Sitting of 24 October 1902

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz., Water Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.

PETITIONS.
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Petitions for the abolition of restrictions: from Radnor Park; Keighley; Runcorn: Dalmuir; Cumbernauld; Vale of Leven; Nuneaton; Haswell; Exmouth; Bury; Ebbw Vale; Wrexham; Paignton; and Stanbury; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALE BILL.
  Petition against: from Eversholt; Ridgmont; Stogussey; and North Newton; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Keighley; Dalmuir; Cumbernauld; Vale of Leven; Haswell; Walker; Exmouth; Nuneaton; Radnor Park; Ebbw Vale; Wrexham; Stanbury; and Paignton; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Liverpool; Sutton (two); Southampton (three); to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION IN TRADE.
  Petitions for legislation: From Keighley; Runcorn; Dalmuir; Cumbernauld; Bury; Vale of Leven; Haswell; Exmouth; Nuneaton; Radnor Park; Ebbw Vale; Wrexham; Paignton; and Stanbury; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TYPHOID FEVER IN LIMERICK CITY AND PRISON.
  Copy presented, of Reports made by Stewart Woodhouse, Esq., M.D., Medical Member of the General Prisons Board for Ireland, and by Sir J. Acheson M'Cullagh, M.D., Medical Inspector to the Local Government Board for Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2908 to 2910 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, That this House will, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn until Monday next.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Voluntary Schools Trust Deeds.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state when the promised copies of the precedents of trust deeds for voluntary schools settled by the Education Department under the Revised Code of 1870 and previous Codes will be laid upon the Table.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I understand that these documents will be laid in a few days' time.

    Carriage of Indian Government Goods by German Firms.
    MR. NORMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that about 660 tons of Railway material for the Madras railways

    727
    were shipped from Middlesbrough by the German steamship "Rudesheimer" on 4th July, and about 1,280 tons by the German steamship "Goldenfels" on 25th June; if he can state whether all the locomotives shipped from Middlesbrough for the Madras Railways since 1886 have been carried by German steamships, and whether tenders for this freight have been asked from British shipowners; if not, can he state why this preference has been given by an Indian Government Railway to German firms; and will he take steps to give British steamship owners the opportunity of tendering for such freight in future.
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The hon. Member is mistaken in describing the Madras Railway, for which, as stated in the Question, these materials were ordered, as an Indian Government Railway. It is not a State line, but it is the property of a company, by whom arrangements for its working and maintenance are made. The Question would seem, therefore, to have been addressed to me under a misapprehension.

    Board of Customs—Grievances of Second Class Examining Officers.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the proposals of the Board of Customs for the removal of grievances of the second class examining officers have yet been submitted to the Treasury; and if he can now state when the settlement of the case of these officers may be expected.
    (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) Yes, Sir. The proposals have been placed before the Treasury, who have, with one slight exception, sanctioned them in the form in which they were submitted. The Board expect to be able to communicate the decision to the officers concerned in the course of next week.

    Proclaimed Meeting at Rostrevor.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the names of the Orange leaders with whom he consulted as to the advisability of proclaiming a meeting to have been held in Rostrevor, on 12th July last.
    728
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I accept, as I always have accepted (see The Parliamentary Debates, 8th, 10th, and 23rd July) full responsibility on behalf of the Irish Government for the proclamation of the Rostrevor meeting. With that my Ministerial responsibility ends, and I must respectfully submit that it would be contrary to established practice to publish officially the names of unofficial persons with whom Ministers have thought well to consult on account of their experience and influence over important sections of the community.

    2nd Seaforth Highlanders.
    MR. BIGNOLD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the 2nd battalion Seaforth Highlanders has only had a station in Scotland for one year in the last twenty-four years, he will consent to the battalion being quartered in Scotland on its return home; and will he say when the 2nd battalion of the Seaforths may be expected to leave South Africa.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) It is not possible to say at present when this battalion will return home, and as the infantry barracks in Scotland will be filled by three other Scotch battalions returning from South Africa by the 26th instant, no barracks will be available for the Seaforth Highlanders. I must point out to my hon. friend that of the twenty-four years referred to, twenty-two have been spent by the battalion on foreign service.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 8:—
THE CHAIRMAN: In reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Nottingham to insert in Clause 8, page 3, line 12, after "school" the words "as well as the minutes or other records of meetings and decisions by the

729
managers," I must point out that this is covered by the words giving power to inspect.
MR. YOXALLpointed out that meetings of managers of schools were seldom held in the school buildings, and the teacher was not always present. He submitted that it was desirable to specify that there should be power to inspect these minutes.
MR. CORRIE GRANTadded that the minutes would in all probability, be in the custody of a member of the committee who was not an official under the control of the local education authority, and therefore the power to inspect the school would not necessarily imply power to inspect the minutes of the Managing Committee.
MR. BRYCEsaid that no doubt in the case of School Boards their power over managers did extend to matters of this kind. But now they were dealing with what had hitherto been private bodies upon which certain public duties were in the future to devolve. It was quite possible they might not consider it their duty to throw the records of their meetings open to inspection, and it was, therefore, desirable to place this right of examination beyond all possibility of doubt.
THE CHAIRMAN: These possibilities might be indefinitely multiplied. Are you going to give power to inspect furniture and pictures.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OR THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I think this is one of those things which should be dealt with in the schedule.
MR. BRYCEsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would deal with it in the schedule, that would be satisfactory. He was encouraged by what had fallen from the Government on more than one occasion to hope that they would accept this Amendment he now rose to move, because they had repeatedly said that they were very anxious for decentralisation and to relieve the Board of Education of a number of functions it now exercised, but which
730
could well be relegated to the new education authority. Over and over again had the complaint been made that that Board was overburdened, and surely this was a matter which might well be left to the judgment of the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed himself confident that the new authorities would be jealous in carrying out the Act, and he hoped that confidence would be justified by results. The question whether cases of infraction of the Conscience Clause were frequent, was one on which there might be a difference of opinion, but, undoubtedly, they did occur, and it was desirable to devise some means of dealing with them. The object of the Amendment was to give the local authority power to deal with the question of complaints under what was commonly called the Cowper-Temple Clause. A question of the infraction of the Conscience Clause could not be said in any sense to belong to the sphere of religious instruction. It might be a question of law, of fact, or of both, but it was a question, at any rate, as to whether the provisions of the law had been obeyed. He thought, as he had said before, that such cases would be rare; but the local authority, having its own representative on the body of local managers, would be able to inform itself as to the facts, and there was much to be said for allowing them to have this power. This provision, indeed, appeared to him to be almost the corollary of the right of inspection which had been conceded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 12, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'and to receive, inquire into, AND deal with any complaints addressed to them regarding infractions of Section 7 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870.'"—(Mr. Bryce.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was in harmony with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that the infractions of this sub-Section were extremely rare. He believed, indeed, that that was so. But he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the authority which should adjudicate upon these questions.

731
He thought the right hon. Gentleman would see that his proposal was either impracticable or unfair. One of two things must happen if his Amendment was carried. The first alternative was that there would be two authorities adjudicating on this question of the Conscience Clause, the local authority as regards voluntary schools, and the Education Department as regards provided schools; he thought that would be most inconvenient. Then, if they considered it would be too cumbrous and absurd to have two different bodies both examining into the question of infractions of the Conscience Clause, and abolished the authority which the Education Department now had over provided schools, there would be nobody to adjudicate or take any action if the Conscience Clause was infringed in a provided school. They must, if the Amendment were carried, have one of those alternatives, and as both of them seemed impossible and intolerable, he hoped the proposal would not be pressed.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsuggested that there was still another alternative, and that was, that the county authority should also deal with complaints from the non-provided schools.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I pointed out that the Amendment only allowed two alternatives. I think it would be intolerable to have one authority dealing with the provided schools, and a second authority dealing with the voluntary.
MR. BRYCE: By this Clause we can only deal with the non-provided schools.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But we must consider the consequences of accepting the Amendment.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought the difficulty was not as great as the right hon. Gentleman imagined. No one suggested that even if the power were given to the county authority that already possessed by the Board of Education would be abrogated. The Education Department must have supreme control over all secular education in the country, and if there was any infraction of the Conscience Clause, whether in
732
provided or non-provided schools, and whether the county authority had the right to examine them or not, the Education Department must necessarily have the same power vested in it. All that was wanted was that the same power should be given to the county authority over the non-provided schools as they must necessarily have over the provided schools. The Amendment, so far from destroying the symmetry of the Bill, would make it more symmetrical. Clause 6 gave the local authority all the powers and duties of a School Board. Now it was part of the duty to examine into complaints of this character. Under this Bill it became not merely the right, but the duty, of the county authority to investigate such complaints from provided schools, and all the Amendment asked was that the authority should be entrusted with a similar power in regard to non-provided schools.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONurged that the power must be in the hands of an authority which could enforce its own decisions in this matter. The power of the Education Department in cases of infractions of the Conscience Clause, consisted in depriving the school of the Parliamentary grant should the managers refuse to comply with their orders. But under this Bill the power of the Department to withdraw the grant ceased, because the financial control was to pass to the local education authority.
THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,was understood to dissent from this view.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: Would the local education authority have power to withhold from a particular school a grant, when they were under an obligation to keep that school efficient?
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: A school would cease to be a public elementary school if it ceased to qualify for the Parliamentary grant. It would so cease to qualify if it broke the Conscience Clause, and the local education authority would no longer be under an obligation to maintain it.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: What a cumbrous piece of machinery in order to secure the right of a child to be exempted from religious teaching‡ The school would cease to be a public elementary school, and presumably the local education authority would have to build a new one to take its place. It would be a much simpler plan to accept the Amendment.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid they must look at this question from a practical point of view. Although he had heard of a great many cases of infraction of the Conscience Clause in denominational schools, he had never heard of a case in a board school. Indeed, it seemed to him almost impossible for such a case to arise in a board school. He personally believed that the deliberate infraction of the Conscience Clause was not a frequent event. It was due either to stupidity or bigotry, or to both causes combined. The man who wilfully violated the Clause was not only a bigot, he was something which he need not mention. But what the Committee had to deal with was the working of the Clause in the small country villages. It had to be a very gross infraction of the Conscience Clause for the Education Department to interfere. He did not know whether the Secretary to the Board of Education would follow the example of his predecessor in this matter, but they were familiar with the form of reply of the Education Department when a case had been stated which aroused the indignation of both sides of the House. "The Education Department have no power to interfere." This was a question of daily work—it was not only the Conscience Clause, but it was also the administration of it, which they had to watch. It was provided that where children at the request of their parents were withdrawn from religious teaching, they should be put in a separate room, and be give a secular instruction. But many hon. Members must have heard cases of cruel administration of the Clause, cases of children who were taking the benefit of the Clause being obliged to remain out in the rain or snow during the religious lesson. It was these little things, done by little
734
men in little schools, which created a great deal of the irritation and conflict with which they were now confronted in reference to the present Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government had stated again and again that they recognised that in these single school parishes there was a religious difficulty so farasthe Nonconformists were concerned, and that they were prepared to agree to any remedy which would not encroach on the rights of denominational schools; but if they were to be met on these small matters with this absolute non possumus on every occasion on account of some theoretical or lawyer's difficulty, he thought they would not be carrying out in the spirit, although they might in the letter, their desire to remove all reasonable Nonconformist grievances. He could not conceive why the Government should not concede this Amendment, for he could not conceive a better or more independent tribunal to inquire into these cases than the county authority. He could not understand the refusal of the Government to give the power to the authority to deal with grievances which were impeding and irritating our local educational systems. If they could not accept this particular Amendment, would they be willing to introduce a better form of words in a more convenient part of the Bill?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,said the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly accurate in saying that the Government had recognised that there was a grievance to be dealt with as regards the single school areas, and the Government proposed to do that. But this was a different matter. He thought that these cases of violation of the Conscience Clause were extremely rare, and he ventured to say that they would be impossible when they had a body of managers of voluntary schools such as was constituted under the Bill. He wished, however, to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Board of Education had full power to deal with any infraction of the Conscience Clause. The observance of that Clause was a condition of a school's receiving the Parliamentary grant, and if that did not give the Board of Education

