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that anyone who listened to the opening of the hon. Member's speech must have supposed that the Irish nation had no outlet for its martial proclivities. The hon. Member was under a misapprehension if he believed that to be the case. Reference had been made to the institution of rifle clubs, but he had to point out to the hon. Member that when he was at the War Office he took care that rifle clubs should be allowed to be established just the same in Ireland as in England. No distinction had been made between Ireland and England in respect of rifle clubs, and the Irish Militia had rendered very good service in South Africa. It was also said that this was a specially tyrannical Act which ought not to be continued for a day longer on the statute-book. It had often been pointed out that the present Government succeeded to this Act as a heritage from their predecessors. It was originally introduced by Mr. Gladstone's Government in 1881, and he believed it was brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No, by Mr. Forster, well-known as "Buckshot" Forster.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. Gentleman opposite was generally correct in regard to these matters, but he thought that in this case he was mistaken. It was brought in for five years, and it was continued in 1886 by the predecessors of the present Government under the auspices of the right hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs. In 1887 the Conservative Party came into office, and they continued the Act for another five years, to be incorporated for that period in the Criminal Law and Procedure Act. In 1892 the right hon. Member for the

  571
  Montrose Burghs again became responsible for the government of Ireland. Did he withdraw this Act as a measure of tyranny, insult, and injury to the people of Ireland? No; he was asked to do so by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who objected to the Peace Preservation Act as a measure of coercion. But the right hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs said that it was a measure of police regulation. He associated himself with the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman, and he regarded the Peace Preservation Act as a wise measure of police regulation applicable to the conditions of Ireland. The hon. Member opposite took special, exception not only to the existence of this Act but to the tribunal which had administered it. There again he doubted whether the hon. Gentleman had studied the previous history of this Act, because in 1898 an Amendment was moved to it and supported by the hon. Member for East Mayo, providing that the jurisdiction under this Act should be reconstituted. Therefore, he had the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs for the necessity of the Act, and in support of the tribunal he quoted the hon. Member for East Mayo, who was still with them, although at the present time he was occupied in America. He doubted if any one acquainted with the operation of this Act could maintain that it was tyrannical in its character. Last year the number of licences to carry arms granted in Ireland up to the 30th of June was 6,089, and the number of licences refused was only 619, or about 9 per cent of the entire number of applications. The number of licences revoked was thirty-one. Therefore more than 6,000 people applied and were allowed to carry arms, and he thought that ought to meet the demand for legitimate personal defence or sporting purposes. It had been said that under this Act the Government instituted a number of vexatious prosecutions and inflicted penalties of a severe character. That was not so. Last night they listened to a very interesting historical speech from the hon. Member opposite, and he laid great stress upon the fact that in the year 1873–74 a certain eminent statesman on the Conservative side held the view that the Peace Preservation Act should no longer be embodied in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It seemed to him that they were bound by precedents
  572
  in this matter, but if the other doctrine were to be accepted, and he did not think it had ever been accepted, at any rate let it be reciprocal. Originally under the Act of 1844, the penalty was two years imprisonment with hard labour. That was modified by the Act of 1856 to one year with hard labour. The present Act imposed a maximum penalty of three months imprisonment without hard labour, with the alternative of a fine not exceeding £20. He would ask the House to consider how these penalties had been, imposed. In 1901, there were thirty-two prosecutions, of which three were withdrawn and six resulted in acquittals. Of the remainder, terms of imprisonment were imposed in three cases only, the other delinquents being fined small sums. There was nothing exceptional in the Act, or tyrannical in its administration.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he was in the House of Commons twenty-one or twenty-two years ago, when this Act was passed for the first time. It was enacted for five years. The Chief Secretary was not accurate in stating that the Bill was brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire. It was brought in by the late Mr. Forster, who was then Chief Secretary, but the Member for West Monmouthshire was one of the persons responsible, he being in the Government. On that occasion, the hon. Member made a speech in which he quoted from a speech made by the Member for West Monmouthshire strongly protesting against the action of a Conservative Administration in prolonging the Act for more than three years. In 1885, three years were considered sufficient, but now, such was the progress of Irish liberty, it was considered quite in accord with the eternal fitness of things, that the Act should be made perpetual. The progress of the regard and respect for Irish liberty in this House was quite on the same lines as the progress of the population of Ireland, and the prosperity of the Irish people. He felt some curiosity as to the kind of defence which the Chief Secretary would make for this measure. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the Member for the Montrose Burghs refused the request that it should not be renewed when asked by the hon. Member

