Sitting of 29 October 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  WICK BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
PETITIONS.
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Petitions for abolition of restrictions: from Norwich; Leicester; White Coppice; Diss; and, Arbroath; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Hartlepools; Reading; Suffolk; and, Hanwell; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Norwich; Leicester; Arbroath; Diss; and, White Coppice; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Edge Hill; St. Helens (two); Liverpool; Sheffield; and, Kirkdale; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION IN TRADE.
  Petitions for legislation: from Norwich; Leicester; Diss; White Coppice; and, Arbroath; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Croydon: in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  LOCAL RECORDS COMMITTEE.
  Copy presented, of Appendices to the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire as to the existing arrangements for the collection and custody of Local
  1058
  Records, and as to further measures which it may be advisable to take for the purpose [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  Copy presented, of Return showing the Unclaimed Shares of all Prize Money, Slave and Pirate Bounties, Salvage Awards, Parliamentary Grants, War Gratuities, and other Monies distributed by the Admiralty from the 1st day of January, 1855, to the 31st day of March, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORALANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Civil Servants' Superannuation Commission.
    MR. SCHWANN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Committee for inquiring into the Civil Servants' Superannuation Act, promised some time ago, has yet been formed, and whether they will take evidence from the staff; will he state the terms of reference, and will the Report be published as a Parliamentary Paper.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The arrangements for constituting the Commission are not yet completed. I announced the terms of reference on 31st July last; they are as follows: "To inquire into the working of the system of superannuation embodied in the Superannuation Acts, and to report whether, without increasing the charge on public funds for non-effective services, any change in the system is desirable in the interests either of Civil Servants or the State." The question of what evidence should be taken must be left to the discretion of the Commissioners.

    Indian Land Revenue—Default Statistics.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to state the number of writs and warrants issued in each province in India against Land Revenue Defaulters during the year ending 31st March last, and the amount which it was thus sought to recover in each province.

    1059
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have not yet received the Provincial Land Revenue Administration Reports dealing with the year 1901–2, but I am in communication with the Government of India on the subject referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and, if I find that I can supply the information for which he asks, I will let him know it.'

    India—Land under Cultivation.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of a statement contained in his Budget speech last year; to the effect that the area of land under cultivation in India has increased from 194,000,000 acres in 1880 to 217,000,000 acres in 1900, will he say whether that land is now in the occupation of the people, or does it include any land which at one time was under cultivation and is now waste and unoccupied; and will he state approximately the area actually in occupation and under cultivation in each province of India.
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) It is possible that some temporarily uncultivated land may have been included in the estimate which I quoted, though not enough to impair its general accuracy. In the surveyed tracts of the undermentioned provinces, the cropped area for 1900–1 is given as follows—

    (In thousands of acres)

    Madras

    27,850

    Bombay and Sindh

    25,468

    Bengal

    62,098

    United Provinces

    42,036

    Punjab

    31,770

    Central Provinces

    16,210

    Lower Burma and Assam

    12,444

    Postmen—Dismissals; Wages.
    MR. LOUGH: To ask the Postmaster General, what number of auxiliary and established postmen respectively have been prosecuted, and what number have been dismissed under suspicion in both classes since the 1st January, 1901; and what is the amount of weekly wages received by the men so dealt with in each class.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The following table shows the number of established and other postmen who were (1) dismissed; (2) prosecuted during the
    1060
    period from 1st January, 1901, to 30th September 1902—

    (1)

    (2)

    Number dismissed for all Causes

    Number Prosecuted

    Established Postmen

    534

    70

    Auxiliary Postmen*

    301

    70

    Assistant Postmen

    55

    7

    *Including a few temporary postmen, casual postmen, etc.

    The weekly wages of established postmen vary in London from 18s. to 34s., and elsewhere from 16s to 30s. Assistant postmen are paid for six hours work at the rate of five-sixths of the town postmen's minimum (e.g. 15s. a week in London) with a proportionate decrease for shorter attendance. Auxiliaries are paid at the rate of 6d an hour in London, and from 4d to 6d an hour in the provinces and Scotland and Ireland.

    Clones Post Office.
    DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that several years ago the post office in Clones was condemned as unsanitary and unsuitable for the work of the Department; will he explain the delay in building the new post office, and investigate the complaints of the employees as to the change in the hours they are required to be on duty.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The old insanitary office at Clones was given up in November last, and a good temporary office is in occupation pending the completion of the new permanent building, the plans for which have been approved. It is understood that the building will be begun shortly. Complaints recently received from the staff with regard to their hours of duty are being investigated.

    Irish Travelling Post Offices—Risk Allowances.
    MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that during the carrying out of the Tweedmouth Committee recommendations in 1897 the Department arrested the registered letter-risk allowances from a number of officers

    1061
    attached to the travelling post offices in Ireland, and that the officers concerned have, after repeatedly petitioning, establish their claim to those allowances: and, having regard to the fact that authority was granted aliont eighteen months ago for their restoration, will he will explain the cause of delay in paying the arrears due since arrestment.
    (Answerd by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am not aware that any of the officers referred to, whose claims to allowances have been established, have not received payment of arrears due to them: but I will have inquiry made into the matter, and acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

    Russia and Afghanistan.
    MR. MOON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the date of the communication from the Russian Government as to the establishment of relations between Russia and Afghanistan; and whether he will give the reference to any Parliamentary Paper which sets out the terms of the understanding by which Russia agrees to treat Afghanistan as outside the sphere of her influence.
    (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The date of the communication from the Russian Government is 6th February 1900. The Parliamentary Papers containing information as to the engagement of the Russian Government to consider Afghanistan outside their sphere of influence are: Central Asia, No.2 (1873), pages 2 and 12; Russia No. (1874), page 9; Central Asia, No. 1 (1878), pages 5, 7, 68, 69, 105, and 164: Central Asia, No. 1 (1879), page 10; Central Asia, No. 1 (1884), pages 5 and 92; Central Asia, No. 2 (1885), pages 29, 194, and 195.

    Education Bill—Definition of "Secular."
    MR. CORRIE GRANT: To ask Mr. Attorney General whether he intends to introduce into the eighteenth Clause of the Education Bill any definition of the word "secular;" and, if so, whether he will put his Amendment on the Notice Paper without delay.
    (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) I do not think it convenient to discuss by
    1062
    way of Question and answer the subject of possible Amendments to a Clause not yet reached in a Bill now in Committee.

    Elementary School Teachers' Annuity Accounts.
    MR CALDWELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state when the Accounts of the Elementary School Teachers' Deferred Annuity Funds (England and Scotland) for the years ended 31st March, 1901 and 1902, together with the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 95, of Session 1901), will be printed and circulated.
    (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) In accordance with a suggestion by the Comptroller and Auditor General, these Accounts are now published as Appendices to his Annual Reports on the Appropriation Accounts of the Votes for Public Education for England and Scotland respectively. The Accounts for the year 1900–1901 will be found on pages 370–371 and 394–395 respectively of the Civil Services, etc., Appropriation Accounts for 1900–1901 (House of Commons Paper 35, of 1902); and those for 1901–02 will appear in the Appropriation Accounts for 1901–02, which will be issued in January or February next.

    Clonmel Land Appeals.
    MR. CONDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Chief Land Commissioners sat to hear appeals in Waterford in January last; and whether, contrary to practice, cases were heard there from the unions of Clonmel, Cashel, Clogheen, and Thurles, causing inconvenience and expense to the suitors which could have been avoided by hearing the cases in Clonmel; and whether he will suggest that in future appeals from those unions will be heard in Clonmel.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The question of holding the next sitting at Clonmel will be duly considered by the Commissioners when the list of appeals from these districts is being prepared.

    Hard Labour Sentences—Disqualifications for Municipal Service.
    MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether be is aware that Mr. P. J. Kelly, R.M., has stated in Court that he was not aware that a sentence of imprisonment with hard labour entails disqualification from service on public boards; and whether he can state if Mr. P. J. Kelly is one of the magistrates of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied, as required by statute.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) This Question has been referred to Mr. Kelly, who emphatically denies having made use of the observation attributed to him. He was well aware of the disqualification prescribed by statute, but it was not until after the sentence imposing hard labour had been passed on the defendant in the case before the Court that attention was drawn, for the first time, by counsel for the defendant, to the fact that the latter was a district councillor. Mr. Kelly was not previously aware of this fact, and it was to this alone that he referred when he remarked that he saw no reason in the fact to alter his concurrence in the decision announced by the Chairman. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

    Barrow Drainage Works.
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes introducing legislation next session giving effect to the recommendations contained in the Reports of the Barrow Drainage Commission, 1885, and the first Report of the Royal Commission on Public Works in Ireland, 1886, in favour of the drainage of the River Barrow
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am not prepared to anticipate statements which are proper to the beginning and not to the end of a session.

    Labourers (Ireland) Acts Amendment.
    MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what facilities he proposes to give for the discussion of
    1064
    the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South Louth for the Amendment of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, and of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendments thereto.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) If all the Amendments I have put down are accepted, practically only one Clause remains. The Bill then would only require a very brief period for discussion. Evidently there cannot be time to discuss the Clause to which the Government is opposed.

    Land Court Valuers and Sub-Commissioners.
    MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statements made by Land Commissioner O'Brien, at Longford, in November, 1901, to the effect that the court valuers have not the same opportunity of forming a just opinion as to the fair rents of holdings as the sub-Commissioners have, and cannot take evidence as to cultivation, manuring, and general improvements; and whether, in view of these statements, the Government propose to abolish the right of appeal from the decisions of the sub-Commissioners except in regard to legal points.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) My attention has not been directed to the statements in question. I cannot indicate the detailed provisions of legislation to be introduced at a future date.

    Closing of Irish Prisons.
    MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the five county prisons at Carrick-on-Shannon, Enniskillen, Mullingar, Omagh, and Wicklow, which have recently been closed, whether he can say: to what use will the buildings be now applied; whose projjerty are they now, and in whose custody will they remain; and will the Government consider the; advisability of handing them over to the Agricultural and Technical Department, with a view to be utilised in the development of Irish industries.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The five prisons are being used as places of detention for prisoners awaiting trial at

    1065
    assizes and quarter sessions. So long as they continue to be used for public purposes the property in, and control over, the buildings remain vested in the General Prisons Board.

    Lisburn Labourers' Cottages Scheme.
    MR. MACARTNEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board inspector visited, on the 16th and 17th August, all the sites comprised in the recent schemes passed by the Lisburn Rural Council for labourers' cottages; that he reported shortly afterwards to the Local Government Board; that his report has not yet been furnished to the District Council; and whether he will expedite the action of the Local Government Board in this matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The result of this inquiry was communicated to the District Council on Wednesday last.

    Rae Estate, Kerry.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange that Mr. Rae, landlord of the Rae estate, Killorglin, County Kerry, shall be furnished with a detailed return of the receipts and the expenditure of the estate during the period it has been in the hands of present receiver.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that copies of the receiver's accounts will be furnished to Mr. Rae on payment of the usual fees for copying.

    Historic Relics at Inishvickillane (Kerry).
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Irish Lights Board sent a steamer to Blasket Island, County Kerry, to take away some historic relics; and will he say at whose instance was this work done, where have the relics been deposited, and whether he will see that they are brought back again to their proper place.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that a lintel stone has been removed from the island of Inishvickillane by one of the steamers belonging to the Commissioners of Irish Lights. It is
    1066
    stated that the stone was presented by the owner of the island to Professor Mahaffy, of Trinity College, Dublin, and that it has been placed in the museum of the college. The Board of Public Works is in correspondence with Professor Mahaffy on the subject.

    Phthisis in Cornwall Mines
    MR. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of cases of miners' phthisis which have occurred within the area of the mining division of Cornwall for each year since, and including, the year 1895; and what number of deaths have occurred.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary AkersDouglas.) The figures asked for are not in my possession, and I doubt if they can be obtained. The latest figures of which I am aware, with regard to the mortality among Cornish miners from phthisis, are those published in 1897 by the Registrar General. On the basis of the census taken in 1891 these show that, if the mortality figure among occupied males generally from phthisis is taken at 100, that among Cornish miners would be 275. I would add that the health of the miners in Cornwall is at the present time the subject of a special inquiry on behalf of the Home Office.

    Coal for the Navy—New Zealand Coal for the China Squadron.
    MR. DAVID THOMAS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to what extent New Zealand (Westport) coal is being used by the China Squadron, and whether its use is due to any deficiency in the supply obtainable from ordinary sources or to the lower price; whether the Admiralty have issued any Memorandum desiring that its value shall be made known generally; and if it is proposed to continue the use of Westport coal in the event of war.
    (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) On account of its good quality and its comparative nearness to the China station, large quantities of New Zealand (Westport) coal are used by the China Squadron. It is not desirable in the interests of the public service to state what the arrangements of the Admiralty, as regards the supply of coal, would be in time of war.

    Remount Inquiry—Remuneration of Legal Assessor.
    MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War, can be explain on what system the sum of £2,163 was paid to the learned Member of this House who sat as Assessor to the Court of Inquiry into the Remount Department; whether the same learned Member has held any other appointment on any other commission connected with South Africa; and, if so, what sum was paid to him for such service.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The War Office, acting on the request of the Commander-in Chief, instructed the Treasury Solicitor to secure legal assistance for the members of the Court of Inquiry. The selection of the Assessor was made, and his remuneration determined according to the ordinary practice in analogous cases. The Assessor devoted his whole time to the proceedings of the Court, but of course had no share in the Report or in the decisions at which the Court arrived. Mr. Milvain was Chairman of the South African Deportations Committee, and received for his services a sum of £2,551 10s.

    Sentences of Military Courts in Cape Colony.
    MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to a Parliamentary Paper, recently issued at Cape Town, giving the names of 113 prisoners sentenced by military courts in Cape Colony; whether the Commission sent out by His Majesty's Government has recommended their immediate release; and, if so, whether they have yet been released; whether he is aware that all these prisoners were under sixteen years of age, and British subjects, and that three of them were girls; and will he state what were the offences of the three girls, and to what terms of imprisonment were they sentenced.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have seen this Parliamentary Paper, but I am not aware of the action taken by the Cape Government. I have no information as to the ages of the prisoners in the Return. Two women are included, one of whom was given a year's imprisonment with hard labour for supplying liquor without a permit, and
    1068
    another, a coloured woman, was given the same sentence (six months of which were remitted) for being in possession of brandy. As to a person included in the list under the name of Sarah, who is apparently a Kaffir, it is not known whether the name in this case represents a male or female.

    Archbishopric of Cyprus.
    MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Archbishopric of Cyprus has been vacant for two years, and that a successor to Monsignor Sophronius was elected eighteen months ago; what steps will be taken by His Majesty's Government to give effect to the votes of the clergy and laity of the Eastern Orthodox Church in Cyprus; and whether, in view of the inconvenience which is being caused to the Christian population of that island by the delay in confirming the election, he will communicate to the House the reasons for delaying the approval of the appointment.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The hon. Member is misinformed. No successor to Monsignor Sophronius was elected eighteen months ago, or has yet been elected. The election to which he refers was an election of general representatives to co-operate with the Holy Synod in the election of an archbishop.