735
power to see that the Conscience Clause was enforced, he did not know what could. If the attention of the Board of Education were called to a case of this kind, it would certainly warn the school that the grant would be withdrawn if the objectionable policy were persisted in. He did not believe there would be any want of disposition on the part of the Board to deal with these cases. Whatever Party might be in power, he was sure the Board of Education would fearlessly do its duty in putting an end to any abuses of the Clause. The course proposed under the Amendment would be most inconvenient, for two authorities to decide the same question would be set up. Under the Bill as it stood the county authority would have full power to draw the attention of the Board of Education to infractions of the Conscience Clause.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid this grievance was eminently a local grievance, and any one who knew the condition of a country district knew that the Conscience Clause, as it was worked at present, was no protection at all. Why should a child who was wrongly dealt with be compelled to go to Whitehall for redress? Why should not the local education authority on the spot have power to deal with it? That education authority was obviously the body to which complaints in this matter ought to be made. He could not conceive what was the objection to allowing the education authority to inquire into breaches, whether they were numerous or rare. It would create a very bad impression if the Government refused to the local education authority the power of giving effect to the Conscience Clause. They said practically that the only person who was to enforce the Conscience Clause was the Secretary to the Education Department. That was virtually the issue put by the Attorney General. The local education authority ought to have the power of enforcing that which was put forward as the only protection of Nonconformists. Was the education authority to have no cognisance or authority in the case of the Conscience Clause, and were they to be compelled to pay the rate when
736
the Conscience Clause was not observed? If ever there was any justification for refusing to pay the rates it would be in such circumstances as those.
SIR JOHN DORINGTONentirely sympathised with the intentions of the Amendment, but pressed the Committee to look at the matter from a practical point of view. No doubt the local authority would exercise this very power under sub-Section (a). Whether they could enforce it by legal means was another matter. Anybody who had a complaint to make would inform the County Council, instead of sending the information in a letter addressed to the Secretary of the Education Department. The Council would then interfere, and if they had not full legal rights they could communicate with the Department, who had. Surely that would afford a much more speedy remedy than complaining to Whitehall. He objected very much to encumbering the Act with too many delegations, which tended, in his opinion, to destroy that simplicity of administration which was so eminently desirable.
MR. M'KENNAsaid the hon. Baronet had left the Committee in some doubt as to how he intended to vote.
SIR JOHN DORINGTON: I shall I vote with the Government.
MR. M'KENNA: And yet the hon. Baronet approved of the Amendment. He thought they were all agreed that the means of punishing any infraction of the Conscience Clause ought to be made as ready as possible, and that the local authority was therefore to be preferred to the Board of Education. The remedy which had existed for the last thirty years had been found to be insufficient. What was the objection of the Government to giving power in this matter to the local education authority? There was nothing in the Bill to provide that the majority of the managers of a school should be laymen; on the contrary, one was bound to assume that if they were technically laymen they would be ecclesiastically-minded, and he certainly preferred the regular parson to the ecclesiastically-minded layman. All the Amendment asked was that an aggrieved party

737
should have a ready remedy, and he submitted that to give the power to the local education authority was thoroughly consistent with the principle of the Bill.
MR. SEELYopposed the Amendment, which he contended would have an effect exactly the reverse of that which hon. Gentlemen desired. All, of course, wished to avoid infractions of the Conscience Clause, and under the Bill as it stood nothing could prevent the County Council, which had a representative on the board of managers, from receiving and inquiring into complaints about such infractions. He could see no possible risk of the Board of Education—which was responsible to Parliament—failing to do its duty in this matter; but he could conceive that there was a possibility—he believed it to be very improbable, however—that, after a bitter party and religious fight, the successful party might refuse to carry out the Conscience Clause in the spirit in which it was regarded by every Member of this House. He hoped that for the sake of simplicity, and in order to avoid trouble in the future, the Committee would reject the Amendment.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the Attorney General had asserted that the Amendment was impracticable, inconvenient and unnecessary. What did he mean by the last suggestion?
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Under the Bill as it stands the local authority have power to bring these matters before the Board of Education; hence the Amendment is unnecessary.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasserted that there was nothing in the Bill which conferred on the local education authority either the power or the duty of interfering with respect to infractions of the Conscience Clause. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that the managers had the power specified in the Amendment? Suppose the Conscience Clause were infringed by a teacher; would the board of managers have power to deal with complaints in the manner suggested in the Amendment? It was only reasonable that they should have it.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid it was admitted that the alleged cases were extremely rare. ["No."] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton said expressly that such cases were rare.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the question was not as to the rarity of the cases, but as to the expected character of the board of managers under the new law. The Attorney General said that under the new law things would be quite different. But they did not yet know how the majority of the board of management was to be constituted. There were to be four foundation managers, but no further definition had been given. It could only be inferred that the four new managers were to be somewhat of the same character as those under the existing trust deeds. According to the trust deed, of which he had a copy, there would be the principal clergyman of the parish, his curate——
THE CHAIRMAN: Really, the hon. Member is now discussing the character of the board of managers in detail.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was answering the argument of the Attorney General that there was no need of the Amendment because the managers would be of a certain kind. He was going on to show that that kind consisted of the clergyman, his curate, and two persons who were willing to swear that for the last two years they had been communicating members of the Church of England. He did not know that that was a board more to be trusted than the local authority.
MR. BLACKasked whether, supposing an admitted infraction of the Conscience Clause were brought to the attention of the local education authority, it would constitute a good ground for the dismissal of the offending teacher under the previous portion of the Clause. If that question were answered in the affirmative, the Government might reasonably claim to have the best of the argument. If, however, the answer were in the negative, those whose consciences had

739
been outraged by the infraction of the Conscience Clause would be a great deal worse off than before. At present the Board of Education had power to suspend the grant straight away, and the offending school suffered a direct loss, and the managers had to maintain it out of their own pockets. The Clause would have to do with people who wished to go as far as they could in the direction of infringing the Conscience Clause, and consequently, knowing the local education authority would not go the length of putting them out of the list of public elementary schools and building a school at the ratepayers' expense, the offending parties would push the infraction of the Conscience Clause a great deal further than they would otherwise do.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYthought the hon. Member had misunderstood the objection of his hon. friends to the Amendment. They thought it unnecessary because the local education authority, as the Bill stood, undoubtedly had power to report to the Board of Education. The case supposed was that of a teacher who was so active that the Government grant to the school was lost. Whether that was an "educational ground" he did not like to be too certain, but it seemed to be uncommonly near it, because if the teacher continued in his courses the Government grant would be forfeited. But the way in which the scheme would work in such a case was, that the local authority would call the attention of the managers to what was going on, and to the fact that the school would lose the Government grant, and be no longer maintained out of the rates if the practices were continued.
MR. BLACKsaid the hon. and learned Member had hardly answered his question; he would really like a "yes" or "no" answer.
MR. YOXALLsaid that, while it might be true that cases of infraction of Clause 7 and the Conscience Clause might be very rare, when they did occur they occurred not through the fault of the teacher of his own instance and option, but as the result of stress and influence placed upon him by the managers—particularly the
740
clerical manager. The Committee would, therefore, do well to consider the matter from the point of view of what the clerical managers would do in this respect. So long as the typical trust deed of the National Society was accepted, the sole authority in the last resort would be the incumbent of the parish. Of late years there had been growing up in the denominational schools, a new difficulty with regard to the Conscience Clause—a difficulty not as between the Established Church teacher and the child of a Dissenter, but as between the child of a Low Churchman and the teaching imposed on the school by a High Church clergyman. The Clause under consideration and the Conscience Clause dependent upon it, hardly met that situation. A separate class-room and some kind of separate teaching could be provided for the children withdrawn because their parents were Nonconformists or Jews, but that provision could not be made for half the children in the Church schools who might be withdrawn from the teaching in the religious hour because that teaching had become imbued by the instructions of a clergyman of High Church character. The appeal to the Board of Education was not efficacious, and it seemed to him that there was a good case made out for carrying the existing law farther than had been the case in the past.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the remarks of the hon. Member were not relevant to the Amendment.
MR. YOXALLsaid he thought it was the duty of the Committee to see that a better method of putting the existing law into operation was obtained.
SIR W. HART DYKEsaid that so far as the discussion had gone it paid high testimony to the utility of the operation of the Bill. Whatever difficulties there might have been in the past with regard to parents, at all events, when this Bill became law, they would not fail to disappear. As he understood the matter, hon. Members opposite were not satisfied with the Bill as it stood, and they wanted to know how it would operate in the case of difficulties raised