  573
  for South Tyrone. But surely the Chief Secretary knew what the state of Ireland was at the time. There were scenes of violence and bloodshed going on in Belfast. He was informed that at that time a large section of the population of the North of Ireland was armed, and that they were able to use their arms, not in bloodshed, but rather in alarming the people who differed from them. The reason m favour of restraining the granting of licences for arms then lay in the almost rebellious condition of the North of Ireland—a state of rebellion which was largely brought about by the inspiriting eloquence of a Conservative statesman who visited Belfast about that period. He did not say that Belfast was quiet now, but it was comparatively so. Its energies had taken a religious rather than a political turn. Now, they were told that Ulster would fight and that Ulster would be right—not in preventing a measure of self-government for Ireland, but to save that province from the wiles and machinations of a Jesuitical Government which had brought forward the Education Bill. He was not concerned to stand between the Government and their Protestant assailants in the city of Belfast. He understood from the public Press that one result of this suspicion, of the Protestantism of the Government had been the return to parliament of a Gentleman who was entirely outside the Orthodox pale of the Conservative organisation in that city. But that was a domestic quarrel which he had no desire to enter. It was not his business or duty to give the Government a character for the thoroughness of their Protestantism. That was a matter he would leave them to fight out with their own supporters. The reason that existed for the Arms Act in those days was the rebellious state of Belfast on political grounds, but that argument was no longer to be found in the condition of that belligerent and exuberant province. As a matter of fact, they could all in that House go to all the weddings of all their friends for the next ten years without going to the hosier's if they could only get possession of the white gloves which were being presented to the judges, both of the High Courts and the County Courts. The Chief Secretary was not justified in applying to the Irish people a disarmament law which had not been applied
  574
  to the people of the Transvaal even after three years' war. What did the Chief Secretary say in reply? He said there were plenty of opportunities in Ireland for the outlet of that martial spirit which the Irish people had. He spoke of the deeds of valour of the Militia in South Africa, but he passed by the deeds of valour of the Irish Yeomanry there. Was the argument about, the Militia one which the right hon. Gentleman really put forward seriously? They knew that the British Government was quite ready to buy Irish valour at 1s. per day. and that when the Irish soldier had risked his life and lost his livelihood, this generous Government allowed him to end his days in the Irish workhouse. All these facts were perfectly familiar, but they were not relevant to the question of the disarmament of the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman said they had the privilege of raising rifle clubs in Ireland it they got the sanction of the National Rifle Association in London. What a privilege that was for Ireland‡ Either the people of Ireland were contented or discontented with the Government of tins country. If they were discontented he could quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman should demand a disarmament Act; but let him not say at the same time that the liberties and rights of the two countries were the same. They all knew that this Act was an instrument of tyranny in the hands of the authorities in Ireland. It was a Coercion Act, an Act in restraint of the liberties of the people, and it was a monstrous use of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to pass a Coercion Act among a number of obsolete Acts.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he desired to say a few words on this measure as regarded its sectional operation. Let them assume for the purpose of argument, which of course he denied, that this Act had some value for executive purposes, and let them look at the partial manner in which it was applied. Take the recent case of the proposed incursion of the Orange party into Rostrevor. Rostrevor was a purely Catholic district. He should think that nine-tenths of the people were Catholic, but being in close proximity to Belfast, and not in a proclaimed district of the country, it was possible for Orangemen