    Transvaal Mines—Mining Labour— Phthisis, &c
    MR. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of: State for the Colonies, in view of the number of British miners who are looking to South Africa for employment, whether he will publish a summary of the regulations and laws now in force in the Transvaal and Orange States affecting working miners, including a statement of the intentions of the Government with regard to the future regulation of mining labour, especially with regard to the use of rock drills.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) A copy of the hon. Member's Question will be sent to the Governor, who will be asked to furnish a report on the subject.
    MR. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has

    1069
    been drawn to the growing number of disputes between mine owners and working miners in the Rand, resulting in strikes on the part of the miners and, as in the case of the Village Main Reef, lockouts on the part of the mine owners; if he is aware that most of these disputes have reference to matters affecting the health and safety of the miners: and will he consider the desirability of creating a Board of Arbitration for the settlement of these, disputes.
    MR. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of cases which have occurred of miners' phthisis, with the deaths resulting therefrom, from the re-opening of the mines after the war to some recent date: what number of these are Europeans, and what number native, and what has been the average number of European and native miners employed on the Rand during each month of the period covered.
    MR. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the discontent prevailing among British miners in the Rand in consequence of the attempt on the part of several mine managers to compel miners to take over and work three rock drills instead of two as heretofore; if he is aware that this attempt has resulted in a strike on the part of the miners where this change is being enforced, and that a deputation of Rand miners waited upon Lord Milner to ask him to constitute a Board of Arbitration, but without effect: and, in view of the death rate from miners' phthisis in Johannesburg, and the fact that miuners return home to this country incapacitated by this disease, will he state what action the Transvaal Administration propose to take in the matter.
    MR. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is the intention of the Governor of the Transvaal to appoint a commission to inquire into miners' phthisis; has such commission been yet appointed; if so, what is its composition; will it contain representatives of the working miners; and will he state the substance of the references for its consideration.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I propose to answer the four Ques-
    1070
    tions of the hon. Member together, as they are all connected with the same subject, and I need hardly say that I am fully alive to the importance of all matters affecting the health and safety of the miners. As I informed the hon. Member on the 21 st instant, I am in communication with Lord Milner on the subject of the alleged prevalence of miner's phthisis, but at present I possess neither statistics nor the other information for which the hon. Member has asked. I will, however, address further inquiries to Lord Milner on these matters.

    Sierra Leone Railways.
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the public are being asked to tender for the construction of, and for the material and carriage of. the material required for the Highland Railway of Sierra Leone, or for the material and carriage of material required for the Freetown and Eastern District Rail way of Sierra Leone, and the Sccondee and Lagos Railways; and, if not, will he explain why this course has not been adopted.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The public are not being, and will not be, asked to tender for the construction of any of the railways named, all of which are being, or have been, built by the Governments concerned on the Departmental System. The system has, after full consideration in each case, been considered perferable to the contract system. The principal reason is that, owing to the risks due to climate and other causes, against which a contractor would have to protect himself, the system adopted is preferable. The materials are obtained by competition among selected firms, a system which has been found to be better adapted than that of open competition to secure that high standard of quality which is essential in supplies sent to distant Colonies, where defects can only be remedied at great cost and inconvenience. The "carriage," by which I understand freight to be meant, is not put up to tender because there is only one British line running regularly to the West Coast of Africa.

  (2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE

    Imports of Live Stock into the Transvaal.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any tax is made on cattle entering the Transvaal; and, if so, will he say how much per head.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): All kinds of live stock are free on importation into the Transvaal.

    Irregular Troops—Pension Grievances— Case of Mrs Mackenzie,
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mrs. J. R. Mackenzie, a widow residing at Maritzburg, Natal, who has had three sons serving in the British forces in South Africa, one of whom, a trooper in the 1st Imperial Light Horse, was killed on Wagon Hill, while a second serving in the Scottish Horse, died in hospital on the 22nd July last, from exposure and overwork during the war, and the third son, in the Natal Carabineers, was severely wounded on 5th February 1902, and has been in hospital ever since, has been informed that she can obtain no compensation for the loss she has suffered by their deaths, on the ground that they were not in the Imperial Army nor in the Natal Volunteer Corps; and, seeing that if the two dead sons had been in the Imperial Army compensation would have been awarded to her, and if they had been in the Natal Volunteers she would have been entitled to a pension of £52 per annum for each, and that she is in poor circumstances, can he arrange that special consideration shall be given to her case.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): No communication from Mrs Mackenzie has reached the War Office. The regulations however, do not admit of a grant to the mother of a soldier who dies, even if in action. Her case has been considered by the representative of the Patriotic Fund Commissioners in South Africa, who found that the extent of her means debarred her from any grant. I have no knowledge of the grants made by the Colony in the case of Natal Volunteers.

    Civil Surgeons and War Honours.
    MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any decorations, emolument, or other reward will be bestowed upon the civil surgeons in Groat Britain and Ireland who have been attached to the Royal Army Medical Corps throughout the whole duration of the South African war; and whether, in terminating the engagements of such surgeons, consideration will be given to the length of their services with the Royal Army Medical Corps.
    LORD STANLEY: A large number of honours has been given to civil surgeons serving in South Africa, but it is not proposed to bestow any such decoration or reward to the civil surgeons who have been employed at home during the war. As regards engagements, their termination is regulated by their agreements, and extensions are decided upon according to local conditions.

    Height Standards for the Cavalry.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the maximum and minimum standarrt of height now laid down for recruits to be admitted into the Regular Cavalry.
    LORD STANLEY: The standards of height are as follow—

    Maximum

    Minimum

    Ft.

    In.

    Ft.

    In.

    Household Cavalry

    6

    1

    5

    11

    Lancers.

    5

    9

    5

    6

    Dragons

    5

    8

    5

    5

    Hussars

    5

    6

    5

    4

    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: Is it not the fact that the standard laid down has been so low during the past year that many of the recruits admitted into the Cavalry, especially in Ireland, have been considered since to be unfit for the service?
    LORD STANLEY: No, Sir, I do not think that is the case.

    Employment for Ex-Soldiers.
    MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the possibility of employing reservists and time-expired men on fatigue and special

    1073
    duties, such as mess waiters, garrison police, officers' servants, orderlies, and canteen men.
    LORD STANLEY: The whole question of replacing soldiers by ex-soldiers, etc., in respect of the performance of these and similar duties has been under and is still the subject of very careful consideration, but my hon. and gallant friend is aware that any such proposal must add considerably to the Army Estimates.

    Time-Expired Men
    MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether time-expired men, as well as Reserves in A, B, C, D, may rejoin for short periods; and if married men with their wives will be on the strength or granted separation allowance.
    LORD STANLEY: Time-expired men can only rejoin by re-enlisting for three years, and must be under thirty year of age. The married men, who canengage only for one year, will be entitled to the privileges of the married roll, but their wives will draw separation allowance.

    Cape Guardafui Lighthouse.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision has yet been arrived at in regard to the proposed establishment of a lighthouse on Cape Guardafui.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,: The answer is in the negative.
    MR. WEIR: May I ask, seeing that this matter has been under consideration for some years, when some decision is likely to be arrived at?
    LORD CRANBORNE: The decision does not be with the British Government entirely.

    Penrhyn Quarry Dispute.
    MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether at any time during the two years over which the
    1074
    dispute at the Penrhyn Quarries has now extended, or prior to its commencement, either of the parties more immediately interested has directly made the application to the Department required to be made before the Board of Trade can exercise the power conditionally conferred upon it by sub-Section (c) of Clause 2 of the Conciliation Act, 1896, of appointing a person or persons to act as a conciliator or as a board of conciliation.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer is in the negative.
    MR. DAVID THOMAS: Has neither party on any occasion made any approach to the Board of Trade in respect of the dispute?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir.

    Hours of Railway Servants
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that, according to the Return just issued with reference to the hoursof railway servants, it appears that upon three of the principal railways in this country 89 per cent, of the goods guards and brakesmen, and 85 per cent, of the engine-drivers and firemen were working during the month of December last for more than twelve hours at a time, he will use his good offices with these companies in order to obtain a reduction of these hours.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: The hon. and gallant Member's Question would seem to imply that the percentages which he refers represent the number of railway servants working continuously throughout the month for more than twelve hours at a time. What the percentages really indicate is the number of railway servants who on one or more occasions during the month worked for more than twelve hours at a time. The percentage of days exceeding twelve hours, which is also given in the Return, is a better guide to the condition of affairs than the percentage of servants employed. I have communicated with various railway companies with the object suggested in the Question, and I also propose to call for a similar Return of hours for next December.

    Cottars in the Island of Lewis
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can furnish a Comparative Statement showing the number of cottars in the Island of Lewis at the time of the passing of The Crofters Act, 1886, and the number at the present time.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,: A detailed Report on the social condition of the people of Lewis in 1901 as compared with twenty years ago, prepared by the Crofters Commission, was laid on the Table of the House last week, and will be circulated so soon as the printing is completed. The hon. Member will find information on the subject of his question in that Report, to which I hope he will allow me to refer him.

    Crofts in Ross-shire and the Island of Lewis.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that the Deer Forest Commission state, at Page X. of their Report, dated 10th March, 1895, that any scheme that would result in affording cottars the opportunity of obtaining crofts such as presently exist would operate a substantial relief both to the cottars themselves and to the neighbouring crofters, he will take steps to meet the requirements in this direction of the cottars in the Island of Lewis and on the western mainland of Ross-shire.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar Question asked by him on the 23rd instant, to which, for the present, I am unable to add anything.
    MR. WEIR: May I ask whether the Secretary for Scotland has any intention of visiting the Island of Lewis to see for himself the serious state of affairs there?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.

    Education Bill—Denominational School Teachers' Appointments.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, under Clause 8, sub-Section (1) (c), the local education authority will have the right to call for evidence of the comparative
    † See page 613.
    1076
    educational fitness of candidates for the post of head teacher in a denominational school other than the candidate recommended by the managers.
    THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,: The answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: May I ask if an answer in a contrary sense was not given by the Attorney General?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is not in order to refer to an answer previously given.

    Suggested Government Instructions to Resident Magistrates.
    MR. TULLY: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if any resident magistrates who have adjudicated in cases under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act have had any interview with any Dublin Castle official or officials during the past three months, or have been in. written communication with any such official or officials; and whether he has any objection to stating the nature of such interviews or communications.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,: I have no doubt that communications dealing with claims for travelling expenses and so forth have passed between persons holding official positions in Dublin Castle and resident magistrates engaged in the hearing of cases under the Act mentioned during the past three months; but such communications had noreference to the discharge by these magistrates of their judicial duties. On this subject I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Question addressed to me on Monday last by my hon. friend the Member for North Fermanagh. †
    MR. TULLY: Is there a log book kept at Dublin Castle showing the movements of the officials?
    (No answer was returned.)
    † See page 818.

    Swords Borough School—Case of Michael Keegan
    MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether his attention has been called to the ase of Michael Keegan, who recentlv successfully competed for a borough schoo scholarship at Swords; and that, though first in order of merit, he has been disqualified by the examiners; (2) will he state whether the alleged ground of disqualification existed in the case of previous holders of scholarships; whether the action of the examiners is in accordance with precedent; (4) to what denominations Michael Keegan and the two examiners belonged respectively; and (5) whether the matter has been referred to the Board of National Education.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are correctly stated in the first part of the Question. I have no information on the second and third inquiries. The lad Keegan is a Protestant and the examiners are Roman Catholics. The objection to the decision of the examiners has been referred to the Commissioners of National Education who have informed the examiners that in their judgment Keegan was a qualified candidate.

    Irish Railway Facilities.
    MR. TULLY: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Cork I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the complaints made by the merchants and traders of the district of the traffic arrangements of the Kanturk and Newmarket Kailway as managed by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company; and, seeing that the taxpayers of the district are liable for a perpetual guarantee for the maintenance of the line, will the Agricultural and Technical Instruction Department take steps to secure adequate railway facilities for this district.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Department has received a complaint in regard to the train service between Newmarket, Cork, and Waterford, and is making inquiry into the matter.

    Treatment of Crimes Act Prisoners.
    MR. TULLY: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's Co., I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether the hon. Members for Birr Division, King's Co., Messrs. Wm. Lowry, D.C., M. Hogan, D.C., and Michael Glennon, prisoners in Tullamore Gaol, undergoing terms of imprisonment under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, are obliged to take exercise in the ring amongst the ordinary prisoners; and (2) whether the hon. Member for Tullamore Division, also in the same prison, and who has been transferred to the infirmary by order of the prison surgeon, is denied the use of a knife and fork.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first inquiry is in the negative. The prisoners are in the "star" Class, and accordingly are not exercised with habitual criminals or prisoners of corrupt habits. In respect to the second inquiry, convicted prisoners are not allowed the use of knives and forks. Food requiring to be cut up is cut before being served, and a spoon is supplied. The hon. Member for the Tullamore Division recently informed one of the Members of the Prisons Board who visited the prison that he was receiving evey kindness and attention and had no complaint to make.
    MR. TULLY: When I was a hard labour prisoner in Tullamore I exercised alone.

    Labourers (Ireland) Act—Skibbereen Applications.
    MR. TULLY: On behalf of the hon. Member for the South Division of County Cork I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Rural District Council of Skibbereen have made four applications to the Commissioners of Public Works for a loan under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; and gave each time satisfactory assurances that the loan would be paid in half-yearly instalments; and will steps be taken to grant this loan to enable this scheme to be carried into effect.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners required the District Council to undertake that the half-yearly payments in respect not only of the new loan, but also of existing loans, would be punctually made. The Council gave the undertaking as regards the proposed new loan, but refused to give it as to existing loans. The application cannot, therefore, be proceeded with.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION— MR. TULLY.
MR. TULLY: By way of personal explanation may I be permitted to say that the only right I claim in asking these Questions is the right of conquest won in single combat here?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has acted most improperly. It is a well-known rule of this House that Questions are not to be asked on behalf of another Member except at his request and on his behalf, and what the hon. Member has done is quite contrary to the usual practice and courtesies of this House.
MR. TULLY: May I respectfully say I thought that the spoils remained to the conqueror.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what will be the business for the rest of the week.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I propose to take the Education Bill at all the sittings during the remainder of the week.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 8—
Another Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 17, after the words 'out of,' to insert the words 'suscriptions, donations, income from endowment, or other."—(Mr. A. K. Loyd.)
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he had an Amendment further down on the Paper with regard to the question of endowment, and the hon. Member for the Abingdon Division, when he moved his Amendment at a very late hour on the previous night, intimated quite accurately that it raised the same point only in a different manner. Now he was anxious to insert a proviso to make it perfectly clear that these endowments, which were very numerous in connection with elementary schools, should not be appropriated by the managers of the schools and carried to the buildings and repairs fund, but that they should be used for educational purposes, and go in diminution of the rates and burdens thrown on the general body of taxpayers. This matter was very important in itself, and it became doubly important by reason of the decision which the Committee unfortunately came to on the previous evening with regard to paying a rent for the teacher's dwelling-house, because, in consequence a large county authority would, in future, have to hand over a very considerable sum from the rates to the managers in relief of the burden they would otherwise have to bear themselves in regard to the upkeep of their buildings. It was impossible, of course, to state exactly what the sum would amount to, but one might gather from the concessions made by the Government to the friends of the so-called denominational and voluntary schools, coupled with the present Amendment, that there was a great desire, on the Ministerial side of the House, to constitute, out of the rentals paid by the local authorities, an endowment fund which would very largely, and, in some cases, almost entirely, relieve the supporters of these denominational schools from the necessity of finding money by voluntary subscriptions, for the maintenance of the fabric. It might appear