741
by the parents. Hon. Members opposite seemed to forget that whatever happened the Board of Education would not part with the absolute control they had over elementary education. Control must be absolute with them, for they held the purse strings, and wherever a case existed which was detrimental to good education they would retain in the future the power which they had today. The local education authority, so far as the Bill was concerned, were absolutely supreme in dealing with all secular education, but he apprehended that where a chaotic state of things existed in regard to religious differences the local education authority would have power to interfere.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Attorney General has told us the opposite.
SIR W. HART DYKEsaid the local authority were responsible for good education in every school in their district, and if a state of things existed through the action of the managers which produced strong religious feelings of bitterness, that would be hostile to education n that school and destructive of its success. There must be unity of action between the two authorities, and hon. Members opposite seemed to forget that the first general Clause laid down distinctly that this authority was to act in accordance with a scheme which had to be approved by the Board of Education. Therefore there must be unity of action between these two bodies as regarded all difficulties. Both these bodies were responsible for public funds, one to the locality and the other at Whitehall, and they were also responsible for providing a good education and for the conducting of education in every school in England and Wales. The first thing that would happen in a case of difficulty would be that the representative of the local authority would at once call attention to the state of affairs existing in that particular school. There would be an inquiry. The local authority would say to the Education Committee: "There are very great grievances in connection with this school, and we have had complaints." They would have to make an inquiry, and if their investigations satisfied them that the state of
742
things existing in that school was injurious to education, they would call the attention of the head authority at Whitehall, which would be responsible for the scheme, to the matter. What would be the result? The education authority at Whitehall would immediately call the attention of the managers to the same thing, and say to them "This state of thing cannot continue, and if it does we shall refuse your grant." That was not an unfair description of what would take place. When the hon. Member mentioned the grievances of all these parents with respect to the religious difficulty, he must again remind the Committee of the earnest speech made by the head representative of the Union of Teachers, in which he stated emphatically that after twenty years' experience as a teacher in board schools and voluntary schools in this country, he knew of no case of complaint in regard to religious education. He had tried to explain to the Committee what he thought would be the common-sense arrangement under the Act.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he should like to put a concrete case, which he had already alluded to upon a former occasion. In this instance the children had been withdrawn from religious teaching at the commencement of the school on account of the conscientious objection of their parents. The children had already walked miles upon a pouring wet morning, and upon presenting themselves at the school these children were told by the manager of the school or the teacher—"No, you are not entitled to come in now; the school has not commenced yet for secular education. You must remain outside until the religious instruction is over." Could the commencement of the school be set apart for religious instruction, and would the local managers of that school be entitled to say, "You have nothing whatever to do with the time table. This is religious education, and we can do what we like. "What power had they got to deal with that case under this Bill? The Attorney General said there were certain powers which would obviate this complaint. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury said it would be illegal to do it, but that

743
a common-sense Board of Managers would do it. His right hon. friend the Member for Dartford had drawn a picture of what would take place, and that was very much what they wanted to take place; but it would be prevented from taking place by these very conditions. In the case he had given the managers of the school did not violate the Conscience Clause.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid if there was no violation of the Conscience Clause it had no bearing opon the Amendment. The question as to what would happen under those circumstances, it being admitted that there was no infraction of the Conscience Clause, was one which he had better not deal with on this Amendment.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Attorney-General said this case was not legally a breach of the Conscience Clause.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I did not say that. I said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton put a case assuming that there was no breach of the Conscience Clause. This Amendment deals only with cases in which there has been a breach of the Conscience Clause.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that when a person complained about this breach of the Conscience Clause the Education Department were entitled to say, "It is not a distinct breach and we are not entitled to interfere." If such complaints were made to the local authority they could go and see the managers, and the grievances could be immediately remedied. They might not have the actual legal right, but being the local authority and having the power to see into it, they would see that the particular complaint was remedied. The great advantage of this Amendment would be that these grievances would be dealt with at once by the education authority. Everybody admitted that the Education Department had full power to deal with this matter, but it did not follow that they were necessarily in a position to deal with it. These disputes were very much personal questions, and
744
turned upon a very slight difference of evidence; and it was the most difficult thing in the world to deal with a religious question. The Education Department had very often to deal with these questions upon paper evidence, and this method was so difficult that very often the Department felt obliged not to take any action, because it would involve the whole cessation of grants to that particular school. On the other hand, when it came to the local authority sending one of their body to talk the matter over with the teachers and parents, it was obvious they would be able to deal with many of these difficulties. He thought the most valuable contribution in favour of this Amendment was the speech of the right hon. Member for Dartford. They desired that the local authority should have power to deal with these matters. The Attorney-General had argued that they could not give this power to two different authorities, and that therefore it must remain, as at present, in the hands of the Department. The speech of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury seemed to be absolutely sound in favour of the Amendment. They should put into the Bill what the local authority was to do where there was a breach of the Conscience Clause.
MR. A. J. BALFOURappealed to the Committee to bring this discussion to a close. He thought the arguments on both sides had now been placed before the Committee.
SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid that cases were very rare under the Conscience Clause, but everybody was aware that they did sometimes occur. When they did arise the local authority should be in a position to receive complaints and make inquiry. He ventured to say that it was a condition precedent to the inquiry that the local authority should have power to receive complaints in regard to the matter to be inquired into.
MR. SPEARsaid he believed the control originally provided in the Bill was sufficient for all purposes, but the Committee had seen fit to amplify that control in certain particulars. Having made that departure he thought they were now dealing

745
with one of the most important points that could come up. While he did not share the fears of the Nonconformists in connection with this Bill, he thought it would be a concession to the spirit of perhaps unreasonable suspicion and would remove some feeling of uneasiness if the Amendment were accepted. He held that eight Churchmen out of ten were as anxious as Nonconformists to deal justly with the claims of Nonconformists, but here and there they had unreasonable clergymen or Churchmen who did not appreciate the conscientious feelings of the Nonconformists. The acceptance of the Amendment would secure that whatever that unwise clergyman sought to deal disrespectfully with the conscientious feelings of Nonconformists the local authority would have specific directions to deal with the case. Consequently, he, as a warm supporter of the main principles of the Bill, believed that the acceptance of the Amendment or of similar words, would remove the feeling of anxiety and tend to promote the cordial co-operation which they all hoped would be shown in carrying out the provision of the Bill.
MR. BRIGGsaid he would state facts in his own experience, which would, he thought, be much more convincing than some of the speeches the Committee had heard, He knew a village, partly manufacturing, partly farming, in which it had been the custom of the clergymen from time to time to take the children out of the school—it was a one-school village—into the church at eleven o'clock on certain saints' days. Who these saints were he did not know. The largest proportion of the children in this Church school were those of Nonconformist parents. He took upon himself to inquire why those Nonconformist parents did not withdraw their children from school or complain of their being brought into church to be taught the Church catechism and other things. They said they did not want to make complaints. A blacksmith in the village said to him, "Oh, you know our customers are farmers in the district, and it would not do to make these complaints. Another man, a grocer, said, "I do take an active part in the chapel, but there are plenty of farmers round here who are
746
customers. They come and get things in my shop and I do not want to offend them." That was the state of things they wanted to deal with by the Amendment. The inspector would come in contact with the cases in the schools, and complaints might be made to him by the parents, though they would not venture to complain, direct to the Department in Whitehall.
MR. SOARESsaid anyone who knew anything whatever of the strong position taken up by the Nonconformists with regard to this Bill must recognise the fact that one of the results of passing the Bill would be an increase of sectarian bitterness in every parish throughout the kingdom. One of the results also would be that more people would avail themselves of the Conscience Clause than in the past. On the other hand, when they had small men as managers of schools a certain amount of reprisals would be undertaken, and there might be more petty tyranny than in the past. He did not say that there would be many of those tyrannies. His own experience was that the managers and clergymen were broad-minded men, but there was no doubt whatever that there was an intolerant minority, and it was their duty to protect the children against that minority when there was any infraction of the Conscience Clause. It seemed to him that there was only one way proposed by the Bill, namely, to threaten the managers that the grant would be withdrawn and a new school built. That was an utterly absurd threat to make. It was using a steam-hammer to crush an egg-shell. He would support the Amendment.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid Section 7 of the Act of 1870 had worked very well indeed. The infractions had been rare. He believed the whole Committee would accept that view. [Cries of "No."] Then he believed the great bulk of the Committee would admit that the infractions had been rare. Notwithstanding that he suggested to the Prime Minister the extreme desirableness of accepting the substance of the Amendment at any rate. Under Clause 6 of this Bill the