  575
  by excursion trains to pour thousands of armed men into the Rostrevor area. The Government did proclaim it on 12th of July last, but the hon. Gentleman lately elected a Member of this House for one of the Divisions of Belfast [Mr. Sloan] had stated that at whatever peril he would on the next 12th of July, the date when the Orangemen of Ireland celebrated the battle of the Boyne or some other battle, insist on going to Rostrevor and holding a meeting there. They all knew, in the immortal words of Dean Swift, that "ten men armed to the teeth are more than a match for one man in his shirt," and if ten thousand Orangemen come down from Belfast, or anywhere else, into the little Catholic village of Rostrevor with rifles and arms, he really did not see what prospect there was for the Catholic people of the district, the nuns of the district, and the Catholic priests of the religious institutions of that district. He did not see what force the Government could oppose to that loyal body. Even if they assumed that this measure was a necessity to the government of Ireland, its operation was so partial and so unjust, that it really became, for those Catholics who lived on the borderland of this unhappy district, a very serious thing. Those Orangemen were always thinking of William III., or Queen Anne, and persons who had been dead for a long period, and whose microbes still disturbed the Orange intelligence. It was really a serious thing for the Catholics in this district to be prohibited by the Government from arming themselves and preventing aggression under the circumstances of the case. He had noticed ever since the Chief Secretary took office that when the Nationalists attacked him it was on perfectly sound grounds, but when the Orangemen attacked him it was not for giving them hard labour, or making them bankrupt. The ground of the Orange attack was that he had not permitted them to murder the Catholics. He had read most powerful denunciations of the Chief Secretary, assailing him because he did not permit the Rostrevor demonstration, and threatening him with what would happen on the next occasion when this anniversary cane round.
  576
  Did he think these Orangemen would be so keen to come into Catholic districts if they thought that the Catholics could shoot straight, or if they had the means of repelling these aggressions? He absolutely deplored and deprecated in every way the keeping up of these animosities, and he was amazed that sensible men could have anything to do with them. But Privy Councillors like the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh put themselves at the head of these armed bands, and by appealing to the Bible and to "the Sword of the Lord and of Gideon," and all these considerations, on the date of these anniversaries, worked up these unhappy people in order to assail by vituperation and assault their fellow citizens. In the South of Ireland there were absolutely no arms except those carried by returning emigrants in their trunks, and these were immediately taken from them at Queenstown. The North of Ireland was the only region where, since the rebellion of 1798, anybody had been killed in political strife. In Belfast, County Down, Armagh, and Antrim there were regions which were not proclaimed, and here they had a whole district absolutely incited by these incitements to come down and slay their fellow countrymen. And these organisations were headed by the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman opposite who were the adornment of law and order in Ireland. Was that a fair position of affairs? This Arms Act was a relic of the times when Ireland was supposed to be, in some way, formidable and dangerous to this country. Why, since the invention of the modern rifle, not to speak of the pom-poms and Maxim guns, the pretence that from a military point of view an unarmed and even an unorganised people could ever be formidable to this country was absurd. How did Mr. Gladstone get round Lord Spencer in 1881, when he was hesitating upon this Home Rule Question? Mr. Gladstone said that if Ireland gave the least trouble to England when she became organised tinder an Irish Parliament, England could tow Ireland after it as a battleship could tow a cockboat, and that was as true today as it was true sixteen years ago. So that if every Irishman possessed a Mauser rifle the notion that they could do anything against the might of England when battleships could enter Dublin Bay on one side and Galway Bay on the other,

  577
  and shoot cannon balls that would meet at Athlone, was, from a military point of view, a grotesque absurdity, and from a military point of view this Bill was archaeological. Therefore this Bill could only be important to the Government from the point of view of the prevention of crime. How did Ireland stand in regard to crime? They had at this moment in Ireland an organisation which was striving to the utmost of its ability to prevent crime, but in addition to that they had the fact that owing to the passage of Land Acts agrarian crime had positively disappeared from the country. If they wanted to commit the crime of murder they could buy in the Strand a rifle about two feet long for 15s., which would put a bullet in a landlord just as well as a blunderbuss 6 ft. long. There was no means which he knew of for pre-venting people determined to commit crime from possessing themselves of weapons of this character. They had come now to the days of Maxim guns and smokeless powder, and weapons of facility and precision, and the notion that this particular Bill did anything to keep Ireland quiet and subdued was a view borrowed from the last century. One word more. He did think the Tory Party had in the arguments against Home Rule had a most chameleon set of contentions, which changed their lines according to the kind of attack made upon them. Had; the Tory Party who pretended that Ireland was an integral portion of the British Empire, no shame when they said that they themselves wore proclaiming the necessity of promoting the martial qualities of the people, in keeping up year after year in the form these Bills had now taken, this disability, which, as he had shown, had no grounds of military or civil justification, and which operated in the North of Ireland as an incitement to assassination upon a defence less population? If the Tory Party meant to rule Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, they should endeavour to give Irishmen some of the laws that existed in their own country. He did not profess himself to speak the English language with any facility or any accuracy, but he generally made himself fairly understood. But the Welsh people—a people as Celtic as the Irish—spoke the Welsh language, and even here on these Benches when the Welsh Members conversed with each other they talked Welsh. Now the Welsh
  578
  people might be a thorn in the side of England, and were just as national in their views as the Irish, and yet England did not hesitate to give them all the rights which they give to the British people. Why then was it that in regard to the Irish nation the Chief Secretary did not attempt to take an original view? They had known Cabinets to go on year after year, but generally after two years they found some Cabinet Minister slain on the altar of his country, and resigning his office. But had anyone known an Irish Secretary resign office? He invited the light hon. Gentleman to give proof that there was no justification for the assaults upon him from that side. He had sent Irish Members to the plank bed; he had made speeches with which they could not agree. Some people believed that he was fighting a lone hand in the Cabinet. Why did he not now, on the question of Ireland, take the view of modernity? Mr. Forster was dead; Mr. Pitt was no more; the right hon. Member for West Monmouth was no longer the leader of the Liberal Party. From the Tory point of view would he not take on his responsibility, as a statesman, some new line in regard to this matter? The landlords were not helping him, and why then should he consent, year after year, to tread this miserable beaten path, strewn as it was with all these records of failure, in regard to this small and petty measure? Why did he not take the stand of Disraeli, Sir Stafford Northcote, and Sir M. Hicks-Beach, and as a Conservative statesman prefer to follow in their footsteps, and if the Arms Act must be renewed, let him, at any rate, give the Irish Members an opportunity of discussing the matter and of making the measure a battle-horse on which the Irish Members could make their assault.
  MR. HUGH LAWsaid that the Chief Secretary had not put forward any positive argument for the continuance of this Act; his argument had been merely negative. He could not but think that it almost amounted to a fraud on the House that a Bill of this character should be continued year after year under circumstances which were entirely different from those which existed when the House was induced to pass it originally. He wanted to contrast the position taken up by the Government when the