1081
the most just and rational thing in the world that, if there were endowments attached to a denominational school, they should necessarily go in support of the fabric of the school. But it was not enough merely to state a general proposition of that kind. They had to ask themselves how, in a great number of cases the endowments came to belong to the Church of England. We unhesitatingly say that, if they examined the records of the Charity Commissioners, they would find that, in a vast number of instances, the denominations, and more especially the Church of England, had become possessed of funds which the pious founders never intended them to have. In the early days of the history of these endowments, before the Charity Commission came into existence, it was an exceedingly common thing for the Court of Chancery to assume that silence on the point in the trust deed implied an intention on the part of the founder that the charity should go to the Established Church. In the century before last enormous charities were handed over to the Church of England, although the scheme was never stamped with any denominational desire at all. And even when the Charity Commission came into existence the same process continued, and there had been numerous cases in which endowments given for purposes which had ceased to exist, and which were in no way connected with education, were handed over in support of the National school. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Abingdon Division were adopted in all these cases in which the Church of England was enabled to take possession of the endowment, simply because at the time it owned the only school in the parish, it would be enabled to appropriate it in aid of the denominational side of school management. Lookingat the broad aspect of many of these educational endowments which dated from a very remote period, they said that there were among them large funds which, from time to time, had been found to have no use at all under the original trust deeds—funds larger than any purely local funds. There was, for instance, the case of Betton's Charity, from which almost all the Church schools in the south and west of England received a
1082
small sum every year. In passing, he might observe that, in his opinion, its value was frittered away by this method of distribution. Betton was an excellent person who left a large sum for the rescue of people, especially children, who had been captured by Algerine pirates in the days when those pirates devastated the English and Irish Channels. They were not graced, he believed, at that time with the presence of the Irish Members of the House, but he was sure they would endorse his statement that the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Ireland suffered quite as much as other people from the depredations of these pirates. The fund was left for the rescue of these children equally with those of the children of Anglicans and Nonconformists. After a time, of course, the pirates disappeared, and the charity became useless, and the fund was devoted to education, and mainly distributed among Church of England schools. Why, in such a case, should funds which were never left to the Church of England be used for anything except for the benefit of the people of the district generally? He might mention a more extreme case as showing the absurdity of devoting these endowments to Church of England schools, which, after all, would be the principal beneficiaries under the Bill if it were amended as suggested by the hon. Member for the Abingdon Division. There was the famous old lady who figured in the early records of the Charity Commission, as, animated by a splendid spirit of piety, leaving a considerable sum to buy wood in order to burn heretics—Anglicans and Nonconformists, no doubt. He was informed that even that charity had somehow or other been diverted into the ever-gaping coffers of the Church of England schools. He repeated that a very large proportion of these endowments came from sources which were in no way whatever denominational, and therefore the ratepayers of the country, and not any particular denomination—Church of England or Non conformist, or Roman Catholic—ought to become the beneficiary of the charity. He sincerely hoped that after the great concession yesterday of the rental of the schoolmasters' dwellings the Government would not make any additional concession by accepting this Amendment, but that, on the contrary, if the Bill were

1083
not quite clear on the point, they would at the proper time accept an Amendment in a contrary sense, so as to make it certain that the ratepayers of our towns and country districts should reap the advantage of these funds which were left by the wisdom of our ancestors for the benefit, not of any particular denomination but of the people at large.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,said he had listened with great interest to the erudite speech of the noble Lord, which recalled to their memories, or rather, he should say, gave them information on the subject with which, he confessed, he personally was very imperfectly acquainted; but he did not really think that the speech had much bearing on the Amendment. The Government held that they must deal in a separate Clause with the whole subject of endowments. He did not think that this difficult and complicated subject could be summarily disposed of either by the Amendment of his on, friend or by the Amendment of the noble Lord, which came lower down on the Paper. He would, of course, on behalf of the Government, absolutely refuse to accept the noble Lord's Amendment which, if carried, would as he understood it prevent any endowments now used for voluntary schools from being continued to be used for that purpose. That was a quite inadmissible proposition. On the other hand, he thought that if his hon. friend's words were accepted they might lead to the erroneous conclusion that all the endowments now used for voluntary schools were to be transferred to the party concerned in their future maintenance, which would be represented by the managers, in other words, that all the endowments now used for the schools should be at the disposal of the managers for that school, and in relief of the obligations of the managers. That would be going too far on the other side. Speaking generally, he thought the equitable plan would be that where an endowment was left for what might be generally called, in an untechnical sense, the maintenance and upkeep of the school, that should be divided between
1084
the education authority and the managers, and that, so far as it went to the managers, it should, of course, go in relief of the obligations of the managers under the Bill. On the other hand, where it went to the local authority it should go in relief of the rate papers of the parish. The Government were clearly of opinion that it would never do to use these funds to diminish the general burden of the rates under the local education authority. It was, he would not say always, a parochial charity, but at all events a charity restricted in its area, and they did not propose that its benefits should go beyond that area. That portion, therefore, which would go to the education authority would be properly used for the diminution of the education rate in the area for the benefit of which it was originally left. He was not at all disturbed in his view that this was an equitable plan by the noble Lord's historical proof that the voluntary schools, and the Church schools in particular, had absorbed in the course of centuries some endowments which were originally devoted to purposes probably now entirely obsolete. The general policy he recommended the House to adopt could not be dealt with in this Clause. As regarded the Amendment to the Clause which his hon. friend had moved, he thought it would be misleading to insert the words proposed. He believed they would be interpreted as the noble Lord himself had interpreted them, as meaning that every endowment now used for aiding voluntary education in a parish should go entirely to the managers of the voluntary school in that parish. That, he thought, was going too far. Though he did not believe that the words necessarily carried that interpretation, he thought they would mislead hasty readers of the Bill. He would suggest, therefore, that the words should not be inserted. As to the question of personal liability, it was distinctly understood that there was no personal liability on the part of the managers. They could only use the funds at their disposal. They were not under any personal or individual obligation to find funds from their own resources, if other resources should fail them. He hoped he had

1085
made quite clear what the Government were aiming at. Their policy followed a middle course between two extremes. It could only be dealt with in a separate section, and he trusted the Committee would wait until that section was before them before discussing the matter in detail.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he would like to point out that Clause 13, sub-Section 2, provided that all receipts in respect of any school maintained by a local education authority, including the annual Parliamentary grant, but excluding sums specially applicable for purposes for which provision was to be made by the managers, should be paid to that authority. The President of the Local Government Board, when in charge of the Bill, referring to the words "all receipts in respect of any school," said that every farthing of income derived from endowments would pass beyond the managers and go into the coffers of the County Council. He would like to know whether the Prime Minister authorised that statement or approved of it now. It was not creditable to the House that they should be working their way through this complicated Clause dealing with trust deeds and endowments without having a single syllable of information as to the number and character of them, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would lay before them full information as to their extent and character, and accelerate the laying of the trust deeds on the Table.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he did not think his hon. friend, in whoso absence and at whose request he had taken charge of the Amendment, would desire to press it after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. But he would like to ask the Attorney General if he were satisfied that the words "provided by them" allowed the managers to make use of any moneys which might eventually come into their possession, such as endowments, rents, donations, or subscriptions. If the hon. and learned Gentleman could give him that assurance, he thought he might ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,said
1086
he thought it was quite clear that these words would enable the managers to defray the cost of repairs or improvements out of any funds which might be at their disposal from whatever source.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONthought it would be difficult to reconcile that with the words of the sub-Section to which he had referred.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid it was quite clear Clause 13 did not meet the point, but as the Prime Minister had promised a new scheme, they could hardly discuss the matter now. He wished, however, to utter one word of protest on the part of parishes which had very large endowments. It would not be fair to the parishes or groups of parishes for which these endowments had been provided that the endowments should become purely national or county gifts. These funds were given before there was any public assistance to education, and they were the gifts of the patriotic inhabitants who desired to benefit a parish or group of parishes. To ensure that they were not lost to that parish or group of parishes, an important change in the Bill was required, and when it was submitted they could discuss it.
MR. BRYCEsaid they were not proposing to discuss the whole question, but there could be no impropriety in calling attention at that stage to the fact that this was one of the most important questions in the Bill. There were a great many endowments, many of which had gone into the hands of the secondary schools, and they had been misapplied in this sense, that they had not given any greater benefit to the parish than they would have received without it, because the money had been appropriated to the relief of the wealthier inhabitants of that liability they would otherwise have been under for rates or voluntary subscriptions, and the poor for whose benefit the charities were really left had not been helped at all. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended, on behalf of the Government, to lay before the Committee a Clause.
MR. A. J. BAFLOUR: Yes.
MR. BRYCEsaid he thought he might assent, subject to certain qualifications, to the proposition that these endowments should be applied, not to the relief of the county ratepayers, but the local ratepayers. But he took exception to the contention that the managers were proper objects for the benefit of these charitable funds. He repeated that these charities were given for the education of the people, and they ought not to be appropriated in order to relieve the managers of their obligation, either in a personal capacity or as representing a body of the subscribers, to maintain the school. They were not given to relieve them of obligations which would otherwise have fallen upon them. He desired at the present moment to enter a caveat against any scheme which would, in defiance of what he thought was the policy of the law, in defiance of the intention of the pious founders, and in defiance of the bargain suggested by this Bill, apply those charity funds to the relief of the pockets of those who ought to pay.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid the question of the endowments was a very difficult one, because they had been left under different circumstances and for different reasons. There were some endowments which had been left for education in connection with a particular denomination. In dealing with these it seemed to him that they should properly be given to the managers, because there was no doubt about the intention of the founders. There was another class of endowments which had been left for the benefit of the education of the poor generally in the parish. There he thought they were left for education simply, and for that reason he did not think they should go to the managers. They ought to go to the local authority for the parish in some such way as that indicated by the First Lord. Then there was a third class which had been diverted by the Charity Commissioners to a particular local elementary school. Since the passing of the Endowed Schools Acts and the Elementary Education Act of 1870, it had been the custom of the Charity
1088
Commissioners in nearly all cases to make such diversion to secondary education. Roughly speaking, there were very few such cases since 1869 or 1870. The suggestion he would make was that some body, such as the Board of Education or the Charity Commissioners, probably the Board of Education, should have power to go into every single endowment in order to ascertain the purpose for which it was originally left, and how it had since been applied, and to decide whether it should be paid over to the managers in future or to the county authority for the maintenance of a school in that particular parish. Unless they did that he did not see how they would arrive at any fair or satisfactory solution of the case. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the endowments were being misapplied. When they were left the State did not supply education at all, and unless these endowments had been left there would have been no school for the people.
MR. BRYCEsaid he was speaking from the experience he had thirty-five years ago when he was Assistant Commissioner examining into the condition of those endowed schools. What he then found was—he did not say misapplication in the sense that there was anything criminal—that there were a great many rural parishes in which there were these old endowed schools. Where there was one of these parishes, the local people, the local magnates, who would otherwise have subscribed to establish a National, or perhaps a British school were relieved of the necessity of subscribing. Therefore they were able to be relieved of burdens which their neighbours in the adjoining parishes were bearing.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid that very often a rich man instead of giving an annual subscription had capitalised his subscription by way of an endowment. Surely it was perfectly fair in that case that the interest of the endowment should go for the benefit, either of the subscribers or ratepayers as the case might be. He did not think there was very much difference between Members of the Committee on this

1089
question. He made this suggestion, because he felt that it was a matter that must be dealt with later on when the First Lord submitted his proposal.
MR. M'KENNAsaid there were two questions raised here, firstly, what endowments were to be paid to the local authority, and secondly, what use was to be made by the local authority of the money after it had been paid over. The first question was already decided by sub-Section 2 of Clause 13, and they ought not to go back upon that provision. On the second point he thought they were all agreed. When the endowment had been paid to the local authority, they should be paid out by the local authority of the particular parish for the use of which the endowment was given. The Government would not be dealing fairly if they proposed another Clause to go back on the provision made in sub-Section 2 of Clause 13.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I venture to suggest to the Committee that we ought not now to discuss this? I stated that I should indicate the scheme of the Government, but if any endeavour to meet the mind of the Committee on a subject like this is to be followed by a long discussion, not on the Amendment but on a matter not absolutely germane to the Amendment, I shall be obliged to cut off the information I give to the House to limits which I think would be convenient to the House.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid that formerly there had been an unsatisfactory system of dealing with disputed points in regard to endowments, that, namely, of bringing them up for decision by a more or less Party vote after twelve o'clock in a jaded House. He hoped the First Lord would make provision in the new scheme which would obviate the injustice which had occasionally happened under the existing practice.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. WHITLEY MR. WHITLEY (Halifax) moved to leave out "them" and insert "foundation managers" in line 18 of Clause 8. The hon. Member on the other side
1090
appeared to be afraid that the words "provided by them" would put some liability on the managers as individuals. He certainly took the same view on reading the words "provided by them." He understood the First Lord now to say that that was not so, and that they would have, and could have, no financial responsibility themselves. He moved this Amendment simply to protect the two elected managers against any possible financial liability which it would be unjust to place on their shoulders. The First Lord's Amendment so farmet the difficulty, but he wanted to know what would happen in this case. Suppose that the four foundation managers and the two elected managers acting together gave orders for the enlargement of a school at a cost of £500, they employed a contractor, and the work was done before they had raised subscriptions for the purpose; suppose further that they failed to raise the sum by subscriptions and the contractors sued the managers, was it not a fact that the two elected managers would have to share the responsibility for the liability incurred? That was a danger which he wished to avoid, so that if poor men were elected managers they would have no possible burden resting on their shoulders.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 18, to leave out the word 'them,' and insert the words 'foundation managers.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)
Question proposed. "That the word 'them' stand part of the Clause."
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Of course the question of personal liability to the builder must in every ease depend on the terms of the contract. There are many cases in which a committee is formed for a declared purpose. They might be considered to have pledged their personal liability, and to have taken the chance of getting the funds by subscription or elsewhere to defray it. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it would not be reasonable to put in "foundation managers," because the intention is that the managers should execute the repairs out of funds provided by them for the purpose as a whole.
MR. WHITLEYsaid the explanation was not entirely satisfactory. It would be possible for the four foundation managers to enter into a contract for

1091
which the whole six would be liable, and in that way liability would be cast on the shoulders of the two elected members. That would be a serious thing for a poor man acting as one of the elected managers.
DR. MACNAMARAobjected to the introduction of the words proposed by the Amendment on the ground that he desired the managers here and everywhere to act as a whole. The obligation to keep the school in repair was placed on the whole of the managers, and he believed it was the intention of the Government that the two public managers should have as much voice in the matter as the four foundation managers.
MR. WHITLEYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LEVY*MR. LEVY (Leicestershire, Loughborough) moved to insert after "them" in line 18 of Clause 8 the words "which shall average not less than seven shillings per pupil in average attendance per annum." His object in moving the Amendment was to ensure that the managers would keep the schools in a proper state of repair and in a sanitary condition. They would be told that the question of the state of the schools could be controlled by the local education authority, who could require that the schools should be maintained in an efficient and sanitary condition, and that if the buildings were not so maintained the managers could be made to put their schools into a proper state of repair and sanitation by the Board of Education. At the present time the Board of Education possessed these powers, yet it was common knowledge that in the rural districts the instructions of the Board of Education were frequently disregarded, and the schools were often in a very unsatisfactory condition. It was to safeguard the interests of the people that he proposed the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
MR. LEVYsaid he certainly would.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would express no comment on the announcement of
1092
the intentions of the hon. Gentleman except to say that it was obviously absurd to lay down that in every school—whatever its circumstances, whether it was large or small, new or old, whether it belonged to the State or not—the managers must spend the same amount per child in average attendance.
MR. LEVYsaid he had no special fascination for the sum of 7s. Let the Prime Minister fix a minimum of 5s. if he liked, but his argument was that there should be a minimum sum below which the managers should not be allowed to go.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could not see how anything could be gained in enforcing the managers to spend money if it was not required.
MR. CHARLES MORLEYpointed out that there appeared to be some misapprehension in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, for there was nothing in the Amendment to compel managers to spend not less than 7s. per pupil. The Amendment merely enforced the provision, and not the expenditure, of the money.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that that made it almost worse. Was the hon. Gentleman by the greatest effort of imagination to put himself into the position of insisting that the managers were to spend at the rate of 7s. per child per annum, whether it was wanted or not?
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he quite agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury that such a proposition would be impracticable. But, on the other hand, it was essential that the Government should see that the provisions of Clause 18 were carried out. He did not think that the proposal that the managers were to keep the buildings in a proper state of repair and sanitation was likely to be carried out. As a matter of fact, the money spent on repairs in many schools was entirely inadequate, as was shown by the return giving the particulars of such money spent on every school in the kingdom. In one school, with an average attendance of fifty children, the total amount of money spent on fuel, light, cleaning, rent, and taxes, etc., was 1s. 6d. per child; and when they took that off the contribution