747
local authority would have all the powers and duties of the School Board affecting their own schools. They would do exactly what School Boards had done in the past under Section 7 of the Act of 1870. What was to be done with regard to the non-provided schools? They had given to local authority full control over secular education, but this was not secular education. He was dealing with the non-provided schools, and under the law, as it stood, which would be incorporated in the present Bill, the local education authority would have no right to make any inquiry in regard to any complaint.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the appointed managers would look after them.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he understood the other night that the managers were to work as a whole. Two of the managers had no right to inquire into this matter and the other four had. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no"] Well, all the six managers had, and they were to represent their complaint to the Board of Education. [Cries of "Yes."] Very well, now they were getting this matter cleared up. The two public representatives and the four trust managers could inquire into any infraction of sub-Sections 1 and 2 of the Act of 1870, and make representations to the Board of Education, but they were not to make their representations to the local education authority. [Cries from the Ministerial Benches of "No, no."] No, because the education authority would have no power.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that if that view was enforced, the Amendment was out of order.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that that was not a matter for him. At the bottom of the sub-Section it was set forth that any scholar might be withdrawn by his parent from religious instruction without forfeiting any benefits of the scholar. Well, if the scholar was withdrawn that was a matter on which the education authority would have no control, although they had control over secular education. He contended that
748
the system of the provided schools and the non-provided schools should be exactly the same. He would ask the Prime Minister to accept this form of Amendment, viz., to leave out the words "deal with," and to make it read "and to receive, inquire into, and represent to the Education Department any complaints," etc. That would leave the law absolutely fair with regard to both sets of schools, and the procedure would be in both what it was now in regard to the board schools.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out the words 'deal with,' and insert the words 'represent to the Board of Education.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not agree quite with his hon. friend that the local authority could not now, or should not, under the Bill, have the power to deal with complaints of this kind; and he confessed he preferred the words as moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen. All that they asked was that the same powers should be given in the case of the non-provided schools as in the case of the provided schools. They wanted to have the same power that if a teacher, paid by the local authority, was guilty of an infraction of the Conscience Clause he could be dismissed by the local authority. He understood from the Attorney-General that the local authority had a power of inquiry. He would put a case of this sort. Suppose the local authority called for an explanation from the Board of Managers, and that they said "You have nothing to do with it; this is purely a religious question." Take another point. Suppose that a local inquiry was to be held, and that the managers were called upon to attend, but refused. What means had the county authority of compelling them?
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: How could we confer any power to compel managers to answer questions? If the managers did not answer questions, they would be self-condemned.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not agree with his right hon. friend. If it was not made part of the function of the local authority to deal with those complaints, but if it was the business of the Board of Education, they would have a perfect right to refuse to answer questions or to give an explanation. That was the whole point. This discussion was becoming simply farcical when it was suggested that the Bill was to be administered by means of complaints through the penny post to the Education Department by any one out of thirty-five millions of people. Was that the administration and control of secular education? What they wanted to know was if there was to be an effective right of inquiry, and to call for evidence or explanations on the part of the managers in their defence. As the Bill stood, the managers might say "This is no business of yours." The Prime Minister constantly replied, "You have your own managers, and they can make inquiry," but they were in a permanent minority.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that even a minority could take independent action.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that it struck him sometimes that a minority
might have a monoply of administration. All that they asked for was that the minority should have the right of a proper inquiry into the facts when the majority of the managers did not want inquiry. The two representative managers could only act as a part of the body to which they belonged, and the moment they began to act on their own initiative they ceased to act as managers, and only acted as individuals. They had no power. Here was one of the best tests as to whether the Nonconformists of the country were going to be protected by this Bill. He was glad that this Amendment had been moved; it showed that all the talk about complete control was really not intended, and that the position would be in the future as it had been in the past.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose 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, 18; Noes, 79. (Division List No. 418.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Godson,SirAugustusFrederick

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady

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

Bain, colonel James Robert

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Baird, John George Alexander

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Graham, Henry Robert

Balcarres, Lord

Cranborne, Viscount

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Balfour,RtHnGerald W.(Leeds

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Gunter, Sir Robert

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hall, Edward Marshall

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Hamilton,RtHnLordG(Midd'x

Bartley, George C. T.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

Beckett, Ernest William

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Bignold, Arthur

Dyke,Rt.Hon.SirWilliamHart

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Bill, Charles

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Healy, Timothy Michael

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fardell, Sir T. George

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Helder, Augustus

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Fergusson, Rt Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r

Hobhouse Henry (Somerset,E.

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

Brymer, William Ernest

Finch, George H.

Horner, Frederick William

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Campbell,RtHn.J. A.(Glasgow

Fisher, William Hayes

Kemp, George

Carew, James Lawrence

FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose-

Kennedy, Patrick James

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Lawson, John Grant

Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareh'm

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Flower, Ernest

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Chamberlain,RtHon,J.(Brim.)

Foster, Henry William

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A.(Worc.

Foster,PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Chapman, Edward

Galloway, William Johnson

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S

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

Garfit, William

Lowe, Francis William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lucas,ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

Purvis, Robert

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Macartney,RtHn.W.G.Ellison

Pym, C. Guy

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Macdona, John Cumming

Randles, John S.

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

Majendie, James A. H.

Rankin, Sir James

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Malcolm, Ian

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Thornton, Percy M.

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Ratcliff, R. F.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Milvain, Thomas

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Monatgu, G. (Huntingdon)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Valentia, Viscount

More,Robt.Jasper(Shropshire)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Vincent,ColSirC.E.H.(Sheff'ld

Morgan,DavidJ(Walthmstow)

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Morrell, George Herbert

Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen

Warde, Col. C. E.

Morrison, James Archibald

Ritchie,RtHnCharlesThomson

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

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Williams,RtHnJPowell-(Birm.

Mount, William Arthur

Ropner, Colonel Robert

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

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Murray,RtHn.A.Graham(Bute

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Myers, William Henry

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Younger, William

Peel,Hn.Wm.RobertWellesley

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Percy, Earl

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Pierpoint, Robert

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Spear, John Ward

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther

Plummer, Walter R.

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

NOES.

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Grant, Corrie

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pickard, Benjamin

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Price, Robert John

Black, Alexander William

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

Rea, Russell

Burns, John

Harwood, George

Reckitt, Harold James

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Rigg, Richard

Burt, Thomas

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Robertsn, Edmund (Dundee)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Helme, Norbal Waston

Roe, Sir Thomas

Caine, William Sproston

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Caldwell, James

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

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Cameron, Robert

Horniman, Frederick John

Soares, Ernest J.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Causton, Richard Knight

Jacoby, James Alfed

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cawley, Frederick

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Craig, Robert Hunter

Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Wallace, Robert

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leng, Sir John

Wason, Eugene

Edwards, Frank

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Emmott, Alfred

M'Kenna, Reginald

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Fenwick, Charles

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

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

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Moss, Samuel

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Nussey, Thomas Willans

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fuller, J. M. F.

Partington, Oswald

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Paulton, James Mellor

Mr. William M'Arthur.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put accordingly, and agreed to.

(2.8.) Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 86; Noes, 171. (Division List No. 419.) (2.22.)

AYES.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Bignold, Arthur

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

Black, Alexander William

Burt, Thomas

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Brigg, John

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Caine, William Sproston

Caldwell, James

Helme, Norval Watson

Reckitt, Harold James

Cameron, Robert

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

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

Rigg, Richard

Causton, Richard Knight

Horniman, Frederick John

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Cawley, Frederick

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Craig, Robert Hunter

Jacoby, James Alfred

Schwann, Charles E.

Crombie, John William

Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Soares, Ernest J.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington

Spear, John Ward

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Spencer,RtHn.C.R.(Northants

Edwards, Frank

Leng, Sir John

Strachey, Sir Edward

Emmott, Alfred

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

M'Kenna, Reginald

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

Fenwick, Charles

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Wallace, Robert

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Moss, Samuel

Wason, Eugene

Fuller, J. M. F.

Norton, Captain Cecil William

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Grant, Corrie

Partington, Oswald

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Paulton, James Mellor

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Harwood, George

Pickard, Benjamin

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Price, Robert John

Mr. Herbert Gladstone

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D

Rea, Russell

and Mr. Wm. M'Arthur.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kennedy, Patrick James

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lawson, John Grant

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dyke, Rt. hon. Sir William Hart

Lee,ArthurH(Hants.,Fareham

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Baird, John George Alexander

Fardell, Sir T. George

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Balcarres, Lord

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham

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

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

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

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lowe, Francis William

Balfour,RtHnGeraldW(Leeds

Finch, George H.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

Fisher, William Hayes

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Bartley, George C. T.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Macdona, John Cumming

Beckett, Ernest William

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Majendie, James A. H.

Bill, Charles

Flower, Ernest

Malcolm, Ian

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Forster, Henry William

Milvain, Thomas

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Boulnois, Edmund

Galloway, William Johnson

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Garfit, William

Morgan, David J(Walth'mstow

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Morrell, George Herbert

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Morrison, James Archibald

Brymer, William Ernest

Gore,HnG.R.COrmsby-(Salop

Morton, Arthur Aylmer

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mount, William Arthur

Campbell,RtHn.J.A.(Glasgow

Graham, Henry Robert

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Carew, James Laurence

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray,RtHn A Graham(Bute

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Myers, William Henry

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

HamiltonRtHnLordG(Midd'x

Nicholson, William Graham

Chamberlain,RtHnJA.(Worc.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Chapman, Edward

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

Percy, Earl

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Pierpoint, Robert

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Plummer, Walter R.

Colomb,SirJohnCharles Ready

Healy, Timothy Michael

Pretyman, Ernest George

Colston,Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col Edward

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Helder, Augustus

Purvis, Robert

Cranborne, Viscount

Hobhouse,Henry(Somerset,E

Pym, C. Guy

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hogg, Lindsay

Randles, John S.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

Rankin, Sir James

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Horner, Frederick William

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Ratcliff, R. F.

Dorington,Rt.Hon.Sir John E

Kemp, George

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

754

755

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Walrond,Rt Hn. Sir William H.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stanley,EdwardsJas(Somerset

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

Williams,RtHnJPowell-(Birm

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Thornton, Percy M.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Valentia, Viscount

Smith,JamesParker(Lanarks.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, who had an Amendment on the Paper providing that the local education authority shall have power to inspect the school, "and their inspectors shall present yearly to the Education Department their reports as to the state and efficiency of the schools," said he understood that the previous evening objection was taken to an Amendment with reference to inspection, and it was indicated that another place might be found in the Bill to deal with the subject separately. If this was the case, then he would postpone what he had to say on the subject of inspection until the point was raised later. He would like, however, to have a clear understanding from the Government that there would be a future opportunity to discuss the Question.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the previous evening, in opposition to an Amendment similar in character to that of the right hon. Gentleman, objection was raised that it imposed a condition on the maintenance of public elementary schools which they themselves had no opportunity of fulfilling, because it rested with the local education authority, and, in the case of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, not even with the local authority, but the local authority's inspectors. The Amendment, therefore, was not only out of place, but it would reduce the Clause to absurdity. It was also pointed out that if the subject of inspection was to be treated it should be treated as a whole at a different stage in the Bill. There would no doubt be an opportunity of raising the question, but he was not in a position to give any pledge that the Government would create that opportunity. It would have to be created by
756
hon. Members opposite, but that such an opportunity would arise he thought there could be no doubt.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that an opportunity to which the Government were not favourable was not much of an opportunity. He did not think the Committee could accept the statement of the hon. Member with any great expectation that the subject of inspection would be considered at all. If that was the case, he might as well state on the Amendment he had placed on the Paper why he thought the subject of inspection should be dealt with in the Bill.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYappealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed with his Amendment. The words proposed would add as a condition to the right of maintenance that the inspectors should present yearly to the Education Department their reports as to the state of efficiency of the schools. The performance of that duty rested entirely with the inspectors of the local education authority, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to propose an Amendment which laid down as a condition of the right of a school to maintenance something which rested entirely in the option of the local education authority inspectors. It was putting in something as a condition which, however right it might be in its proper place, was meaningless and repugnant in the Clause. He thought, indeed, that the subject was really a point of order.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that it might be desirable in that case to make his Amendment mandatory, and not conditional. He assumed that the