  579
  Act was first passed with that assumed when they now asked for its continuance. In asking leave to introduce this measure originally, the Home Secretary of the day was able to point to the fact that Judge Fitzgerald had declared that Ireland was in a state little different from civil war. Now, as had been clearly shown by the hon. Member for Scotland Division, Ireland was absolutely crimeless. Then, on the Second Heading of the Bill the Solicitor General for Ireland gave the House some extraordinary particulars as to the state of the country. In the county of Kerry a band of fifty disguised men roamed over the district at night, entered houses, and carried away forty guns, besides money; and at Loughrea another band of 150 men, armed, had made a raid. The Solicitor General went on to say that the Government had asked simply to be armed with powers to deprive would-be murderers of their weapons; and at the end of his speech he said that the Act would only be put in force where it was absolutely necessary for the preservation of peace that the people should be disarmed. Could the Government positively and definitely assure Parliament that the state of Ireland was today anything like it was in 1881? He therefore maintained that it was an abuse of the forms of the House to pass an Act of this sort in a Continuance Bill which was originally framed to meet a wholly different condition of affairs.
  MR. MACVEAGHsaid he regretted that the short time at his disposal would not permit him to draw attention at length to the neglect of the Government to prevent the firing of revolvers from trains on the occasion of Orange demonstrations. Nearly a quarter of a century ago the Government of the day assured the House that this matter was receiving their careful consideration, and, when this year a similar question was put to the Chief Secretary, the same reply was made. He supposed that twenty-five years hence they should have another English gentleman getting up and telling the House that the matter was receiving the careful consideration of the Government, Everybody knew how Orange demonstrations were got up in Ireland. Men were imported from all parts of the country,
  580
  most of them armed, and all of them drunk; and these gentlemen fired off revolvers in the gaiety of their hearts, but no prosecutions followed. There was an Orange demonstration where a young Catholic was shot, and the evidence of the police was that the Orangemen had carried away with them sackfuls of rifles. Yet they were told that the Act was impartially administered ‡ In the columns of the Dublin Daily Express, the organ of the landlords in Ireland, there appeared a description of an Orange demonstration.
  "Some pistol shots," it was stated, "were fired in the air in the outskirts of the crowd, and immediately the fire was taken up by several hundreds of persons. Pistols and rifles were produced on all sides, and a continuous fusillade was carried on for fifteen minutes, which the Orange leaders vainly endeavoured to stop. And one would have thought he was the spectator of a sham fight. The police tried to stop the display, which the Orangemen regarded as a splendid joke."
  Then, this year revolver shots were fired from an Orange excursion train at Newry, and several people were wounded. Only one arrest was made, and although the man had his pockets stuffed with cartridges, the magistrate discharged him because it had not been proved that he had any intention of killing anybody‡ In the south of Ireland, if a man was found with a revolver in his pocket he would be sentenced to the plank bed. He noticed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, had been making a speech in his constituency in which he attacked the hon. Member for South Belfast because that hon. Member had announced his intention of marching over to Rome at the head of an army of Orangemen to drive the Pope from his throne. He should think that that hon. Member would have to march at the head of a very formidable body of men to do that. It was perfectly manifest to anyone who watched the administration of the Arms Act in Ireland that it was used in the most one-sided manner. In the north of Ireland any Orangeman could get a permit to carry arms from the magistrate at once.
  MR. WYNDHAMrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put. "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 162; Noes, 76. (Division List No. 409.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, John Tynte

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Percy, Earl

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Gore, Hn G. R. CO rmsby-(Salop

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Purvis, Robert

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Greene, Sir EW (B'ry SE dm'nds

  Randles, John S.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bignold, Arthur

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bigwood, James

  Gretton, John

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Bill, Charles

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Groves, James Grimble

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Bond, Edward

  Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G (Midd'x

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St John

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Sinclair, Louis (Rom ford)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Smith, H. C (N'th'mb. Tyneside

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

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

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Spear, John Ward

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Stroyan, John

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Denny, Colonel

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh, N.)