1093
there was nothing left for repairs. And that was not an old school. The same argument applied to many schools in the country of which he could give details. A good standard had been set up in the Code recently issued in regard to sanitation rules. And, by the way, he would like to know how, for some mysterious reason, these rules had been dropped out of this year's Code. He suggested that the Government should undertake that the moment this Bill became law, the Board of Education should send out as a matter of information to the local education authorities throughout the country, a memorandum as to what they considered to be a reasonable standard of sanitation, cleansing, lighting, fuel, etc.
THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,said that the demand of the hon. Gentleman was a reasonable one and he would undertake that it would be satisfied.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the point of his right hon. friend had not been met. There could be no doubt that a large number of local authorities would insist on repairs to the school premises being carried out, and that the managers would say that they had no funds to do so. It would therefore take years to carry them out. He thought there was substance in the Amendment, and that if something were not done to compel the managers to provide the funds for repairs these would have to be carried out by the local education authority.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was very desirable that there should be some guarantee that the repairs would be carried out by the managers. A large number of the schools were not at present in proper repair; and, therefore, he thought they wore justified in regarding, with some amount of suspicion, the mere words which declare that the schools should be kept in repair. He was not quite sure, however, whether his hon. friend's Amendment would meet the difficulty. The great difficulty was to know exactly what was meant by the word "repairs." On the face of it, the word seemed very simple; but there had
1094
been such litigation over it, that he was not quite sure it was clear what responsibility would be cast on the managers. It would be better to strengthen the Bill in the direction of making it clear what "repairs" would mean, rather than have the guarantee which was proposed. Would any part of the duty of keeping the building in good order be cast on the local authority? Would painting or papering for instance? That was the direction in which they should proceed; but the point could be bettor raised on a subsequent Amendment.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he agreed that the matter could be more conveniently discussed on a later Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYin moving an Amendment to provide that the managers should insure the school buildings against fire, said the buildings might very easily be burned; and at present the managers in many cases neglected to insure them. Unless the Amendment were accepted, a very heavy liability might be thrown on many rural parishes. If a school which was not insured was burned down, the local authority would have to provide a new school, almost entirely at the expense of the persons living in the parish. The Bill was being discussed almost solely from the point of view of the theologian and the educationalist; and the heavy burden which would be placed on the local taxpayers was forgotten. The Bill should be considered not only from the standpoint of the large towns, where a man only paid rates on his house, but also from the standpoint of the rural districts where a man paid rates on his entire income. If a school were burned down in a small parish, it might result in an excessively heavy rate being imposed on the ratepayers.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 18, after the word 'then,' to insert the words 'insure against fire and.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. It rested with the managers

1095
to insure the schools; and they could not impose on them by Act of Parliament an obligation to do that which related to their own business. If the managers desired the voluntary schools to be kept up then they would insure them against fire. If they did not insure schools, and they were burned down, the result would be that they would be succeeded by provided schools. That might be a good or a bad thing; but surely it was a little childish to suggest that managers should be compelled, by Act of Parliament, to do that which was entirely within their own province.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he wished to know if the cost of the insurance would fall on the rater. If it did, it would be a heavy burden. If the managers did not insure, would the local authority be saddled with the expense. That was the important point. As far as he was concerned, he was not anxious that the non-provided schools should be insured, because if they were not, they would, in the event of being burned down, be replaced by provided schools. What he wished to know was, would the education authority be expected to insure the non-provided schools?
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that people did not usually insure buildings not belonging to them.
Question put and negatived.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he desired to move an Amendment providing that the managers should discharge all liabilities incurred in connection with the school existing at the passing of the Act. At present a very large number of denominational schools were in debt; and that was a fact which would have to be faced in connection with the passing of the Bill. In August last the First Lord of the Treasury informed him that the local authority would have nothing to do with any such liabilities, and he now moved his Amendment in order that words might be incorporated in the Bill which would make that perfectly clear. He would put a concrete question to the Attorney General. If the local authority was not to be responsible for these liabilities after the passing of the Bill who
1096
would be responsible for them? Further, he wished to know if the additional managers to be elected would be responsible with the existing managers? He thought the Amendment should be accepted in order to avoid friction. There was no doubt in the mind of the Government about the matter; why, therefore, should it not be made plain in the Bill? Again, if the Attorney General would refer to Section 1 of the second schedule, he would see that the liabilities of the school attendance committees were to be transferred to the County Councils. He wished to know how that would affect the existing law, which laid down that the expenses of the attendance committees should be met by the guardians.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see what bearing that has on the hon. Member's Amendment, which deals with the liabilities of managers.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid that the point he wished to make was that the Government should make it clear in the Bill that the local authority would not be responsible for existing liabilities.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 18, after the word 'them,' to insert the words 'discharge all liabilities incurred in connection with the school existing at the passing of the Act."'—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the Amendment of the hon. Member was based on a misapprehension. The hon. Member appeared to think that the local education authority took over the school building and by so doing stood in the place of the school managers, taking over all the assets and becoming responsible for all expenditure. That was not so. The local education authority was only bound to maintain the school. The debts incurred by managers in the past would have to be discharged by the managers who took their place. The hon. Member asked who would pay their debts if the managers did not. He (Sir William Anson) might as well ask who would pay his own personal debts if he did not pay them.

1097
He could only say he did not know. He only knew that the local education authority would not relieve the managers of their liabilities.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONdid not think the hon. Gentleman had seen the important part of this Amendment. As he understood the Amendment, it sought to ensure that they should begin the new condition of things with a clean slate; that in return for the privileges which were to be given to the managers there should be handed over to the State a school with a mortgage on it, but a free school; that the managers should provide it, and ought to provide it, free of charge. A similar condition had, he believed, been insisted on by the Education, Department itself in dealing with building grants. When building grants were given, the fundamental condition was that the ownership of the land was to be provided by trust deed. He had often asked for those deeds, but had never succeeded in getting them; but he believed that when they did see them they would find that those deeds provided that the buildings should be absolutely unencumbered. This Amendment practically suggested the same thing with regard to the schools.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that if there was a mortgage over the school the mortgagee might foreclose, and when he took possession of the school what would be the position? Or supposing the gentleman who owned the school had an execution put in, whether in secular or religious hours, what would be the position? It would be a very inconvenient thing to have a man in possession.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Under those circumstances they would cease to be non-provided schools, if their proceedings are interrupted by the action of the managers.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the managers ought not to be placed in a position of that kind. They desired to have the schools placed in a position that was quite clear, so that the local education authority might
1098
feel secure. If the parties who were the proprietors of the school could call upon the local education authority to carry on the education in the school, it was necessary that the local education authority should have some security.
MR. PYMsaid he thought the object of this Amendment was sufficiently indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen when he used the words ''handed over." These schools were not provided for the local authority, they were lent to the local authority. The result was that, if these schools were broken up because they were not maintained by the managers who represented the trustees, then the county would have to provide schools in their place. It was absurd to talk of going into the question of the financial condition of these schools, which did not belong to the county. Every argument of the Opposition all through the Bill had been based upon the assumption that these schools belonged to the county, every Amendment had been made with the object of placing the local authorities in a position to deal with these schools as they pleased, and they could not do it. The Government were indebted to the Church for the saving of a large expense, and in return for that they were obliged to make certain conditions.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONunderstood from the speech just previously made that the County Councils would have nothing to do with any of the financial arrangements of the schools. Supposing the opposite point were taken, and instead of having any financial control the County Councils had been so careful as to have no control whatever. If the school got a balance of a grant left over, would that go into the public exchequer of the county or to the managers of the school? He only desired to put the question.
THE CHAIRMAN: That Question does not, I think, arise on this Amendment.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked, supposing there was a sum of money due from the old managers, whether that liability would, as he assumed it must, be transferred to the new school managers under

1099
this Bill. If it was a liability incurred purely on account of the trust, and that liability was transferred to the new trustees, ho would like to know could any one distrain on the school assets—on the furniture, books, or apparatus of the school—for the purpose of discharging the liability incurred in connection with the trust itself.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The law would remain as it is. You cannot seize one man's property for the debts of another.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEpointed out that this was a trust liability; the liability could not remain where it was. The creditor surely could follow the trust assets.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he did not propose to follow the hon. and
learned Gentleman into these abstruse questions, which had nothing to do with the Amendment.
MR. LLOYD GEORGEcontended that if the liability incurred was in connection with the trust, or if it was in connection with the school—it was the same thing—the creditor could follow the books, furniture and apparatus if the money was not paid. What he desired to know was, would he be able to do so in the future, Would he be able to distrain for a liability incurred before the passing of this Bill, because if that were so this Amendment certainly ought to be adopted.
(3.58.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 197. (Division List No. 434).

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Price, Robert John

Allan, SirWilliam (Gateshead)

Helme, Norval Watson

Rea, Russell

Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Reckitt, Harold James

Barlow, John Emmott

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

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Horniman, Frederick John

Rickett, J. Compton

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Rigg, Richard

Bell, Richard

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Brigg, John

Jacoby, James Alfred

Runciman, Walter

Broadhurst, Henry

Joicey, Sir James

Schwann, Charles E.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jones David Brynmor (Swansea

Shackleton, David James

Burns, John

Jones William (Carnarvonshire

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Burt, Thomas

Kearley, Hudson E.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Soares, Ernest J.

Cameron, Robert

Lambert, George

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Causton, Richard Knight

Langley, Batty

Stevenson, Francis S.

Cawley, Frederick

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Channing, Francis Allston

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Cremer, William Randal

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower

Crombie, John William

Leng, Sir John

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

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Levy, Maurice

Tomkinson, James

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Lewis, John Herbert

Toulmin, George

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Logan, John William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lough, Thomas

Wallace, Robert

Edwards, Frank

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

Ellis, John Edward

M'Kenna, Reginald

Weir, James Galloway

Emmott, Alfred

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Mather, Sir William

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morley, Rt. Hon John (Montrose

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Grant, Corrie

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Woodhouse, Sir J T, (Huddersfd

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

Nussey, Thomas Williams

Yoxall, James Henry

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Partington, Oswald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Harwood, George

Paulton, James Mellor

Mr. Herbert Roberts and

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Philipps, John Wynford

Mr. Lloyd-George.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Aird, Sir John

Anson, Sir William Reynell.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick;

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balcarres, Lord

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Pease Herbert Pike (Darlington

Baldwin, Alfred

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Balfour, Rt. Hon A J (Manch'r

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

Percy, Earl

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W, (Leeds

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Pierpoint, Robert

Bartley, George C. T.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Groves, James Grimble

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Plummer, Walter R.

Bignold, Arthur

Gunter, Sir Robert

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hain, Edward

Pretyman, Ernest George

Boulnois, Edmund

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Purvis, Robert

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Pym, C. Guy

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Heaton, John Henniker

Rankin, Sir James

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Higginbottom, S. W.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Ratcliff, R. F.

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Campbell, Rt Hn J.A.(Glasgow)

Horner, Frederick William

Renwick, George

Carew, James Laurence

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Richards, Henry Charles

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hoult, Joseph

Ridley, Hon. M.W,(Stalybridge

Cavendish, R F. (N. Lanes.)

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Cavendish, V. C. W, (Derbyshire

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Johnstone, Heywood

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Kemp, George

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A (Worc.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Chapman, Edward

Kennedy, Patrick James

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

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Coddington, Sir William

Knowles, Lees

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lawson, John Grant

Spear, John Ward

Cranborne, Viscount

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Cust, Henry John.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Stone, Sir Benjamm

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

Stroyan, John

Davenport, William Bromley-

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lucas, Reginald. J (Portsmouth);

Thompson, Dr E C. (Monagh'n N

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macdona, John Cumming

Tollemache, Henry James

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Fabor, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Valentia, Viscount

Fardell, Sir T. George

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Malcolm, Ian

Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

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

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

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

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

Finch, George H.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropslure)

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Fisher, William Hayes

Morrell, George Herbert

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Mount, William Arthur

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

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

Flower, Ernest

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Forster, Henry William

Myers, William Henry

Younger, William

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S, W,

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Galloway, William Johnson

Nicholson, William Graham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Garfit, William

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sir Alexander Acland-

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torreus

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

MR. WHITLEYsaid that the Amendment standing in his name dealt with one of those matters which the Prime Minister regarded as details, but which gave rise to much controversy in the country. He had several times been
1102
asked who, under the new conditions, would pay the caretaker. The duties of this official would be largely concerned with the use of the school on Sundays and for parochial purposes, and it was desirable that it should be clearly laid

1103
down whether the managers or the local authority were responsible for his salary. If the local authority paid, would they also appoint? If the managers paid, would they be able to apply the usual teat as to the man being a frequent and early communicant? It was only reasonable that the caretaker should go along with the free use of the building, and the words he proposed to insert would make it quite clear.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 18, after the word 'them,' to insert the words 'pay the caretaker.'"—(Mr. Whitley)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted"
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Gentleman was quite right in his conjecture that he would regard this as a rather trifling matter. He did not know why the Amendment should deal only with the caretaker. Why should not the man who swept the chimneys also be brought in? These points must clearly be matters of arrangement between the local authority and the managers.
MR. M'KENNAsaid the local authority had only got the use of the school during certain hours of the day. What happened afterwards was no concern of the local authority.
MR. WHITLEYasked permission to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Islington, deals with a question which has already been disposed of. It has already been decided to hand over the school free of any charge, and therefore the Amendment is not in order. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden also raises a question which has been disposed of.
MR. LLOYD MORGANsaid the Amendment he wished to move was to the effect that the managers should supply all the educational
1104
appliances for the carrying on of the school. Many of the voluntary schools were badly equipped, and the apparatus at present provided by them was very much behind what was required now to carry on efficient work. It was quite clear that as the control of secular education had been handed over to the local education authority, they would insist upon voluntary schools bringing up their apparatus into line with the other schools of the country. His Amendment provided that, in a case of that kind, the managers should be responsible for the expense necessary to equip the school. The ownership of those schools would remain with the trustees, except when being used for the purposes of secular education. He begged to move his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 18, after the word 'house,' to insert the words 'and all its educational appliances.'"—(Mr. Lloyd Morgan.)
Question proposed, "That those words do there inserted."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment, because they were now dealing with the question of the building.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that in the case of desks they would be used not merely for secidar education, but also for Sunday school purposes, and for what the Prime Minister had called social purposes, by the Church managers for denominational purposes. Surely these ought to be supplied by the managers. There was nothing in the Bill to indicate who had to supply these things.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the managers had to keep up the building, but as regarded the furniture required, that would be supplied by the local education authority. If the furniture was to be used for other purposes, then the expense could be divided amongst them. This Amendment would throw upon the managers the burden of providing, all the educational appliances.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there was hot a single Word in the Bill to indicate that. The local education authority had to maintain the staff and provide the