757
education authority would inspect the schools. It was essential that there should be inspection by this authority for this reason. There was to be a county rate for these schools, and the ratepayers ought to know what was the general condition of the schools for which they were to pay that rate. This could only be known by reports made to them as to the condition of each school. If those reports were satisfactory the ratepayers would then say, "Very well, we will agree to the rate." The county authority had a right to say that they would not pay the rate to support machinery which was not doing the work for which such a rate ought to be raised, and it was perfectly plain that if they did not have some provision of this kind the ratepayers of the county would be entitled to resist the rate, because no account would be rendered to them of the condition of the schools for which they paid. They would not know whether they were paying for things which were worth the money. It should be the business of the education authority, through an inspection of every school in the county, to render an account to the ratepayers of what they were paying for. How were the county authority to render an account to the ratepayers of the condition of the schools in respect of which the rate was levied? He did not wish to prolong this discussion now if there was an understanding that there would be an opportunity given of dealing with the question of inspection. Every ratepayer had a right to refuse the rate unless the education authority rendered an account of how the rate was expended, and what was the condition of the schools upon which it had been expended. That seemed absolutely vital to this question. There must be a record kept of the condition of the schools by the people who were responsible to the Education Department. This must be placed upon record, so that every ratepayer in the county might know that the school had been inspected by the local authority. This question had nothing to do with the Education Department in London, for no one could answer for this inspection except the local education authority. If it was out of place at this stage, he was perfectly willing to raise this distinct question
758
upon another occasion if the Government would give an opportunity of considering the question of inspection, without which no ratepayer was bound to pay the rate. He assumed that there would be an inspection, for the local authority must satisfy themselves that the schools were in a proper condition.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 12, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'and their inspectors shall present yearly to the Education Department their reports as to the state and efficiency of the schools.'"—(Sir William Harcourt.)
Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOURhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, because it was absurd and impossible where it was now proposed.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he had already stated that he was perfectly willing to yield to that objection if they had an indication that this matter would be dealt with as a separate matter.
MR A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman should raise the question of inspection in some place where it could be reasonably dealt with. His right hon. friend admitted that it was not very important that this question should be raised here, and considering the extraordinary amount of time they were spending over these points he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. But he quite agreed that the education authority was responsible to the ratepayers, and that it would have not only to submit its accounts to audit, but to make itself acquainted with the condition of the schools in its district. But this was not the place to discuss those excellent objects.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that he had asked for a statement of that kind at the very commencement of his remarks, and if the right hon. Gentleman thought this was not the proper place to insert such a condition he would yield to that at once. He was perfectly satisfied with the statement the First Lord of the Treasury had made, and he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BRYCEsaid that he wished to insert after the word "school" the words "and to determine the time to be allowed for secular instruction and religious instruction respectively."
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the object of the Amendment was covered by the words in sub-Section (a) providing that the managers should carry out any directions of the local education authority as to secular instruction.
MR. BRYCEsaid, if he understood the ruling which had just been given, it was that under the provision with regard to secular education the local authority had full power to determine how much time was to be given to secular instruction, and it was only because this was left in doubt that he moved his Amendment. Under these circumstances he did not wish to detain the Committee.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Do I understand that the authority will have the right to declare what time, what particular hours of the day, shall be given to secular instruction?
THE CHAIRMAN: I should think so. It does not interfere with religious instruction at all. With the hours of religious instruction, I take it, the Committee have decided that the local education authority are to have no power to interefere.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am afraid I have not made myself clear. Let me put a practical illustration. Supposing the local authority were to say that Secular instruction shall be given between the hours of 9 and 11.30, and the managers said "We are anxious that religious instruction shall be given between 9 and 9.30," what is to happen?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the managers would have to begin their religious instruction at 8.30.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON*MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.) moved to leave out all the words of the sub-Section after the word "school." The effect of the sub-Section as it stood was that the managers were to keep the accounts. He believed none of them wanted that, but that all of them wanted the local education authority to keep its own accounts.
760
This difficulty had been foreseen by several hon. Members opposite who had put down Amendments on this point. He took it that the managers would be bound to dispose of the money in a particular manner, and be the actual agents of the authority. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had put down an Amendment which would take away the power of audit from the education authority and give it to the Education Department.
DR. MACNAMARA: No; to the Local: Government Board.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he apprehended that the real object of the hon. Member's Amendment was to have the account of the local education authority audited by the Local Government Board. He did not think he need say any more upon this point, for he thought he had shown conclusively that the words in the Bill would give managers the power of keeping accounts and saying how the money was to be spent.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 12, to leave out from the word 'school,' to end of line 13."—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'and the accounts' stand part of the Clause."
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he believed that, on the point of law, the Government, if they agreed to this Amendment, would be on the right lines. He agreed that they were the accounts of the education authority, and not of the managers at all, and that, even if these words were omitted, they would be subject to an audit. But the question was, what sort of an audit? This matter had always been one of great complexity and difficulty. At the present moment the accounts of School Boards were subject to a satisfactory audit under the Act of 1870. They were audited at the office of the School Board, and the School Board districts, being mostly small in area, there was a very close analogy between them and the voluntary schools. The audit held at the office of

761
the School Board within the school district by the district auditor was one which was thoroughly satisfactory, but it did not apply to the voluntary schools, and the result was that the finance of voluntary schools was of the weirdest character. He had been allowed to peruse the accounts of some voluntary schools, and he did not think it would be denied by the strongest friends of voluntary schools that, although their accounts were not wickedly fraudulent, they were sometimes fraudulent in the sense of not having much relation to the facts. He admitted that there were cases where the accounts were admirably kept in voluntary schools but the present practice of voluntary schools had led to the most extraordinary finance in the case of some of them. Under the Act of 1897, the audit of the accounts of voluntary schools had sometimes been disastrously bad, and he did not think they should part with these words until they knew exactly what was going to happen. Everything turned on what the practical character of the audit was going to be.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid the accounts now would not be those of the managers but of the local education authority, and he agreed that they should be well audited.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid they could not part with those words until they knew exactly what was going to happen, and while he agreed that the Bill, without those words, made the accounts of voluntary schools subject to a Local Government Board audit, his point was that everything turned upon what the practical character of that audit was going to be. The present audit of School Board accounts and Parish Councils was perfectly satisfactory, for it gave expressly the power to every parochial elector to be present at all times to take copies, and inspect the accounts, and it directly promoted the raising of individual objections by individual ratepayers. The result had been that an enormous number of individual objections had been raised, both in the case of School Boards and in the case of Parish Councils. They had been objections which had either been sustained
762
and surcharged or allowed and remitted by the Local Government Board under their equitable jurisdiction. Those objections they had got to encourage. He was afraid that the other kind of Local Government Board audit, to which County Councils were subjected, might be the audit under this Bill, and if the audit of the accounts of voluntary schools was only that kind of audit it would not be satisfactory, and it would not check these abuses, and would not have the effect which the audit had had in the case of small School Boards and Parish Councils. There were seldom any objections in the case of the county audit, where the individual ratepayer did not appear very much. A separate auditor, from time to time, had been appointed, and the accounts being of extraordinary bulk and detail it was the clerks really who did the work, and the individual ratepayer did not come in at all and did not attend. If the accounts of County Councils were good enough to pass muster they seldom raised these controversial questions, but the accounts of voluntary schools were of a totally different character. It would not be safe for them simply to accept these general principles. They ought to have a definite statement of what would be done. He agreed that the Local Government Board had full powers, that their staff was good on the whole, and that they ought to be allowed to deal with the matter. But the question was how it was to be dealt with, and that was very important. The Committee should have in advance some sketch of the way in which the Local Government Board was going to act in future.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,said the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with two subjects, one of which ought to come under Clause 13, and not under that the Committee were now discussing. Clause 13 dealt with the question of audit and would come before the Committee for discussion later on, but at the same time there was no objection to state the view of the Government as to the question now before them. The proposal in the Bill as it stood was one

763
which he thought all were agreed would not satisfactorily meet the case. The object was that the accounts of the authority responsible for the disbursement of the money should be audited by responsible auditors. When the Bill passed all the revenue of the schools derived from rates or Government grants would be received, not by the School Boards or by the managers of the voluntary schools, but by the local education authority. It was the accounts of the local authority, therefore, and not the parochial or district accounts, which ought to be subjected to a strict system of audit. If the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet were to be adopted, it would be necessary to have two audits, one of the local education authority's accounts, and the other of the parochial accounts. The latter would be of little value, but it would add enormously to the work of the auditors and involve considerable expenditure. As the Committee knew, the costs of the audit system of the country were met almost entirely by charges in the shape of stamps, and it would be very unfair to put on the managers the cost of the audit of their parochial school accounts. On the other hand, it would be unjust to charge that cost to the County Council, because they would have to pay twice over for the audit. What was desired was that there should be a Government audit by district auditors, perfectly independent of any Government Department, although appointed by the Government. They would exercise their powers in a judicial capacity, and see that the money spent had been spent according to law. That audit was as complete as it could well be. The Government proposed to accept the Amendment, and, by the omission of these words, to subject the accounts of the local education authority to the ordinary system of Government audit which obtained at the present time.
MR. M'KENNA: What about the voluntary schools in a borough?
MR. WALTER LONGsaid sub-Section 3 of Clause 13 dealt specially with the accounts of schools in the area of a borough. That sub-Section set forth—
"Separate accounts shall be kept by the council of a borough of their receipts and expenditure under this Act, and those accounts
764
shall be made up and audited in like manner and subject to the same provisions as the accounts of a County Council, and the enactments relating to the audit of those accounts, and to all matters incidental thereto and consequential thereon, including the penal provisions, shall apply."
It was therefore unnecessary to provide in the sub-Section now before the Committee for the audit of the accounts of schools in a borough area. In this particular case the Government would accept the Amendment in order to make it clear that the audit was to be a Government audit, and not the audit suggested in the words proposed to be left out. If it were necessary to make it perfectly clear that the audit was to be a regular one in all senses, words would have to be added in Clause 13. As the law stood at present, County Council accounts were liable to audit in the ordinary way, and therefore, after the passing of this Act, all their accounts in connection with education would come under that general law. It was necessary to deal with the borough question in Clause 13.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he hardly followed the right hon. Gentleman in the scheme he had proposed. The words proposed to be left out—
"And the accounts of the managers shall be subject to audit by that authority,"
were very important. If these words were left out the practical result would be that the accounts of the managers would not be audited at all.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid they would have no accounts that were to be audited by the local authority.
SIR HENRY FOWLERdid not understand that that was so. The right hon. Gentleman had objected to a system of parochial audit.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not think he objected to what he might have called parochial accounts, but pointed out that the accounts would be kept by the local education authority. If there were parochial accounts, they would be merely a repetition of the accounts so kept.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid what they really wanted was an audit of the parochial expenditure on a school—he referred to the expenditure of public