  Doughty, George

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Montagu, Hon. J Scott (Hants.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Younger, William

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mst'w

  Finch, George H.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Myers, William Henry

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Caldwell, James

  Cullinan, J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Black, Alexander William

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Brigg, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Delany, William

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Crean, Eugene

  Devlin, Joseph

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Crae, George

  Rigg, Richard

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Kean, John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Moss, Samuel

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murphy, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Thomas, J A (Glam'r'gan, Gower

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Nussey, Thomas Willians

  Tomkinson, James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Toulmin, George

  Joyce, Michael

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

  While, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

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

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

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Leng, Sir John

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Shee, James John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Lundon, W.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  (12.3.) Question put accordingly, "That lines 30 and 31 stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 160: Noes, 75. (Division List No. 410.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoult, Joseph

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Denny, Colonel

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Doughty, George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawrence, Sir Jos'ph (Monm'th

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawson, John Grant

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Long, Rt. Hon Walter (Bristol, S

  Bignold, Arthur

  Finch, George H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bigwood, James

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bill, Charles

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Bond, Edward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Brassey, Albert

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Forster, Henry William

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Malcolm, Ian

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

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

  Milvain, Thomas

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gore, Hn. GR.C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Montagu G. (Huntingdon)

  Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

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

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A (Worc.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gretton, John

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mount, William Arthur

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Groves, James Grimble

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Myers, William Henry

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Colston, Charles Edw. H. Athole

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W

  Percy, Earl

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Purvis, Robert

  Randles, John S.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, H. C (N'th'mb. Tyneside

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

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

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

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

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Spear, John Ward

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Stroyan, John

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Younger, William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und. Lyne

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Shee, James John

  Black, Alexander William

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Brigg, John

  Leamy, Edmund

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Caldwell, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lough, Thomas

  Rigg, Richard

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Crean, Eugene

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Cullinan, J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Crae, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Delany, William

  M'Kean, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Devlin, Joseph

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tomkinson, James

  Ffrench, Peter

  Moss, Samuel

  Toulmin, George

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murphy, John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gilhooly, James

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Horniman, Frederick John

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

  Jones, Williams (Carnarv'nshire

  O'Dowd, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  MR. A. J. BALFOURclaimed "That this be the Schedule to the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes 74. (Division List No. 411.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Burdett-Coutts, W

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Denny, Colonel

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA (Worc.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

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

  Charrington, Spencer

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Balfour, Rt Hon Gerald W (Leeds

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Doughty, George

  Banbury, Frederick George

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bignold, Arthur

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Bill, Charles

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Bond, Edward

  Comptan, Lord Alwyne

  Finch, George H.

  Brassey, Albert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Cranborne, viscount

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlts

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Smith, H. C. (N'th'mb. Tyneside

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Spear, John Ward

  Gretton, John

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Stanley Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Groves, James Grimble

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Stroyan, John

  Humilton Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Morgan, David J (W'lthamst'w

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thornton, Percy M

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Myers, William Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Heath, James (Statfords., N. W.)

  Nicol Donald Ninian

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hope, J. F. (Sh'ffield, Brights'de

  Percy, Earl

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Howard, John (Kent, F'versh'm

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Purvis, Robert

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B Stuart-

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick. Wm

  Randles, John S.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Younger, William

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Lawson, John Grant

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  TELLER FOR THE AYES—

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S)

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo. N

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Black, Alexander William

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Shee, James John

  Brigg, John

  Leamy, Edmund

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Caldwell, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lough, Thomas

  Rickett, J Compton

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, W.

  Rigg, Richard

  Cullinan, J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Delany, William

  M'Crae, George

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Devlin, Joseph

  M'Kean, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Evans Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Ffrench, Peter

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, J A (Gl'morgan, Gower

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Moss, Samuel

  Tomkinson, James

  Gilhooly, James

  Murphy, John

  Toulmin, George

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Nolan, Joseph (Lonth, South)

  Whitley, J.H. (Halifax)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

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

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

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

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Dowd, John

  Question put, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill."
  It being after midnight, and objection being taken to further proceedings, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.
  MR. SPEAKER,in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.