1105
salaries and books, but there was nothing in the Bill about providing the furniture. The Attorney General said they could divide the cost of the furniture amongst them if they wished. Could the local education authority say to the managers—"We will not allow you to use the desks for the purposes of a Sunday school." If they could not do this, then they could not impose any charge.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the local education authority had to provide the furniture for secular instruction. They could remove their furniture if they liked, but no doubt they would leave it there. This Amendment would throw upon the managers the burden of providing the whole of the furniture, which was to be mainly used for secular education.
MR LLOYD-GEORGEcontended that that was precisely what the voluntary schools did at the present time, and the Attorney General now thought it was a gross and iniquitous thing that they should be asked to continue to provide the furniture. The hon. and learned Gentleman had skilfully evaded the question he put to him. If the managers refused to pay for the use of the furniture they could continue to use it unless the local authority took it away. It was a preposterous suggestion to say that the local authority could cart away the furniture. The local education authority were to take over the whole charge of maintaining the school for sectarian purposes; last night the Committee passed a resolution enabling the managers to make a profit out of the school-house; and now they were being asked at the expense of the State to equip Sunday schools and provide furniture for the richest denomination in the land.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought the answer given by the Attorney General showed that there were still one or two points which wanted clearing up. He said that the furniture, books and apparatus would be the property of the local authority. Did he mean that in the case of all these schools the local authority would have to purchase the existing apparatus from the present managers? If that were so it meant that they were giving another very large endowment to the schools. It could not be argued that the local authority were to come into possession of
1106
simply an empty house and would have to provide all the books and apparatus. Everybody thought that the schools were going to be taken over as a going concern. He should like some information upon this point because it was very germane to the Amendment under consideration. The managers would have to repair the building, but would they have to put the furniture and apparatus into a proper state of repair? Was it the idea of the Government that the local education authority would simply come into the possession of an empty building and have to buy all the books and apparatus from the existing managers of the schools?
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that as regards the furniture in the schools there was nothing in the Bill about transfer to the local education authority, but he should think himself that in most cases the managers would allow the old furniture to go on being used. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that there was nothing too bad to be imputed to the managers of the voluntary schools.
MR BRYCEsaid that the more they avoided imputations on each side the better. This was a matter that ought to be settled in case there should be friction. Would it not be better to deal with it in the Bill? It could not be beyond the resources of the Attorney General to find words which would meet the point and be accepted by each side defining the legal rights of the local authority.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid ho did not think there was any obscurity whatever about the point. The managers were to provide the buildings, and the furniture would remain the property of the managers, or trustees, or whosoever in whom it was vested. If they agreed to allow the local authority to use it they might do so, and if they chose to make the local authority buy the furniture they might do so. As regards any new furniture, that, of course, must be provided by the local education authority, for they were to maintain the school. There was nothing to put the managers under any obligation except with regard to the buildings. The law was clear. He thought sometimes quite as much mischief was done by an overplus of legislation, as by a want of legislation.
MR. BRYCEasked if it was to be understood that it would be in the power of the managers to carry away the furniture, the benches, maps, globes, ink bottles, and everything else which were now in the school and used for educational purposes, and then to say to the local authority that if they wanted those things they must pay for them.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had drawn a lurid picture of what might happen. Of course, if the managers chose to do that, they could.
MR. TREVELYANsaid it was perfectly true that they did not want an overplus of legislation, but legislation was to keep people in order who were not going to be reasonable, and what they complained of in this case was that something of this kind might happen. There would be a lot of old furniture, partly bought out of public grants, in a school, and if the managers chose to be unreasonable, it could be removed into the parish room. Then the school would be entirely fitted up again by the public authority, and the new desks and other furniture which the public authority had provided could be used in the evening by the very people who were keeping the old furniture.
SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid he thought a protest should be made on the Government side of the House against the view stated by the Attorney General. If it was in the power of the managers throughout the country to refuse the use of the furniture now in the schools the position would be an in tolerable one. He thought that would be very unfair and unjust, and that it would do a great injury to the reputation of the denominational schools. Therefore if the position was as stated by the AttorneyGeneral—and he had no doubt the lion, and learned Gentleman was correct—some words should be introduced in the Bill that the furniture and apparatus now in use in these schools should be at the disposal of the local authority in future.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that if those interested in the voluntary schools desired that some such words should be inserted in the Bill the Government would certainly have no objection. The legal position was as he had stated it, and he believed that owing to the action of the voluntary school managers no such discredit would be brought on the schools as his hon. friend apprehended. Could the Committee imagine for a moment that there would be any of those scenes which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had conjured up? He believed that in the actual working of the Bill none of those vagaries would arise. He thought the real danger sometimes was occasioned by being too fussy in these matters and in conjuring up objections instead of leaving people to act according to their own instincts of what was right.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid he wished to support the appeal made by his right hon. friend the Member for the Tewkesbury Division from the ratepayers' point of view and in the interest of the Bill itself. He could not conceive a worse start for a Bill of this description in a county than that the county authority should have to begin by paying a very large sum out of the rates of the first year for the purchase of a large portion of the existing furniture. The Attorney General said that a large number of the managers would take a liberal view, but, after all, the county authority would not be able to stand on liberality alone. They would have to consider the ratepayers, and also how they could deal fairly with all the managers. The question was whether or not they were bound in law to pay for the furniture. He could not think in the interest of the Bill itself, or in the interest of the voluntary schools, the county authority should have to start with a large burden caused by having to purchase the existing furniture.
MR. WALLACEsaid the managers would be acting in breach of duty if they did not as trustees demand the price of the furniture if the law had not laid down anything contrary to the view stated by the Attorney General. Therefore it seemed

1109
to be absolutely necessary to have the law so framed that no opportunity would be afforded for any dispute to arise.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid he thought the proper course to pursue was to postpone the discussion until a new Amendment could be brought forward at a later stage.
MR SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that what was wanted was that the Government should introduce an Amendment which would meet the views of all those who had spoken, and he asked the Attorney General to give a promise to that effect.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that two things were perfectly clear—first, that the Amendment now before the Committee would not meet the desire of every Member who had spoken, and second, that this was not the place to insert words dealing with the matter, because they were now dealing with the buildings. In accordance with what seemed to be the general wish of the Committee the Government would most carefully consider the point and see whether words could not be introduced which would give effect to that desire, although personally he did not think an Amendment was necessary.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he wished to point out that there was a large portion of the contents of the schoolrooms which was not movable furniture at all, but fixtures screwed to the floor, or otherwise.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that many of the school managers had very heavy debts, and if they had a right to claim compensation for furniture there would be a great temptation for them to do so in order to clear off their debts.
MR. LLOYD MORGANsaid that after the promise the Attorney General had given, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid he had been struck with what the
1110
hon. Member for North Camberwell; had said in regard to the amount of repairs, and he could not help thinking that there should be some discrimination in regard to repairs. Hence he proposed that after the word "good," there should be inserted "structural." That would indicate what the landlord should do, and what a tenant should do. The tenant surely should replace a broken pane of glass, or any of the small daily repairs of a school; but on the other hand larger repairs, for instance in regard to the roof or the outside doors, should be paid for by the managers. He understood from the Secretary to the Board of Education that some general rules would be laid down under the Code. That would be quite satisfactory, but the Government should clear the matter up.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 18, after the word 'good,' to insert the word 'structural.'—(Sir John Dorington.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'structural' be there inserted."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the meaning of the words in the Bill "in good repair" was that it was intended to include all repairs necessary to adapt the buildings for the purposes for which they were to be used. It was perfectly clear that the words as they stood included structural repairs outside the building as well as keeping the paint and the windows in order. He thought it was better therefore to adhere to the words of the Bill, by which the responsibility was thrown upon the managers of doing all that was necessary to keep the buildings in a condition suitable for the work of a school. If they began to dissect the amount of repairs which the managers should provide in making the buildings suitable for use as a school, and the amount to be done by the local authority, he thought they would open up a very difficult subject.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid this Amendment had been moved in a very quiet way, but they knew that it was an Amendment to which the Archbishop of Canterbury, judging from recent speeches of that Prelate, attached great

1111
importance. He was glad that the Attorney General had taken a very different view of the Amendment from its mover. If the Amendment were to be accepted by the Committee it would be as gross a breach of the understanding as was that of which they had complained on the previous night.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he was very glad to hear the speech of the Attorney General, because it conveyed what was thoroughly understood by the Committee, viz., that it was undoubtedly the duty of the managers to keep the school buildings in a condition suitable to the purposes for which they were intended. He had received the other day a leaflet which was being printed and circulated for the Primose League by a Cambridge Newspaper Company. He did not know whether it was edited by the late Secretary to the Board of Education; but the leaflet set forth the merits of the Bill and the reasons why the public, should place confidence in it. One of the arguments was that the supporters of the voluntary schools would have to provide for all repairs, but any enlargement which might be necessary would be paid for out of the local rates. It seemed to him that in proposing this Amendment an endeavour was being made to take off certain liabilities which everybody understood had been undertaken by the managers of the voluntary schools.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid that the right hon. the Member for Forest of Dean had stated that this was a small matter. [Sir C. DILKE: "No, I never said so."] The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Archbishop of Canterbury's speech, in which the Archbishop attached some importance to the definition of repairs. He could say that he was acquainted with a number of denominational schools which were kept open with the greatest difficulty, and only by the generous subscriptions often of very poor people who wanted to keep up the denominational character of the schools. To his knowledge the Roman Catholics had been most liberal in their contributions to the upkeep of their schools. He thought it would be most unfair to
1112
handicap the voluntary schools by compelling them to provide for repairs which in the case of board schools fell upon the rates. Why was secular education to be handicapped in voluntary schools because religious instruction was given in them? Hon. Members opposite had such a prejudice against definite religious instruction that as they could not do as was being done in France, viz., drive the denominational schools out by force, they were trying to obtain their end by the process of placing every possible burden upon them. It was no more than common fairness that those parents who desired their children to be religiously instructed should be put on the same footing as the parents of other children. Ho thought it was not much to ask that the local education authority should maintain the equipment for educational purposes. This Amendment was a fair one, and if they did not limit the denominational liability to structural repairs, they ought to try to define the furniture to be provided by the local authority, which he had endeavoured to do by an Amendment lower down on the Paper.
DR MACNAMARAthought the hon. Gentleman made a mistake in endeavouring to minimise the obligations of the managers in this way. The question had been asked why should not these buildings be kept in repair out of the fund, like the School Board schools, in the future? For a very simple reason, because it was now decided that the whole cost of the education should be charged on the public fund. They had got four-sixths of the management of the schools, and in return for that it was an exceedingly small consideration that they should keep the buildings in repair? What were the figures? The voluntary subscriptions last year amounted to £840,000, It was exceedingly difficult to get definite figures, in fact it was impossible, for the cost of repairs, but gathered together were a number of items—fuel, light, cleaning, repairs, rent and taxes, and miscellaneous, expenditure—and the total of those items came out at £908,700. In some cases the rent charges were very high, running up to as much as £500 a year. From those figures it was plain that the existing voluntary contributions would (have nearly met not only the repairs but

1113
all these other charges as well. Supposing the voluntary contributions fell to half that amount—fell to £450,000—he still thought they would be sufficient to meet the repairs if they took the repairs at half the entire expenditure. That he thought was a fair estimate. The voluntary subscriptions amounted now to 6s. 5d. per child. If they fell to 3s., and that was the reasonable return which the voluntary subscribers might be asked to make, they would still have sufficient. He did not think it would do the denominations any good to make a huckstering bargain in this matter. For the concessions made of four-sixths of the management, the head teacher always, and the right to give denominational teaching out of public funds, this was a very small return.
MR. JAMES HOPEexpressed the fear that the statement made by the Attorney General would give anxiety and disappointment to the managers of voluntary schools. He thought it was inconsistent with the main tenor of this Clause which put the managers in the relation of landlord and tenant, with the exception that the tenant paid no rent. It should at least be construed in such a way that the whole of what were known as tenant's repairs should be borne by the local authority which had possession of the building. If the Committee referred to sub-Section 3 of Clause 13 it would be seen that in the relations between the local authority and the parish, where there was a provided school, all the capital expenditure, and the capital expenditure alone, was to be borne by the parish. He asked that that principle might be adhered to in; this case; the capital repairs, the "land lord" repairs, should be borne by the denomination, and the "tenant" repairs by the local authority. This point unfortunately was complicated by the fact that the practice of the Department in the past had not been invariable. A number of items had been allowed to be paid by the managers out of Parliamentary grants which under this definition they would be obliged to pay out of their own resources. He thought that what before they had been allowed to pay out of Parliamentary grants should now be paid by the local authority. Those were in this opinion the lines upon which a fair settlement could be effected. The
1114
right hon. Member for North East Manchester had appointed out that the minor repairs were trifling amounts, but he (Mr. Hope) had the accounts of a West-leyan school in one district, which showed that in the last two years the minor repairs amounted to £last year. He earnestly hoped that before the debate closed the Attorney General would at last in dicate that the Government had the intention of reconsidering this matter.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONon behalf of the Owners and managers of the voluntary schools said they had no desire to shirk their responsibilities in this manner and get rid of the expenditure they had hitherto been put to, by putting it on public funds. They had heard too much of the Church in this debate, and how it would profit by the Bill, but the right hon Gentleman of the Member for Wolverhampton was right when he said that it was not so much a matter of the Chuarch as a matter of the Church as a matter of the owner of a property. He believed that the number of schools that were said to belong to denominations was largely exaggerated. There were a great many schools which appeared in the Education Reports as Church of England schools which had no connection with the Church at all They were "Squire's" schools, built by squires, and maintained by them. It was quite true that the squires had in times past expected the clergyman of the parish to manage the school and give the religious instruction, and it was only in latter days that the action of a section of the Church had obliged them to withdraw that duty from the clergymanm, or only to allow it under conditions. But it was quite open to a squire to withdraw any of his schools from the denominations, and convert them into sectarian schools, or pull them down, or turn them into cowsheds, or do anything he pleased with them. This concession must go, therefore into the pockets of the landlords, and he thought it was a mean of the landlords to accept it.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid the speech of the hon. Baronet strengthened the force of the argument that he was about to use, that from the ratepayers'.