765
money. The audit of the whole accounts of a great county, which might have a thousand schools in its area, would be, absolutely useless for checking local inaccuracy, extravagance, or even illegal expenditure on the schools. At present they had a perfect system of local audit in every parish, conducted by Government auditors, under conditions which enabled them to see when an item of expenditure was illegal. Mr. Cockerton had stated even in London when expenditure was illegal. The accounts of the Parish Councils were audited, and he noticed from the report which had just been presented to Parliament by the President of the Local Government Board that the number of parochial accounts audited last year was between 7,000 and 8,000. The staff of the Local Government Board would be quite equal to the work. They had already to go into every parish where there was a Parish Council and every parish where there was a School Board, so that the addition to their labours would be very small indeed. What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean wanted was that the people who paid the rates should have full knowledge of improper expenditure, and that they should have the right to go to the public auditor and say they were not legally entitled to be rated or taxed for that expenditure. If they took the whole of the accounts of the West Riding of Yorkshire, the audit would be absolutely useless so far as the expenditure in the parishes was concerned. What did the Government mean when they put these words in the Bill as drawn? The Government had said all along that they meant to give the local authority control over all the expenditure for secular education. This did not mean that they would deal with every item. They would allot to a certain school a certain sum of money, and they would fix the teachers' salaries. The expenditure would take place under the control of the managers, and under the Bill as originally brought in one of the conditions of their obtaining their position was to be that their accounts should be subject to the audit of the local education authority. If this sub-Section was left out they would get rid altogether of this audit, which was the most valuable of all. Unless they had a
766
more distinct declaration of what the Government intended, he would oppose the deletion of the words.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that he had endeavoured to make clear to the House that the details in regard to the audit must come up upon Clause 13. The auditor must hold as responsible for the expenditure of public money the one authority which had power to spend that money—that was to say, the local education authority, and not the managers. The Government proposed to make the audit a regular Government audit, and if it were necessary in Clause 13 to make their intentions clearer they would do so then.
SIR HENRY FOWLERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether they were to understand that in Clause 13 he would insert words making it perfectly clear that the audit was to be a local one.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that that was part of the regulations issued in regard to the audit. He would much rather wait until they came to Clause 13 and state then what appeared to be the Government's view of the right way in which to draw up the regulations. It seemed to him that they should provide for local publication and local investigation. As the right hon. Gentleman knew, it was the duty of the auditor to satisfy himself, before he gave his certificate, that the accounts had been properly kept and the money properly spent, and it would be impossible for the auditor to satisfy himself on these accounts unless he carried his investigation further than the county town. Therefore he thought that not only local publication but local investigation would be necessary.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the right hon. Gentleman's statement seemed perfectly satisfactory with regard to the general fund spent by the education authority. But there was the subsidiary question of certain funds which might have been spent by the managers. In some form or another there ought to be an audit of these. It seemed necessary that the education authority should audit that particular kind of account.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid the question really raised by the Clause was not the audit of the accounts of the local education authority at all. It was the accounts of the managers. Under the wording of the Clause as already passed, the education authority would have full power to insist on the managers keeping certain accounts. That was constantly done already by the county authorities. In his particular county, a county treasurer was appointed to investigate the accounts of the district bodies with which the County Council had to deal. That was in addition to the Government audit. He knew from his own personal experience that the audit was of the most searching and minute character.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he entirely agreed with the Government that the words referred to ought to be deleted. He had himself put an Amendment on the Paper to that effect, believing that the words in the sub-Section were unnecessary. Their conclusion might give rise to inferences derogatory to the authority of the County Council. Why were the words unnecessary? He understood that now the school managers would have no money at all of their own. That was a very serious position indeed for the voluntary schools. All the income of the voluntary schools from all sources would go into the hotchpot of the County Council. None of the money would proceed out of it to the manager except what the County Council allowed. The County Council need not employ managers at all for one single item of expenditure. They might pay the teachers and all the expenses of the school by agents of their own; they might select one or two managers and make them their agents; they might select an outsider and make him their agent; or they might make the whole body of managers their agents. In the latter case, the liability of the managers to account to their principal would be the same as if the agent had been a clerk. Therefore the managers would only have power of expenditure which was the result of delegation, and that delegation not only gave the right of audit but the right of calling to account.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid they ought not to allow the words to go out until
768
they saw what the Government proposed as their substitute. It was exceedingly important that there should be an audit, and a searching one. The President of the Local Government Board had stated that all the money passed through the hands of the County Council. When the auditor came round the County Council might say, "We have given a cheque to the managers in respect of the accounts of that school and this is the voucher for that cheque." He asked the Parliamentary Secretary how the money was to be paid. Was the county treasurer to pay by cheque to the managers in order that they might pay the teachers, or was the treasurer to pay the salaries of the staff direct?
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I cannot answer for the proceedings of a body which has not come into existence.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Committee ought to know what was contemplated by the Bill. This was really very essential as bearing on the question of audit and control. They were now making the teachers part of the staff of the County Council (that was the theory of the Government), just as a road surveyor, or a stonebreaker was. Was the money paid by the County Council direct, or to the teachers by precept to the managers? Did the managers say, "Here is a Budget; we want £500 to carry on with; will you give us that sum for this session?" That would make a great difference to the audit.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the details of every sum handed over to the managers would be subject to the review of the district auditors.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that was not an answer to his question. What he wanted to know was whether the money would be paid direct to the teachers, or to the managers.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: That would be for the local education department to decide.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he wished to press the matter further. It was not

769
merely the vouchers of the managers that were to be submitted to the auditor, but the actual receipts?
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Yes.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the explanations of Ministers were more satisfactory than the Bill. It was very important that the audit should be a local one. At the present moment the School Board accounts were examined upon the spot. Unless a right to inspect the accounts was given it would put it out of the power of an individual ratepayer to raise an objection at all. Take for instance the purchase of an harmonium for a school. If it was purchased by the managers out of the religious fund they might charge a rent for it, if it was used in the school, and that was a question which some individual ratepayer might wish to raise before the auditor. They knew perfectly well how very important the auditor now was. Mr. Cockerton had revolutionised the whole school administration throughout the country. He would be very glad if the President of the Local Government Board gave the assurance that an opportunity would be given to the ratepayers to raise objections to the accounts.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR, GRANT LAWSON,, said that that would be provided for in the regulations which would be made by the Department.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it should be in the Bill. A system which worked perfectly fairly in regard to merely secular matters was turned topsy-turvy when they came to touch religion. This Bill was an illustration of that. In the ordinary affairs in life the man who paid was the man who had control, but in religious affairs one man paid and another spent. The difficulty they were in was that they could not accept anything on trust for this Government. They should see that the audit would be carried out in a thorough and most searching manner before they passed from this Clause. This Clause was the last straw to which they could cling.
770
[Cheers and laughter from the MINISTERIAL Benches.] Yes, but it might be the straw that would break the camel's back. They must have some assurance on this matter. When the Grant-in-Aid Bill was passing through the House they were told that although 5s. per child was to be paid, a quid pro quo was being given in the shape of a thoroughly good system of audit. But the system had not been thoroughly effective, for the 5s. per child had been paid for five years and no account of it had been given at all. Before they parted from their rates, and £900,000 in addition, they had a right to know beforehand that there was something in the Act of Parliament itself providing for an audit being carried out in a thoroughly effective manner, and not merely an expression of opinion by a minister, however honest he might be. School Boards kept their accounts properly by thoroughly trained clerks; why should not clergymen be compelled to do the same?
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: They would be.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought that the right hon. Gentleman was exceedingly rash in giving a pledge for 20,000 clergymen.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he would give his word for it that the district auditors would adopt the system which was at present in use in other Departments. They could not give their certificates unless they were satisfied that the expenditure was legal and that the accounts were accurate.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that that explanation would be excellent if they could get it in the Bill. Would the right hon. Gentleman guarantee to turn on those district auditors, see that the accounts were published in the locality, and that an opportunity was given to‡ every individual ratepayer to examine them, and enter his protest against any item he objected to?
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that all the money from public sources—Treasury grants and rates—was to go to the local authority. Would it be competent

771
to hand the money over to the managers in a lump sum, and would there be a compulsory audit of the details of the expenditure of that money?
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the district auditors would not pass the accounts unless they were satisfied that the money handed by the local authority to the managers had been spent in a legitimate manner.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that was extremely satisfactory, but it would be
very helpful to the local authorities if that intention was set forth in some regulation, or in the Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and moved that the Question be now put.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 90. (Division List, No. 420.)

AYES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lambton Hon. Frederick Wm.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Durning-Lawrenee, Sir Edwin

Lawson, John Grant

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw.H.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Egerton, Hon. A de Tatton

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareham

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Faber, George Denison (York)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Baird, John George Alexander

Fardell, Sir T. George

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Balcarres, Lord

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

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

Fergusson, Rt. Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r

Lowe, Francis William

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Balfour,Rt.HnGeraldW(Leeds

Finch, George H.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Banbury, Frederick George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Fisher, William Hayes

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Bartley, George C. T.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Fitzoy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Macdona, John Cumming

Beckett, Ernest William

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Malcolm, Ian

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Flower, Ernest

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Bignold, Arthur

Forster, Henry William

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gardner, Ernest

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Garfit, William

Milvain, Thomas

Boulnois, Edmund

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

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

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Brymer, William Ernest

Goulding, Edward Alfred

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Bullard, Sir Harry

Graham Henry Robert

Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morrell, George Herbert

Butcher, John George

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

Morrison, James Archibald

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

Grenfell, William Henry

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Carew, James Laurence

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Mount, William Arthur

Carlile, William Walter

Gunter, Sir Robert

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham(Bute

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Hamilton,RtHnLordG(Middx

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Myers, William Henry

Cavendish, V. C. W(Derbyshire

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nicholson, William Graham

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A.(Worc.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Chapman, Edward

Healy, Timothy Michael

Percy, Earl

Charrington, Spencer

Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Helder, Augustus

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

Plummer, Walter R.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Horner, Frederick William

Pretyman, Ernest George

Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady

Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Purvis, Robert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pym, C. Guy

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Randles, John S.