1115
point of view it was not wise to drive the voluntary school managers into bankruptcy, because then the ratepayers would have to pay the whole cost of the school buildings. It was quite true that many of the schools were in the hands of the landowners, and had no strict connection with the Church in any way, and, while it was perfectly true that many religious bodies would make great sacrifices to prevent the schools going away from the denomination, there was no reason why the squire should do as he pleased with regard to them. He suggested that a middle course might be taken in this matter by enacting that, in respect of repairs, other than structural, the County Council should have a discretion to contribute if they liked. There would be no unfairness in giving a free choice to the body which the ratepayers elected.
MR. M. WHITE RIDLEYsincerely hoped the Government would see their way to consider the suggestion: of the noble Lord. As the hon. Member for North Camberwell had pointed out, taking it over the whole of the schools of the country there would probably be no difficulty in finding the money required; but to find the money in some districts would be impossible. There was no desire on the part of the voluntary school managers of any district to back out of the bargain, but there had always been an understanding that they should not run into greater liabilities than they had been able to pay out of the Government grants. In his own constituency there: were twenty voluntary schools and the annual expenditure they would have to pay under the Act amounted to £1,600. The annual subscriptions amounted roughly to £800. They had been able out of the Government grants to supply the rest of the amount required for maintenance and repairs. It would be hard in that case for the managers to find more money than they had had to find in past years. Those schools were not Church alone but schools of all denominations.
MR. W. F. LAWRENCEhad no desire to ignore the real hardships shown in the speech of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division. There were certainly already efficient
1116
schools with regard to which considerable cost would be thrown upon the management. He did not think this Amendment met the case so well as that of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division, lower down on the Paper. He would like to know what provision was made for the upkeep of playgrounds. In country districts they were frequently put to considerable expense in restoring the level of play-grounds. He would also like to know what provision was made for the upkeep of outside walls. He thought it should be clearly set out in the Bill whether the upkeep of playgrounds and outside walls would come in under the head of buildings.
MR. BARTLEYthought it would be most desirable to prevent any friction arising between the local education authorities and the managers of voluntary schools on the question of repairs. If the Committee tried to separate the repairs he thought they would do a great deal of harm to the voluntary schools themselves, because they must bear in mind that the use of the school was not limited to the hours of secular teaching, and they would have friction and disputes as to whether the damage took place at the time when secular or religious instruction was in progress. He thought the position of the Government should be maintained.
MR. SOARESsaid before the Bill was introduced they heard a great deal of the intolerable situation of the managers of the voluntary schools. Now that the Bill had been brought in they were told by a noble Lord opposite that some of these schools would be driven into bankruptcy. The last stage was therefore worse than the first, and it was very strange that the Diocesan Councils all over the country should, under these circumstances, be in favour of the Bill. For the last three hours attempts had been made to do away with the bargain which was the basis of this Bill The previous night the denominations were presented with the rents of their school-houses. That afternoon the attempt was made to give the schools the endowments which they now enjoyed. Now

1117
there was an attempt to whittle down the repairs. He was glad the Government was firm as to that, but he wished to know how many attempts were going to be made to whittle away the bargain. They had heard a great deal of this bargain, and he would be glad to know by whom it was made. It was certainly not made between one side of the House and the other. The real fact of the matter was that it was made between the Government, as trustees for the people, and the owners of the Church schools. It would be interesting to know at that period how the profit and loss account stood. So far the public got the use of the school dining school hours and on three evenings in the week. Against that the denominations had first, two-thirds of the managers. Secondly, the appointment of all the teachers, and secured the religious atmosphere which they wanted. Thirdly, they had the use of the school buildings outside school hours. Fourthly, they bad the use of the buildings for Sunday school purposes. Fifthly, they got the rent of the school-house, a not inconsiderable asset; and, lastly, they could, if their schools were wanted for technical instruction for more than three days a week, take a share of the whiskey money. It seemed to him that the policy was a one-sided one, and he trusted that, if if any further proposals were made of this "kind, the Government would remember they were the trustees of the people, and would deal with Convocation in a stronger manner than they had hitherto done.
MR. CRIPPSquite agreed that the question of repairs was a very important one, which ought to be dealt with according to the lines laid down in the Bill. Here they were not dealing particularly with Church schools or denominational schools, but with all the schools not provided by the local authority, many of them being schools in private hands. He admitted that there was a heavy burden cast on the owners of the schools, but according to the principles of the Bill, they should bear it in return for certain advantages obtained. It would be a great mistake to attempt to make the burden too light, and certainly nothing could be
1118
worse than the recurrence of constant friction as to repairs. He supported the position taken up by the Attorney General, that no one except the owner should deal with the fabric of the schools, and that it should be his duty to maintain the fabric in such a condition as to be fitted for educational purposes.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he was speaking of repairs. So far as repairs were concerned, both inside and out, the managers should keep the schools in a condition fit for educational purposes. So far as cleaning was concerned, that was a different matter altogether.
MR. TALBOTsaid he wanted to know, what the bargain was. He understood that all external repairs were to be done by the representative managers of the school, but the Attorney General rather frightened him by speaking of inside as well as outside repairs. In keeping the building in repair, one important point was to keep it clean. Who was to provide the cleaning of the school, which could hardly be called "repairs" in the ordinary sense? If the walls became dirty, who was to whitewash them? Those were points which, perhaps, might sound trivial to the Committee, but they were points on which friction might arise, and it was desirable to clear them up. Again, what was to happen in the case of a broken window? Whether they differed or not, it was most desirable that they should know what the provision meant. What he had understood was that the fabric and its repairs were to be maintained by the owners, but that all else would be left in the hands of the local authority. That, however, was now to be pressed further, and the owners were not only to maintain the walls, chimneys, and other parts of the fabric, but to maintain the inside of the building, to do the painting, whitewashing, glazing, and so forth. He was not saying that he objected to that, or that it was an unfair bargain, but he wanted to know what the bargain really was, and then he would be able to form an opinion about it.
MR. CHARLES MCARTHURrepudiated the idea of there

1119
being any bargain in this matter. What they were trying to do was to act fairly between the local authority, as representing the ratepayers, on the one side, and the trustees of the school on the other. The Liverpool Public Elementary School Managers Committee, a body representing all the schools, both voluntary and board, in Liverpool, had resolved—
"That the reasonable cost of the wear and tear of the buildings should, as at present, be included under the head of maintenance, and allowed accordingly."
The ground of that view was that if the use of the school was given free of charge it was surely only fair that the local authority should bear the charges incidental to use. A school could not be used without a certain amount of wear and tear, and to make good that wear and tear was just as much a part of the cost of maintenance as teachers' salaries. In the past it had always been allowed by the Education Department under the head of maintenance. It was a mistake to try to drive too hard a bargain with the school managers. If Members desired to put an end to voluntary schools let them do so boldly, but they ought not to subject the schools to a lingering death
by placing upon the shoulders of the managers a burden heavier than they could bear.
MR. YOXALLreminded the Committee that at present voluntary school managers had to distinguish between two sources of revenue when meeting a demand for repairs. Structural repairs had to be met out of capital expenditure, so that in that respect the managers under the Bill would be in no worse case in the future. The cost of small internal repairs might, by leave of the Board of Education, be charged upon the maintenance fund. But at present, the managers had some £800,000 in voluntary subscriptions. In future that sum would not have to be raised for the general expenses of the schools, and so would be applicable to these internal repairs. Therefore the Bill would not injure the managers in either respect.
(5.38.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 35; Noes, 337. (Division List No. 435.)

AYES.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Ridley, Hon. M.W (Stalybridge

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Bond, Edward

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Round, Right Hon. James

Boulnois, Edmund

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Carew, James Laurence

Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside

Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Kennaway, Rt. Hn Sir John H.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cautley, Henry Strother

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Malcolm, Ian

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Morrell, George Herbert

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Myers, William Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Faber, Edmund B (Hants, W.)

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

Sir John Dorington and

Galloway, William Johnson

Richards, Henry Charles

Sir James Fergusson.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Banbury, Frederick George

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Barlow, John Emmott

Bull, William James

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Burns, John

Aird, Sir John

Bartley, George C. T.

Burt, Thomas

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Butcher, John George

Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

Beresford, Lord Chas. William

Caine, William Sproston

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Caldwell, James

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bignold, Arthur

Cameron, Robert

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Campbell, Rt Hon JA (Glasgow

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Arrol, Sir William

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Causton, Richard Knight

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brigg, John

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Broadhurst, Henry.

Cawley, Frederick

Baldwin, Alfred

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

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

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Brown, Alexander H (Shropsh

Channing, Francis Allston

Chapman, Edward

Hain, Edward

Manners, Lord Cecil

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hall, Edward. Marshall

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

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

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Coddington, Sir William

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Markham, Arthur Basil

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Mather, Sir William

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

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

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Heaton, John Henniker

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Helder, Augustus

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G

Cremer, William Randal

Helme, Norval Watson

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Crombie, John William

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Morley, Charles (Breconshnre)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Dalziel, James Henry

Holland, Sir William Henry

Moulton, John Fletcher

Davenport, William Bromley

Horniman, Frederick John

Mount, William Arthur

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Hoult, Joseph

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

Denny, Colonel

Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Dickinson, Robert Edmund

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Batn)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Newnes, Sir George

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Nicholson, William Graham

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Jacoby, James Alfred

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Doughty, George

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Nussey, Thomas Williams

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

Duncan, J. Hastings

Johnstone, Heywood

Palmer Walter (Salisbury)

Dunn, Sir William

Joicey, Sir James

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Partington, Oswald

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Kearley, Hudson E.

Paulton, James Mellor

Edwards, Frank

Kemp, George

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Kennedy, Patrick James

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Ellis, John Edward

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

Pemberton, John S. G.

Emmott, Alfred

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Percy, Earl

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Kimber, Henry

Philipps, John Wynford

Fardell, Sir T. George

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Pickard, Benjamin

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Pierpoint, Robert

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Kitson, Sir James

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Finch, George H.

Knowles, Lees

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Labouchere, Henry

Plummer, Walter R.

Fisher, William Hayes

Lambert, George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Langley, Batty

Pretyman, Ernest George

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Price, Robert John

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Lawrence, William F (Liverpool

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lawson, John Grant

Purvis, Robert

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Pym, C. Guy

Flower, Ernest

Lecky, Rt Hon William Edw. H.

Rankin, Sir James

Forster, Henry William

Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick. S. W

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Ratcliff, R. F.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Rea, Russell

Fuller, J. M. F.

Leng, Sir John

Reckitt, Harold James

Garfit, William

Levy, Maurice

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Lewis, John Herbert

Remnant, James Farquharson

Gladstone, Rt Hon Herbert John

Lloyd-George, David

Renwick, George

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Rickett, J. Compton

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Rigg, Richard

Gore, Hn G. R. COrmsby-(Salop

Logan, John William

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Graham, Henry Robert

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Runciman, Walter

Grant, Corrie

Lough, Thomas

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Schwann, Charles E.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Seton-Karr, Henry

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Macartney, Rt Hn W.G. Ellison

Shackleton, David James

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

Macdona, John Gumming

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Groves, James Grimble

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Shipman, Dr. John G

Gunter, Sir Robert

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Kenna, Reginald

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Guthrie, Walter Murray

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

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

1122

1123

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Soares, Ernest J.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Spear, John Ward

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Valentia, Viscount

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Wallace, Robert

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

Stevenson, Francis S.

Walrond, Rt Hon Sir William H.

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

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Stroyan, John

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C B. Stuart-

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Weir, James Galloway

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

Younger, William

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

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

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Sir Alexander Acland-

Tomkinson, James

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

DR. MACNAMARAsaid he imagined that there could be no doubt that the managers would have to find the heating apparatus, but the local authority would have to find the fuel. He wished to have the views of the Government on the matter.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the managers would have to arrange for the apparatus for warming and lighting, but the local authority would have to provide the fuel and lighting.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENasked if lighting meant to put all windows into proper repair.
THE CHAIRMAN: Of course; a house without windows could not be in a proper state of repair.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid the matter was not so easily disposed of. There might be a question whether "lighting" meant artificial lighting.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: But we are not accepting these words.
MR. CORRIE GRANTthought the local education authority ought to be entitled to see whether the buildings were in good repair or not. It was desirable that at the outset there should be something like a standard of repair set up covering all buildings, and the standard ought to be fixed by the local authority and not by the managers.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 18, after the word'repair,' to insert the words 'to the satisfaction of.'"—(Corrie Grant.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman made the local authority the final judge in any dispute which arose between them and the local managers. Although he was certain that that was not the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that would be the effect of them, and the hon. and learned Gentleman was certainly mistaken if he thought that with these words in there would be any appeal to the Board of Education. There would be nothing of the kind.
THE CHAIRMAN: I find on looking back that the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division was right. In the proposal of the hon. Member for East Somerset to insert the words "so long as" this point was dealt with. That Amendment would be applicable to all the conditions. The question raised by this Amendment therefore is already decided.
MR. BRYCEon a point of order asked whether it would not be possible for the House to annex a condition to this particular condition which was applicable to all.
THE CHAIRMANsaid the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Somerset would apply to all the conditions, and therefore he thought this Amendment ought not to be pressed. The question had already been decided.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid the object of the Amendment he now proposed to move as again to avoid, if possible, the friction which must inevitably take place between the local authority and the managers if the word" reasonably was not omitted from the Bill. They had passed from "repairs" to 'improvements and alterations "which were to be made at the instance of the local authority. This question of improvements and alterations was a very important factor in the situation. He deeply deplored the arrangements made in this Bill, and did not think it would be possible to maintain them for any length of time, but that was not the point which was now at issue. They had to accept the policy of the Bill, and all they had to decide was the form. The Government were as anxious as anybody that the denominational school buildings should be in a satisfactory condition structurally, but the Committee were aware that when the Bill passed considerable alterations and improvements would be made in them. It would be only human nature on the part of the managers to cut down as far as possible the expenses in connection with these required alterations, and the result might lie to lower the standard of excellence of the buildings and cause a certain amount of friction between them and the local authority. The question raised by the Amendment was whether the local education authority could be trusted. It ought to bring to its service the best elements of the county; it would represent the judgment and opinion of the majority of the inhabitants, and he could not see any reason why in a matter of this kind they could not be trusted to say what was to be done to these buildings in order to bring them tip to the required standard of excellence.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 20, to leave out the word 'reasonably:'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'reasonably' stand part of the Clause."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the Attorney-General and the First Lord of the Treasury had consistently stated that they regarded the local education authority as a reasonable body and one fit to act in matters far more important than this, and, when the Opposition had
1126
alleged any difficulty with regard to the machinery, asked why it should not be left with the local authority. It was assumed that this great authority, the basis of education in this country, might act unreasonably. Sub-Section 2 gave all the powers that were required. They had in that sub-Section the power to settle a question by reference to the Education Department, and it was not necessary to go further. This was not a question of a reasonable dispute, but a question of this Government authority having acted unreasonably. It was most humiliating to the local authority. A great dispute might arise between the managers and the education authority as to whether a school should be whitewashed or not. The local authority might make a demand that the managers should whitewash the school, then there would be correspondence and a reference to the Board to determine whether, in deciding that the school was not to be whitewashed, the Borough Council had acted unreasonably. Such a course would only be humiliating and cause reasonable irritation. The Secretary to the Education Department would be the final judge as to whether the whitewash should be applied or not. These disputes would occur every day, and the use of the word "unreasonable" would be nothing less than a gross insult. The Committee knew; perfectly well that whenever the authority made demands of this kind there was a fighting party on the other side which would always take them before the Department, and all this would raise totally unnecessary friction. The education authority was the only body chosen for the purpose of being afflicted with this expression. He very much regretted that the Government would not trust the local authority to decide in the matter instead of putting it out to be dry-nursed. The one thing that divided mankind more than anything else was the expenditure of money, and in this case those who would desire to reduce the expenditure would be the managers. Everything that cost 6d. would be declared to be unreasonable, and a coat of whitewash would be represented as putting on an intolerable strain. He believed that the effect would be to cause unnecessary friction between the parties, and he asked why in the name of common sense and good feeling it could not be left to the County Councils not to make unreasonable demands.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the Government could not possibly accept this Amendment. He did not for a moment believe that the local authority in any part of the country would administer the Act in an unreasonable spirit; but, after all, local authorities were but human.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: So is Whitehall.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid local authorities were liable to an occasional lapse; and with regard to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom he had a great respect, he should be sorry to say that he had never been unreasonable in his demands on the Government in this and in many other matters. With every respect to the local authorities, there might be occasions when their requirements would be of a very offensive character with regard to a particular school, and when the alterations and improvements in the school might involve amounts of money which the managers had not at command, and thus sink the school as a voluntary school altogether.
MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that if the lion, and learned Attorney General would refer to sub-Section (a), he would see that the managers were compelled to carry out the direction of the local education authority as to the secular instruction of the school. If the principle was to apply in such an important matter as secular instruction, why should it not apply to this? The Amendment was a perfectly sound Amendment, and if the Government were consistent they would accept it.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that, as he understood the position taken up by the Government, if they did not put in the word "reasonably" there could be no appeal to the Education
Department. He submitted that that was not so, because under Clause 10 there would be an appeal.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid this Amendment did not concern repairs, but alterations and improvements.
MR SYDNEY BUXTONdid not see the difference. It seemed to him that if the word reasonable was required in one ease it should be required in the other. This was casting a very considerable reflection on the local education authority in whom, it was understood, the Government had the fullest confidence and to whom they wished to give the fullest possible power. He would support the Amendment.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he accepted the Attorney General's construction of the Section, but he thought sub-Section 2 was so wide that it might with great advantage be restricted. Ambiguity would be avoided if, for the words "If any question arises,' they substituted" If any question whether the conditions above-mentioned have been complied with arises." Then the only question which could arise would be a question between the managers and the local authority as to whether or not the managers had complied with the conditions which created an obligation on the education authority to maintain, the schools. If the word "reasonably" was left out of sub-Section (d), the only questions which could arise would be whether the school house was in good repair and whether alterations and improvements were in fact required. If the word "reasonably" was kept in, there would be an appeal to the Board of Education.
(6.33.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 247; Noes, 121. (Division List No. 436.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bentinck, Lord Henry C

Aird, Sir John

Balcarres, Lord

Beresford, Lord Chas. William

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Baldwin, Alfred

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Bignold, Arthur

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

Bigwood, James

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Balfour, Kenneth K. (Christch.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Banbury, Frederick George

Bond, Edward

Arrol, Sir William

Bartley, George C. T.