Cranborne, Viscount

Kemp, George,

Rankin, Sir James

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Kennedy, Patrick James

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kimber, Henry

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Davenport, William Bromley-

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Reid, James (Greenock)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Knowles, Lees

Remnant, James Farquharson

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Spear, John Ward

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen

Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

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

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Williams,RtHnJPowell-(Birm

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

Wylie, Alexander

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Thornton, Percy M.

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Tollemache, Henry James

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Younger, William

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

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Shaw-Stewart,M. H. (Renfrew

Valentia, Viscount

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Walrond,Rt.HnSirWilliamH.

NOES.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

Reckitt, Harold James

Allen,CharlesP.(Glouc.,Stroud

Harwood, George

Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Rigg, Richard

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Black, Alexander William

Helme, Norval Watson

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Burns, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Schwann, Charles E.

Burt, Thomas

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jacoby, James Alfred

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Caine, William Sproston

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Soares, Ernest J.

Caldwell, James

Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth

Spencer,Rt HnC.H.(Northants

Cameron, Robert

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Stevenson, Francis S.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Strachey, Sir Edward

Causton, Richard Knight

Leng, Sir John

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Cawley, Frederick

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lough, Thomas

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Crombie, John William

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Wallace, Robert

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Warner, Thomas Courtenay.T

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wason, Eugene

Duncan, J. Hastings

Mather, Sir William

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Edwards, Frank

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmathen)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Fenwick, Charles

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

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

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Moss, Samuel

Woodhouse,SirJT(Huddersfi'd

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Newnes, Sir George

Gladstone,RtHn.HerlbertJohn

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Partington, Oswald

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Grant, Corrie

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Mr. Rea and Mr. Charles Hobhouse.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pickard, Benjamin

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Price, Robert John

When the bell had been rung for a division on the next Question,
MR. ANSTRUTHER, seated and covered, said there had been a mistake in the figures announced. The Votes given for the Closure numbered 203, not 223.
MR. REA: 203 is the correct number.
THE CHAIRMAN: The figure will be altered from 223 to 203.
(4.28.) Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 88; Noes, 205. (Division List No. 421.)

AYES.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Burt, Thomas

Craig, Robert Hunter

Allen, Charles P(Glouc.,Stroud

Caine, William Sproston

Crombie, John William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Caldwell, James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Cameron, Robert

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Black, Alexander William

Campbell-Bannernman, Sir H.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Causton, Richard Knight

Duncan, J. Hastings

Burns, John

Cawley, Frederick

Edwards, Frank

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lough, Thomas

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Fenwick, Charles

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Soares, Ernest J.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Spencer,RtHnC.R.(Northants

Gladstone,RtHnHerbertJohn

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Stevenson, Francis S.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Markham, Arthur Basil

Strachey, Sir Edward

Grant, Corrie

Mather, Sir William

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Griffith, Ellis J

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morgan,J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

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

Harwood, George

Moss, Samuel

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Newnes, Sir George

Wallace, Robert

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Helme, Norval Watson

Partington, Oswald

Wason, Eugene

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Horniman, Frederick John

Philipps, John Wynford

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Pickard, Benjamin

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Jacoby, James Alfred

Price, Robert John

Wilson, Henry J. (York W.R.

Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

Reckitt, Harold James

Woodhouse,SirJT(Huddersf'd

Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth

Reid,SirR.Threshie(Dumfries

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringtou

Rigg, Richard

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Leng, Sir John

Roe, Sir Thomas

Mr. Rea and Mr. Charles Hobhouse

Lloyd-George, David

Schwann, Charles E.

NOES.

Agnew, Sir Thomas Noel

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Helder, Augustus

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cranborne, Vicount

Horner, Frederick William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Howard, J.(Midd.,Tottenham)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Davenport, William Bromley-

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Baird, John George Alexander

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Balcarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kemp, George

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

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Kennedy, Patrick James

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Duke, Henry Edward

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Balfour,Rt.Hn.GeraldW(Leeds

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Kimber, Henry

Banbury, Frederick George

Dyke,Rt.Hn.SirWilliam Hart

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Knowles, Lees

Bartley, George C. T.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Beckett, Ernest William

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lawson, John Grant

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Bignold, Arthur

Fergusson, RtHnSirJ.(Manch'r

Lee,ArthurH(Hants.,Fareham

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Finch, George H.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Boulnois, Edmund

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lowe, Francis William

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Lowther, C. (Cumb.,Eskdale)

Brown,Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Brymer, William Ernest

Flower, Ernest

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Bullard, Sir Harry

Forster, Henry William

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Gardner, Ernest

Macartney,RtHn.W.G.Ellison

Butcher, John George

Garfit, William

Macdona, John Cumming

Campbell,RtHnJ.A.(Glasgow

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

Malcolm, Jan

Carew, James Laurence

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Carlile, William Walter

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

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Milner,Rt.Hn.Sir FrederickG.

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Graham, Henry Robert

Milvain, Thomas

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

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Cavendish,VCW.(Derbyshire

Grenfell, William Henry

Montagu,Hon.J.Scott(Hants.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gunter, Sir Robert

More,Robt.Jasper(Shropshire)

Chamberlain,RtHon.J.(Birm.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamst'w

Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A(Worc.

Hamilton,RtHnLordG(Midd'x

Morrell, George Herbert

Chapman, Edward

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Morrison, James Archibald

Charrington, Spencer

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Mount, William Arthur

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murray,RtHnAGraham(Bute

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Healy, Timothy Michael

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

776

777

Nicholson, William Graham

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Peel,HnWm.RobertWellesley

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Percy, Earl

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Valentia, Viscount

Pierpoint, Robert

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliam H

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Plummer, Walter R.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

Pretyman, Ernest George

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

Williams,RtHnJPowell-(Birm

Purvis, Robert

Sharpe, Edward William T.

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

Pym, C. Guy

Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Randles, John S.

Spear, John Ward

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Rankin, Sir James

Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

Wylie, Alexander

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Ratcliff, R. F.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Reid, James (Greenock)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Younger, William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Thorburn, Sir Walter

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Thornton, Percy M.

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Tollemache, Henry James

MR. A. J. BALFOURclaimed to move, "That the Question 'That the first word "The," in line 14, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that the Committee had not yet struck out the rest of the words in sub-Section (b). The question put from the Chair was that the words stand part of the sub-Section.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Question was put in that way according to custom.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the Committee negatived the words which had been put from the Chair, but the following words in sub-Section (b) remained. He submitted that although possibly the Committee could not debate the question, because the remaining words had no sense with the first three left out, still, the Committee might
divide on these. If the Committee did not vote on these they remained.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think that would be contrary to the usual custom. The custom has grown up, and it is a very proper one, of putting the Question in such a way that if the Question is defeated the right of hon. Members to discuss the subsequent words remains. If the view of the hon. Member were accepted, that custom would have to go by the board. That would be very undesirable, as the custom is really a safeguard.
(4.38.) Question put, "That the Question 'That the first word "The," in line 14, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 422.)

AYES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Boulnois, Edmund

Chamberlain,RtHnJA(Worc'r

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Chapman, Edward

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Charrington, Spencer

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Cochrane, Hon Thomas H.A.E.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.

Coddington, Sir William

Baird, John George Alexander

Brymer, William Ernest

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Balcarres, Lord

Bullard, Sir Harry

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Butcher, John George

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (L'ds

Campbell,Rt.HnJ.A.(Glasgow

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Carew, James Laurence

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Banbury, Frederick George

Carlile, William Walter

Cranborne, Viscount

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Bartley, George C. T.

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Bignold, Arthur

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Davenport, William Bromley-

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kennedy, Patrick James

Ratcliff, R. F.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Kimber, Henry

Reid, James (Greenock)

Duke, Henry Edward

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Remnant, James Farquharson

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Knowles, Lees

Ridley, Hon M. W.(Stalybridge

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lawson, John Grant

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lecky, Rt. Hon William Edw. H

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lee, Arthur H(Hants. Fareham

Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Finch, George H.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowe, Francis William

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Spear, John Ward

Flower, Ernest

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Forster, Henry William

Macartney,RtHn W. G. Ellison

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Gardner, Ernest

Macdona, John Cumming

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Garfit, William

Malcolm, Ian

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Gore,HnG.R.C.Ormsby-(Sal'p

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Graham, Henry Robert

Milvain, Thomas

Thornton, Percy M.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Tollemache, Henry James

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Grenfell, William Henry

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morrell, George Herbert

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Gunter, Sir Robert

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Valentia, Viscount

Hall, Edward Marshall

Mount, William Arthur

Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

Hamilton,Rt.HnLd.G.(Midd'x

Murray,RtHnA.Graham(Bute

Warde, Col. C. E.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nicholson, William Graham

Williams,RtHnJPowell-(B'rm

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Percy, Earl

Wylie, Alexander

Helder, Augustus

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Plummer, Walter R.

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Horner, Frederick William

Pretyman, Ernest George

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Younger, William

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Purvis, Robert

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pym, C. Guy

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Randles, John S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Rankin, Sir James

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther

Kemp, George

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

NOES.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lough, Thomas

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc.Stroud

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Black, Alexander William

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Grant, Corrie

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Burns, John

Griffith, Ellis J.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Burt, Thomas

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Mather, Sir William

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Caine, William Sproston

Harwood, George

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Caldwell, James

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Cameron, Robert

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Moss, Samuel

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Helme, Norval Watson

Newnes, Sir George

Causton, Richard Knight

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cawley, Frederick

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

Partington, Oswald

Crombie, John William

Horniman, Frederick John

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Philipps, John Wynford

Dewar, John A (Inverness-shire

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh

Pickard, Benjamin

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Price, Robert John

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leese, Sir. Joseph F. (Accrington

Rea, Russell

Edwards, Frank

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Reckitt, Harold James

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Leng, Sir John

Rigg, Richard

Fenwick, Charles

Lloyd-George, David

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

780

781

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Taylor, Theodre Cooke

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

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thomas, David Alfred (M'rthyr

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Wallace, Robert

Soares, Ernest J.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Spencer,RtHnC.R.(Northants

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Mr. Alfred Hutton and Mr. Trevelyan.