Boulnois, Edmund

Bousfield, William Robert

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Greene, W. Raymound-(Cambs)

Nicholson, William Graham

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Groves, James Grimble

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

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Gunter, Sir Robert

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Bull, William James

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Butcher, John George

Hain, Edward

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Campbell, Rt Hn.J.A.(Glasgow

Hall, Edward Marshall

Pemberton, John S. G.

Carew, James Laurence

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Percy, Earl

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Pierpoint, Robert

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Pilkington, Lieut. -Col. Richard

Cavendish, R F. (N. Lancs.)

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Plummer, Walter R.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Heaton, John Henniker

Pretyman, Ernest George

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Helder, Augustus

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J A (Worc.

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Purvis, Robert

Chapman, Edward

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Pym, C. Guy

Charrington, Spencer

Higginbottom, S.W.

Rankin, Sir James

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Ratcliff, R. F.

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H.A. E.

Hogg, Lindsay

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Coddington, Sir William

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Richards, Henry Charles

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hoult, Joseph

Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Johnstone, Heywood

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kemp, George

Seton-Karr, Henry

Davenport, William Bromley-

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

Kennedy, Patrick James

Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

Denny, Colonel

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kimber, Henry

Spear, John Ward

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Stanley, Ed ward Jas. (Somerset

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Lawson, John Grant

Stewart, Sir MarkJ.M'Taggart

Doughty, George

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Stroyan, John

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Durning-Lawrence. Sir Edwin

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Lockwood, Lt-Col. A. R.

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

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M

Fardell, Sir T. George

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

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Fellowes, H on. Ailwyn Edward -

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

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

Lowe, Francis William

Valentia, Viscount

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H (Sheffield

Finch, George H.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Fisher, William Hayes

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

Warde, Colonel C. E.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.

Flannery, Sir Forteseue

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Flower, Ernest

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Forster, Henry William

Malcolm, Ian

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W

Manners, Lord Cecil

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Galloway, William Johnson

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

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

Gardner, Ernest

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Garfit, William

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Wylie, Alexander

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

Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Morrell, George Herbert

Younger, William

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mount, William Arthur

Graham, Henry Robert

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

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

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

1130

1131

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Helme, Norval Watson

Price, Robert John

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Rea, Russell

Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

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

Reckitt, Harold James

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rickett, J. Compton

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

Rigg, Richard

Atherley-Jones, L.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Barlow, John Emmott

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Runciman, Walter

Barran, Rowland Hurst

Jacoby, James Alfred

Schwann, Charles E.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Joicey, Sir James

Shackieton, David James

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Kearley, Hudson E.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Kitson, Sir James

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Brigg, John

Lambert, George

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Broadhurst, Henry

Langley, Batty

Soares, Ernest J.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants

Burt, Thomas

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Stevenson, Francis S.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Strachey, Sir Edward

Caine, William Sproston

Leng, Sir John

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Caldwell, James

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Cameron, Robert

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Cawley, Frederick

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Channing, Francis Allston

Logan, John William

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Cremer, William Randal

Lough, Thomas

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

Crombie, John William

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Tomkinson, James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Wallace, Robert

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Markham, Arthur Basil

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Mather, Sir William

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dunn, Sir William

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Weir, James Galloway

Edwards, Frank

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Ellis, John Edward

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Newnes, Sir George

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Norman, Henry

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Grant, Corrie

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersfd

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

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Yoxall, James Henry

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Partington, Oswald

Harwood, George

Paulton, James Mellor

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Philipps, John Wynford

Mr. Herbert Gladstone

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Pickard, Benjamin

and Mr. Causton.

MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he wished to move an Amendment to provide for cases where there was a division of opinion between the local authorities and the managers, and where the managers declined to carry out any reasonable requirement in regard to the improvement of the school buildings. Supposing that an appeal had been made to the Education Department, that the Department had given its decision in favour of the local authority, and that the managers found that they were unable to carry out the improvement, or that the people interested in the school refused to carry out the structural alteration of the school. The purpose of the Amendment was to settle that point. Suppose a school was satisfactory for ordinary purposes, but that it was desirable to add another class-room on an adjacent piece of ground which was suitable and available. If the managers refused to add the class-
1132
room would it be necessary for the education authority to build an entirely new school? He thought his Amendment was very reasonable and would prevent any unwarrantable addition to the expenses of the managers. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 20, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'and if the managers are unable or unwilling to carry out these requirements, or fail to carry them out with due despatch, the local education authority shall have the right themselves to make such repairs, alterations, and improvements as are sanctioned by the Board of Education, and any school thereafter maintained in such buildings shall be held to be a school provided by that authority."—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted'
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could hardly believe that the hon. Gentleman had fully realised the effect of his Amendment, which amounted to this,

1133
that if the local authority was not satisfied with the speed with which the repairs were carried out, they could hecome owners of property which did not belong to them. Anybody could see for himself that the deduction of the hon. Gentleman was monstrous, and he hoped that a proposal so repugnant to the most elementary principles of justice would not be pressed.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid it might be that the remedy suggested by his hon. friend was a drastic remedy, but the difficulty contemplated in the Amendment might easily arise. The remedy provided in the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman was no remedy at all, and the First Lord had really given no answer to his hon. friend. He was willing to consider any counter-suggestion of the Government, and reason with them in regard to the remedy which ought to be provided in the case stated. He had a perfectly open mind on the subject; but there could be no doubt that a remedy ought to be provided, because it might be that it was desirable that certain things should be done in the schools, but that the managers had not the money to put the buildings in repair. The repairs ought to be carried out either by the local authority, or by decision of the Board of Education in London. What was to be done in cases where the managers would do nothing at all? Hs asked the Attorney General whether there was to be a mandamus, and if the managers did not carry out their duties were they to go to prison, and was the school to be allowed to get out of repar? The local education authority would eventually have to undertake the work, and, knowing that, the managers would say, We won't trouble about the matter, we won't do anything at all." Unless the proposal of his hon. friend were amended, it would by implication say that the subject of repairs, as well as the question of improvements, and so forth, was to be a matter of appeal. But it was really necessary that the Prime Minister should explain his remedy for this difficulty, which not only might but was almost bound to arise.
SIR JOHN GORSThoped the Committee would
1134
forgive him for referring to the Education Bill of 1896, but that measure contained a remedy for this very difficulty. By a Clause in that Bill the managers were enabled to borrow, and the local authority might lend sums of money for the purpose of repairs and structural improvements, the loans being secured by a mortgage on the buildings. Some such provision as that would meet the difficulty now raised. If the managers had not the funds to carry out certain alterations, they would then be able to borrow from the local authority, and make the necessary improvements. When, by means of a bazaar, subscriptions or collections, the managers were able to repay the money, the loan would be returned, but until then interest would have to be paid. If it ultimately became impossible for the managers to repay the money, the local authority would foreclose. The building would then be sold, the local authority would probably purchase it for a school, they would repay themselves the loan, and hand over the balance to the trustees for the purposes of the trust. That Clause, at the time, met with a great deal of approval on all sides, and possibly something of the kind might be proposed now.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that whether or not the proposed remedy was the best was a subject for discussion, but it was clear that a real difficulty existed. Personally he preferred the remedy appearing lower on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick, and which met the objection raised by the Prime Minister as to the proposal being one of confiscation. The supporters of the Amendment had no confiscatory intentions; they desired to meet the difficulty by giving fair compensation. The Prime Minister must surely realise that something ought to be done. One constantly heard of buildings, especially in rural districts, absolutely unfitted for young children to be cooped up in for several hours per day. It was really atrocious that they should be drawn to them, and inasmuch as they were compelled by law to attend, the law ought to protect their health. Buildings which would not be tolerated under a School Board were passed over when in the

1135
hands of voluntary managers, because the inspector knew perfectly well that to insist on the necessary alterations would mean bankruptcy and a School Board. He hoped all that would be changed when this Bill came into operation. If a means of meeting the difficulty were provided there would be no inducement to inspectors to pass the matter over in the future. The first condition of efficient education in the rural districts was to have schools fitted for the purpose, and he hoped the Prime Minister, before the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet came on, would consider the difficulty and how to meet it. As a point of order, he asked whether the discussion in the present Amendment would preclude the consideration of the proposal standing in the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick.
SIR EDWARD GREYexplained that what he intended was to insert a provision which would apply to all the conditions, whereas the present Amendment applied to only one condition.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Baronet would be entitled to move his Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURwas of opinion that the plan of the Government did provide a remedy. It penalised every voluntary school which refused to carry out the reasonable instructions of the education authority in this matter of buildings by practically depriving them of maintenance. They would cease to have any right to be maintained as voluntary schools, and then, no doubt, it would be the business of the local education authority to find accommodation for the children. It might be said that that would throw a burden on the rates. That was so. It was one of the reasons why the Government had been anxious to preserve the voluntary schools that their preservation would prevent a very great additional burden being thrown on the ratepayers of the country. No doubt, if in any district the voluntary schools were incapable of bearing the burden which this Bill would throw upon them, the consequence would be that in that district a burden would be thrown
1136
on the rates. But they did not remove that evil by robbing the owners of the voluntary schools.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is not suggested.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he knew that that was not the intention, but though the word "compensation" appeared in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick, he thought that word would have to be interpreted in a somewhat different manner if it was not to inflict hardship on the owners of voluntary schools. The case had been considered by the Government, and, in their view, if the managers of voluntary schools could not do the work that this Bill threw upon them, there was no choice but that the local education authority should do it.
MR. BRYCEasked the right hon. Gentleman if he had considered the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University of reviving the Clause in the Bill of 1896.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid his right hon. friend's suggestion was well worthy of consideration, but that Clause occurred in a Bill which did not provide that the rates should maintain denominational schools. The two Bills differed fundamentally, and he thought there might be certain objections, from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee, to enabling the managers of the schools at a particular moment to engage in financial operations and impose on themselves financial obligations which might, at no distant date, have the effect of transferring those schools from the denomination to the local authority. He would, however, consider the matter.
MR. BRYCEsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman was mixing up totally different cases. Many of those denominational schools belonged to private owners. Everybody agreed that the private owner was entitled to sell his school at the best market price, for he was as much the owner of the school as he was of his watch, and could make any terms he pleased. In the case of a trust it was entirely different, because the trustees were not beneficial owners.

1137
With regard to the difficulty raised by the right hon. Gentleman, he wished to state why the remedy suggested was not sufficient, and why he preferred the remedy suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, and the hon. Member who had moved this Amendment. The proposal of the Government involved two difficulties. In the first place, it involved delay in providing another school and leaving the children without a school meanwhile. In the second, place it threw upon the ratepayers the necessity of erecting another school. The remedy the right hon. Gentleman appealed to was not the one which best met the case.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid that there was one observation made by the Prime Minister which ought not to pass unchallenged. The right hon. Gentleman had stated there was a section which enforced compliance with these conditions in the nature of a penalty upon the denomination in the event of the conditions not being com plied with, the penalty being that the premises which were devoted to the purposes of a school ceased to exist, and financial support was cut oil, the school building being left in the hands of the trustees and no longer available for the purposes of an elementary school. That was said to be a penalty, but that seemed to him to be a very handsome bonus to the denomination. Take, the ordinary derelict parish school, which could not carry out the repairs required. Suppose this school refused to give effect to the directions issued by the local education authority, and the Education Department decides the question against the school and the grant was consequently cut off. The First Lord said there was a penalty upon the denomination, because the school could no longer be used for the purposes of education. But that enabled that property generally to be applied to ecclesiastical purposes. If they had a school impressed with a trust deed in favour of education, and the local authority provided other buildings,
how could they give effect to that trust. The answer would be that the Act of Parliament had relieved the trust of the bligation, and that the property in their hands would be applicable to other purposes. That appeared to be a handsome inducement to the denomination not to carry out these onerous requirements in order that the property might remain in their hands, and be applied to other purposes. He only pointed this out at that stage because, when the Committee came to the question what was a fair compensation, some of them on the opposite side of the House would be prepared to submit that there could be no compensation at all in the case of a school protected by an education trust deed. In such a case there was no authority to receive compensation in the event of a trust property being applied to such purposes.
THE CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss compensation until it is proposed, and there is no compensation proposed here.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he wished to point out the direction which he thought the remedy ought to take. He believed that a more suitable remedy could be found. Instead of having mortgages and foreclosures, they ought to pursue the analogy provided by the Public Health Act. Under that Act if certain improvements were required to make buildings sanitary, and the owners failed to carry out those improvements, the local authority could carry them out and make the cost a charge upon the owners. In the case of this Bill he thought the best way would be to enable the local authority to effect the improvements and make it a charge upon the premises. When they were dealing with trust estates he thought the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman was not the light remedy. There were ample precedents for the course he had suggested, which was perfectly reasonable in its character.
(7.23.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 101; Noes, 241 (Division List No. 437.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

Barlow, John Emmott

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Horniman, Frederick John

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jacoby, James Alfred

Shackleton, David James

Brigg, John

Joicey, Sir James

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Broadhurst, Henry

Kitson, Sir James

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Lambert, George

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burns, John

Langley, Batty

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Burt, Thomas

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Stevenson, Francis S.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Strachey, Sir Edward

Caldwell, James

Leng, Sir John

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Cameron, Robert

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Cawley, Frederick

Logan, John William

Thomas, DavidAlfred (Merthyr

Channing, Francis Allston

Lough, Thomas

Thomas,JA(Glamorgan, Gower

Cremer, William Randal

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

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

Crombie, John William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Tomkinson, James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wallace, Robert

Duncan, J. Hastings

Mather, Sir William

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Dunn, Sir William

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Edwards, Frank

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Weir, James Galloway

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

White, Luke (York. E.R.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Newness, Sir George

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Norman, Henry

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Grant, Corrie

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Partington, Oswald

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

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Philipps, John Wynford

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Pickard, Benjamin

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersfi'd

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Price, Robert John

Yoxall, James Henry

Helme, Norval Watson

Rea, Russell

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Reckitt, Harold James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

Rickett, J. Compton

Mr. Alfred Hutton and

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rigg, Richard

Mr. Samuel Evans.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

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

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Aird, Sir John

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.

Finch, George H.