Stratchey, Sir Edward

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

(4.51.) Question put accordingly "That the first word 'The,' in line 14, stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 200; Noes, 81. (Division List No. 423.)

AYES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Doxford, Sir William Thedore

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Duke, Henry Edward

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lowe, Francis William

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Baird, John George Alexander

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Balcarres, Lord

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

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

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

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Macdona, John Cumming

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Malcolm, Ian

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Fisher, William Hayes

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

Banbury, Frederick George

Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Milvain, Thomas

Bartley, George C. T.

Flower, Ernest

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Forster, Henry William

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Beckett, Ernest William

Gardner, Ernest

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Garfit, William

Morrell, George Herbert

Bignold, Arthur

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Mount, William Arthur

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

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

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

Bousfield, William Robert

Gore,HnG.RC.Ormbsy-(Salop

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bowles, T. Gibson (king's Lynn

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Newdigate, Francis A. N.

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Graham, Henry Robert

Nicholson, William Graham

Brown, Alexander H(Shropshire

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Brymer, William Ernest

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

Bullard, Sir Harry

Grenfell, William Henry

Percy, Earl

Burdett-Courts, W.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Butcher, John George

Gunter, Sir Robert

Plummer, Walter R.

Campbell, Rt. HnJ. A.(Glasgow

Hall, Edward Marshall

Pretyman, Ernest George

Carew, James Laurence

Hamilton,RtHnLordG(Midd'x

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Carlile, William Walter

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Purvis, Robert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Pym, C. Guy

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Randles, John S.

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

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rankin, Sir James

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Reid, James Farquharson

Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.

Helder, Augustus

Remnant, James Farquharson

Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A(Worc.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

Chapman, Edward

Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Charrington, Spencer

Horner, Frederick William

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Coddington, Sir William

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Kemp, George

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Kennedy, Patrick James

Sassoon, Sir S. (Marlebone, W.)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Kimber, Henry

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Cranborne, Visount

Knowles, Lees

Spear, John Ward

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lawson, John Grant

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Davenport, William Bromley-

Lecky, Rt Hon William Edw. H.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants,Fareham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Walrond,RtHonSirWilliamH.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Thornton, Percy M.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Tollemache, Henry James

Welby, Lieut-Col A C E(Taunton

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Younger, William

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Williams,RtHnJ Powell-(Birm

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Valentia, Viscount

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther

Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(Sheffiedl

Wylie, Alexander

NOES.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

Harwood, George

Philipps, John Wynford

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Pickard, Benjamin

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Price, Robert John

Black, Alexander William

Helme, Norval Watson

Rea, Russell

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Reckitt, Harold James

Burns, John

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

Rigg, Richard

Burt, Thomas

Horniman, Frederick John

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Caine, William Sproston

Jacoby, James Alfred

Roe, Sir Thomas

Caldwell, James

Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cameron, Robert

Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Soares, Ernest J.

Causton, Richard Knight

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R(Northants

Craig, Robert Hunter

Leng, Sir John

Strachey, Sir Edward

Crombie, John William

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lough, Thomas

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

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

Wallace, Robert

Duncan, J. Hastings

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Edwards, Frank

Markham, Arthur Basil

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Mather, Sir William

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Fenwick, Charles

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

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

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersf'd

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Moss, Samuel

Grant, Corrie

Newnes, Sir George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Partington, Oswald

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Question put and agreed to.

(5.12.) MR. BRYCE: I rise to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow us to report progress. He has now got on to the third sub-Section, and we are entering into a new and very large and important question. It is not possible to make any substantial progress between this and 5.30, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow us to go now. Therefore I beg to move that Progress be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again"—(Mr. Bryce.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is with extreme regret that I have heard the appeal of the right hon, Gentleman. I confess that I think the mode in which the opposition to this Bill is being conducted is one which, if persisted in, as regards this and other measures, would make all Parliamentary government impossible. Of the tone and temper of hon. Gentlemen opposite I can most truly say I have nothing whatever
784
to complain. They have invariably behaved—both to me individually and to Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House—with the greatest possible courtesy; and I am glad to think that no undue heat, so far as I know, has at any time been developed in the discussion of a Bill which, I quite grant, outside this House has produced a good deal of heat. Full recognition, I think, is due to the hon. Gentlemen in that matter; but I must point out that something more is at stake at this moment than the mere carrying into law of this particular measure. We have met for the purpose of dealing with this measure specially. We have practically occupied our whole time in dealing with it since we met. We have devoted the greater part of, I think, seven days to this Clause, and we have passed eleven lines of it. Now I do very sincerely ask hon. Gentlemen to reflect whether it is really consistent with the carrying on of any legislative work by this assembly that discussion of this magnitude should be permitted? I quite admit that this is a very important Clause; I do not

785
minimise it. I only ask hon. Gentlemen to consider that a Parliament which is stopped by mere time, mere length of debate, mere multiplication of Amendments, from passing a Bill of this kind, is a Parliament which admits its own impotence. I do not think it is in the interests of either side of the House that our impotence should be admitted. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will not persist in his Motion.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I rise to express our acknowledgment to the right hon. Gentleman for the recognition he has given as to our good behaviour.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Courtesy, not good behaviour.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is very good of him, but I do not understand the reason for the little lecture or allocution with which he has favoured us. Though I have taken no part in the last week in these discussions, I have been pretty constant in my attendance, and I appeal to anyone who is interested in the subject, and has followed it at all, whether it is not the case that the Amendments have, almost without exception, been serious and substantial Amendments, and the discussions businesslike discussions. There has been no vain repetition. Amendments have been moved and discussed on either side of the House equally. In fact I see no fault to find with the way in which the debate has been conducted. That it has been a long and tedious debate there is no doubt. But why? Because it is so complicated a matter. It is a matter full of small details, each of which is of the greatest importance; and the Bill is so drawn as almost to invite these Amendments which occupy so much time. But now the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we ought to spend twenty minutes in really doing nothing.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Why shall we be doing nothing?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Because you will not make any progress in that twenty minutes.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We shall get twenty minutes worth of speeches
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has experience enough of the House to know that any speeches delivered in these twenty minutes will be repeated and amply repeated next day, and necessarily so. We know that the speeches today will be merely beating the air so far as the decision of the question is concerned, and the speeches that will influence the votes that are to be given must be delivered not today, but at the beginning of the next sitting. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to gain. I always thought that the right hon. Gentleman was an ardent and determined week-ender, always anxious to shorten the business on Friday. Therefore, I expected that he would gracefully and willingly concede what is asked for, not in the interests of our personal enjoyment, but in the interests of the real progress of the Bill.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that for the Prime Minister to complain of the opposition that had been extended to the Bill argued an exceedingly bad memory on the part of one who took so prominent a part in leading the opposition to the Home Rule Bill. His recollection of that Bill and of a measure so uncontroversial as the Local Government Bill was that the opposition in those cases consumed three times as much time as had been spent in the discussion of the present Bill. It was purely an arithmetical calculation. The Secretary for the Colonies had often told the Committee that the difference between two and six was only a matter of degree, and, that being so there could be no difference between the three or four days they had taken over this discussion, and the seventeen days which the right hon. Gentleman took to oppose the Bill. Did the right hon. Gentleman think he would gain anything by the continuation of the discussion now? The whole thing turned on the appointment of teachers, and if the right hon. Gentleman would give them that, he (Mr. Lloyd George) was not sure that they would not pass the whole Bill before half-past five.
MR. ELLIOT, in the interests of the business of the House, deplored the line taken by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If this appeal was to be taken seriously, and every day half an hour before the time came to close the debate the same appeal was made, there would be no other course open but to adjourn the House whenever they came to the discussion of a new Clause. When they remembered what had been done in this Bill so far, it was enough to make many of them feel a little ashamed of the business capacity of the House. There had been an enormous amount of continual repetition, and there were many in the House who did not wish this everlasting waste of time to go on indefinitely.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he could not see that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had any reason to complain of the progress that had been made with the Bill. Part II of the Bill, which dealt with secondary education, had been passed, and they had dealt with Clause 7, which was certainly one of the most controversial parts of the Bill. That progress was not such as to merit the censure of the right hon. Gentleman. He had no idea when they met that so much progress would have been made in so controversial a portion of the Bill. Therefore he did not think the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were well founded. He did not think he had ever heard so little frequent speaking by the same person on the same Amendment. Of course in different Amendments it was another matter. Everybody knew what the controversial Clauses of this Bill were. They were Clauses 9 and 10, and then there was Clause 12. But it was not the right attitude to take to deal with this Bill as if very little of the controversial part of it had been obtained. He also thought that the Bill itself was responsible for a great part of the Amendments. The view of the Opposition was that the Bill did not deal with a great many subjects which in an ordinary case would have been dealt with in the Bill. Therefore it was necessary, from their point of view, to supply the omissions. The discussions on the Local Government Bill in 1893, which was not a controversial Bill in the sense that this Bill was, were much more protracted, if he remembered rightly.
MR. ERNEST GRAY, I who spoke amid cries of "Divide," said, I as he understood the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman in one breath said that although he had carefully observed the course of the debates he had not noticed any unnecessary repetition, while in the next breath he said that what had been said in the last half hour would necessarily be repeated next week. He was disposed to think that the second statement was the more accurate. He quite recognised that outside the House, and probably inside the House, there was a fairly large section anxious to destroy the Bill; but he was equally confident that there was a large number of people outside anxious to see the Bill reasonably amended. So far as he could judge, the methods now being pursued would result in the discussion of material Amendments being scamped, while the Committee was wasting time on Amendments which were not necessary, and which the Committee had again and again rejected by preponderating majorities. He believed that progress was not being made by reason of the endless Amendments that were put forward. As one more interested in educational work than in political partisan work, he deprecated the attempt in the Motion before the House to throw away half an hour of valuable time.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall not raise any objection to the Motion. Sir. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman opposite thinks our progress expeditious, and even headlong.
Committee report Progress.
To sit again upon Monday next.

AGRICULTURAL AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Tuesday next.
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.