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

Chapman, Edward

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Charrington. Spencer

Fisher, William Hayes

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Churchill, Winston Spencer

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Flaunery, Sir Fortescue

Arrol, Sir William

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

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Atkinson, Rt Hon. John

Coddington, Sir William

Flower, Ernest

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Forster, Henry William

Balcarres, Lord

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W

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

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Gardner, Ernest

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Garfit, William

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Banbury, Frederick George

Cranborne, Viscount

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Bartley, George C. T.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Beresford, Lord, Chas William

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Gochen, Hon. George Joachim

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bignold, Arthur

Davenport, William Bromley-

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Bigwood, James

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

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

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Denny, Colonel

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury).

Bond, Edward

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Gretton, John

Boulnois, Edmund

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Bousfield, William Robert

Disraeli, Coninngsby Ralph

Groves, James Grimble

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Gunter, Sir Robert

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Doughty, George

Hall, Edward Marshall

Bull, William James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Butcher, John George

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Duke, Henry Edward

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfrd

Carew, James Laurence

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

Fardell, Sir T. George

Heaton, John Henniker

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Helder, Augustus

1140

1141

Henderson, Sir Alexander

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Malcolm, Ian

Sassion, Sir Edward Albert

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(lsle ofWight

Hogg, Lindsay

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

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Smith, H. C. (North'b. Tyneside

Hoult, Joseph

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

Howard. J. (Midd., Tottenham)

More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

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

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w

Spear, John Ward

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Morrell, George Herbert

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Mount, William Arthur

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Johnstone, Heywood

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Kemp, George

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham(Bute

Stone, Benjamin

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. John H.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Kennedy, Patrick James

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. Denbigh

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

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

Thompson, DrEC(Monagh'n, N

Keswick, William

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Kimber, Henry

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Parkes, Ebenezer

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Pease, Herbert Pike Darlingt'n

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Pemberton, John S. G.

Valentia, Viscount

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Percy, Earl

Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(Sheffield

Lawson, John Grant

Pierpoint, Robert

Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col Richard

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Plummer, Walter R.

Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.

Lockwood, Lt. -Col A. R.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Whiteley, H(Ashton-und. Lyne

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Pretyman, Ernest George

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Long, Col Chas. W. (Evesham

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

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

Purvis, Robert

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pym, C. Guy

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Lowe, Francis William

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Rankin, Sir James

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Wrightson, Sir Thomson

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Ratcliff, R, F.

Wylie, Alexander

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison

Renwick, George

Younger, William

Macdona, John Cumming

Richards, Henry Charles

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Sir Alexander Acland-

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

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

EVENING SITTING.
  OPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

    PICCADILLY. CITY, AND NORTH-EAST LONDON RAILWAYS BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
    MR. ASHTON: I should like to ask, Sir, if you are going to rule me out of order in moving the Motion in my name on the London United Electric Railways Bill (Lords), to recommit that Bill to the former Committee.
    MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that is what I am going to do.
    MR ASHTON: Shall I be in order in proceeding with my second Motion?
    MR. SPEAKER: As to the Piccadilly, City, and North-East London Railway Bills?
    MR. ASHTON: Yes.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will be in order in proceeding with that.
    MR. ASHTONsaid his Motion was one for the recommittal of the Piccadilly, City, and North-East London Railways Bill. He hoped it would be in order for him also to deal with the Instruction which stood in his name with regard to the same Bill.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not at liberty to move the Instruction at the same time, but he can state his reasons why he desires to recommit the Bill.
    MR. ASHTONsaid that was his position. He could hardly explain his reasons for moving to recommit without dwelling upon the instruction which would have to be moved if the recommittal were allowed by the House. His object was to enable the Committee to deal with this Bill after being obliged, in somewhat unusual circumstances, to refuse to pass the preamble. He did so because the circumstances were of a very peculiar character. But, in the first place, he wished to explain that this action was not due to any personal interest, as he had not a shilling's worth of interest in the schemes, and had never met any of the promoters. But he took an interest on public grounds, and it arose from the fact that he had served on the Joint Committee of the Houses of Lords and Commons which had approved of the scheme for a through route from North-East London to Hammersmith. He was led to believe, as a result of that Committee's investigations, that these tube railways would be of such advantage to London, that when this scheme came forward he gave it his support. When he saw there was a chance of its being lost, he thought it his duty to put a notice on the Paper, in order to save it in the public interest, should that be possible. The tube schemes were of enormous importance to the public, inasmuch as they would relieve the congestion of traffic, greatly facilitate rapid transit over the Metropolis, and tend more to the solution of the problem of the housing of the working classes than any number of houses that could be built under municipal auspices. It had been decided by the original Committee, whose object was to lay down routes and recommend the conditions on which the tube railways should be sanctioned, that no route was better than that followed by the two; Bills that had come down this session from the House of Lords. That route was from North-East London to the City, and from the City to Hammersmith. This session there was another set of Bills, proposing railways along the route; from Hammersmith to Piccadilly and the
    1144
    City. It became necessary to decide which were the best Bills to adopt. Amongst these were the Bills by the Morgan group—the Piccadilly, City, and North-East London Railways Bill—and another Bill by the United Electric Railways Company for a line from Hammersmith to Charing Cross. There was also a Bill promoted by the Central London Railway. For some reason, with which he was not acquainted, the United Electric Railways Company and the Morgan group decided that instead of competing before the Committee they would join hands and form a through route from Hammersmith to the northeast of London. In this form the Bill came before the House of Lords. In the end the Central London scheme was thrown out in favour of the United Electric Railways scheme, which was passed by the Lords and came down to the Commons, where there was a long Second Reading debate, the result of which was that an instruction was given to the Committee to ensure that the through route should be carried out in its integrity. The Committee sat last Tuesday week, and, to the surprise of the Morgan group, who had not the slightest intimation that their allies and partners were going to take any action against them, the promoters of the Electric Railways Company's part of the through route came forward and informed the Committee that they proposed to withdraw their Bill. The Committee, owing to their instruction to insist on the through route, were thus placed in a very awkward position. It became impossible to go on with the other Bill, for they could not give effect to the instruction to insist on a through route, and the result was that the preamble was not proved. Although they were obliged to take this action, this did not alter the fact that the Morgan group had, in his opinion, been extremely hardly used. He now came to the most unpleasant part of his task, that of dealing with the treatment meted out by the United Electric Railways promoters towards their partners, after they had entered into pledges with them and with Parliament in regard to the through route. It appeared to him that a very dishonourable transaction had taken place on the part of the promoters of

    1145
    the United Electric Railways. They had entered into a contract with the Morgan group for the whole of this railway; they had made an agreement with them that they would mutually promote their Bills in the joint interests of the two railways. In spite of this, and without consulting the Morgan interest, they threw over their Bill. He knew they said they could not get the Morgan group to come to an agreement. But that was because they asked the Morgan group later in the day to give them half the interest and control of the joint railway from Hammersmith to the north of London. He would ask the House to remember that they were only to find three-eighths of the capital while the Morgan group were to provide five-eighths. Mr. White, one of the promoters of the United Electric Railways Company, stated before the House of Lords Committee, when questioned, that there would be one management and a joint board of directors according to their respective interests. In spite of that the United Electric group said that they had broken off negotiations because the Morgan group would not agree to their terms. Of course they would not agree, because, since that statement was made, they had been asking more than when the arrangement was entered into between the two companies. He was afraid that was only an excuse; the fact was that they were prepared to sell what they had got if a higher bidder could be found. He had heard it said that the shares which had been sold were offered to the Morgan group, who could have bought them if they had liked, but he had it on the best authority that Messrs. Morgan were prepared to assert that since the introduction of these Bills the shares had never been offered to them at all. That was not all. The Morgan group were to share with the United Electric Railway promoters in the ownership of the line from Hammersmith to Hyde Park Corner, although the United Electric Railway only appeared as the promoters of the Bill, and they had taken advantage of the fact that their names alone appeared on the Bill to withdraw it from the cognizance of the House. He doubted whether for a longtime, if ever, such a very dirty transaction was ever done
    1146
    by parties coming before Parliament, and he thought, if on no other ground, the Morgan group deserved great consideration at the hands of the House from the fact that they had been shabbily treated. There was a bigger question than that. Not only had the Morgan group been badly treated, but Parliament had been tricked in this matter. It was the intention of Parliament that this through route should be made. The House of Lords was induced to pass those Bills, and after all the time and trouble that had been spent, the very instruction which was put in by the House of Commons for the sake of getting them through was absolutely being used against the Houses of Parliament for the purpose of destroying that route. Parliament had been played within the matter, and Parliament ought to show its resentment by giving the Morgan group a chance of passing their Bill through the House of Commons. As to the opposition to the Bill, it was stated in a circular issued by the Central London Railway Company that the Bill ought not to be allowed to pass now because it would mean a different scheme. But if the Committee thought fit to allow the Morgan group to continue their line to Hammersmith as he suggested in his instruction there would be no difference of scheme. It was suggested that the scheme of the Central London Company ought to have a chance. He could not agree with that. In accordance with the wishes of the Joint Committee, the Morgan line provided for a through route, whereas the Central London only proposed to run from Hammersmith to the City and entirely left out North East London and the congested districts there. Next he would like to point out that the original scheme provided for railways plus tramways, but whether the line was made by the United Electric Railways or the Morgan group the tramways would be there, and, inasmuch as the United Company's tramways were, as he was informed, made under the Light Railways Act, it was perfectly possible for the Morgan group to ask the Board of Trade to give them through fares. The opposition of the London County Council was to him a matter of considerable surprise when ho thought of the congested districts which would benefit from this line. He supposed the County Council did not wish others

    1147
    to make tubes because they were thinking of applying for power to make tubes themselves. Judging from the love there was in the House for the County Council, it was not very likely that that body would be able to induce the House to give them the power within a reasonable time, and it ought not therefore to put its spoke in the wheel of other people who were prepared to make tube railways for the benefit of London. That being so, why should London wait? He was by no means opposed to these railways being under the control of the Council, but that was no reason why the schemes of other people should be rejected, especially when the result would be to throw a larger monopoly into the hands of the District Company. He had no animus against that company, but even a railway was brought into a healthier condition, by competition The very fact that this Bill had been brought before Parliament had caused the District Company to lower their fares along certain routes, and was it likely that if direct competition were got rid of the fares would be kept down. By restricting the number of tube railways they were giving a very dangerous monopoly to the District Hallway. It had been stretching out its arms like an octopus over these tube railways. It had secured the control of the Brompton and Piccadilly line, the Charing Cross and Harnpstead, and the Baker Street, Waterloo, and Great Northern schemes. Was it likely that all this had been done with the idea of developing traffic in the interests of the public of London? His own impression was that in the case of; some of these contemplated railways the District Company had obtained control simply for the purpose of preventing the lines being constructed. He would give the House his reason for saying so. In 1897 they got control of the proposed Brompton and Piccadilly railway, but had done nothing with regard to it since, their object being to prevent the construction of such a line in order that no traffic might be diverted from their own system. That was no reason why they should prevent others from making other tube railways. Another objection which had been raised to the Bill was that it proposed to run two tubes under Piccadilly. He did not propose to argue that point. That was really a question for
    1148
    the Committee upstairs. But the House of Lords, which was generally disposed to look after the interests of property, had allowed the Bill to pass, notwithstanding the proposed two tubes under Piccadilly. He wished to meet another objection which he had heard made. It was said, "Oh, throw out this Bill; we don't want to Americanise our institutions." All he could say was that the only people who would gain by the throwing out of the Bill were the District Railway, so that if the House rejected the American. Morgan they would throw themselves into the arms of the American Yerkes. He asked, were they who had sent their capital abroad to assist the enterprises of other nations to turn round and declare, for the sake of saying "England for the English," that they should not have American capital for British enterprises for which they could not obtain British money? He thought that was a sufficient answer on this point. Why should this Bill not be dropped? In the first place because ho had made out some case for the promoters. The Morgan group had been very badly treated in respect to the Bill. The next point he made was that Parliament had already spent an enormous amount of time on these Bills. There had been a Joint Committee, and a Committee of the House of Lords had sat for seven weeks on those Bills this year. If the Bill now before the House was a good one, why should they throw it out simply for the sake of allowing a lot of other people to come in and give Parliament more trouble with other Bills next year. He came now to a far more important point, and that was the question of cost. A vast amount of money had already been spent on these Bills, and when he heard people lightly say "Oh, they have been quarrelling among themselves; throw the Bill out, and let them come again," he rather thought that they did not know what an enormous cost it had been. The Morgan group alone had spent £50,000 or £60,000 at least in the promotion of this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER. "£80,000."] The petitioners had also spent money, and if the House threw the Bill out now all these costs would be incurred again in bringing forward a new Bill next session. He asked the House to pass the Bill for the construction of the line from North-East London to the West End, binding the promoters to bring in another Bill next session for

    1149
    continuing the line to Hammersmith, and at the same time requiring guarantee that the first Bill should not come into operation until the second Bill had been carried. By that means the House would secure the construction of the through route.
    Motion made and Question proposed—"That the Piccadilly, City, and North-East London Railways Bill [Lords] be re-committed to the former Committee."—(Mr. Ashton.)
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he had taken an active interest in this Bill because it would affect a portion of East London with which he was intimately connected. That district was crowded with a population whoso welfare depended upon rapid transit to the heart of the Metropolis from the outskirts of London, whether they could find cheap and healthy homes such as the proposed scheme would afford them. Of all the schemes submitted to the House in reward to the tube railway system of London none could be more beneficial than that which was presented in this Bill, even in its present truncated form. He asked the House to remember that such limitations as had been placed on the through route originally contemplated by the promoters of the Bill were due not to their action, but in some measure to the technicalities connected with the procedure of Parliament. The position which the promoters occupied in the House of Commons at present was simply that they were disqualified from proceeding by the fact that they had obeyed the decision of Parliament in regard to the route taken. He heartily hoped that they would have some guidance on the highly technical matters of procedure from his right hon. friend the Chairman of Committees. It seemed to him to be a hardship well worthy of the consideration of the House, that frontagers whose property might be affected by the provisions of Bills to be presented to Parliament in the ensuing session should he put to the expense of again defending their rights if the present Bill were rejected on account of a technicality arising from the circumstances which had been described. With regard to the question of monopoly
    1150
    he reminded the House that if no competitive facilities were given, the District Railway and its allies would have an absolute monopoly of all transit facilities north of the Thames. In their proposals before Parliament of the public outside there was not a vestige of a serious proposal to deal with the most congested districts of London, or to serve the outer areas by cheap fares and through routes. He felt, from his knowledge of working-class life in London, that this question did not admit of any delay. The hon. Member for the Luton Division had referred to the intention of the London County Council to promote legislation next session on the subject. Whatever that body might have in its mind one fact was certain, that before any proposals put forward by the London County Council could become law considerable time must elapse, and very possibly this tube railway question of the Metropolis might become a political party question and thus be unduly and harmfully delayed. He therefore hoped that the House would recommit the Bill so that a through route from the east and north of London to Hyde Park might be authorised this session, provided that guarantees were secured from the promoters that next session they would seek powers to carry the railway on to Hammersmith and thus give an absolute through route at through rates.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDENsaid the carefully-prepared speech of the hon. Member for the Luton Division was one which the whole House must have recognised as a plea for the Morgan group. He wished to recall the House back to the point, namely, was it the business of this House to consider and study the internal differences and speculations of rival promoters? That was not the concern of Parliament. The Morgan scheme, which was sanctioned by Parliament three months ago, fulfilled almost to the letter the recommendations made two years ago by the Joint Committee on the question of laying down routes for London from Hammersmith through Piccadilly and the City and on to Tottenham and Palmer's Green. The present was a totally different scheme. It did not

    1151
    carry out the through route, neither did it carry out the through fares sanctioned in the former scheme, nor the scheme of workmen's fares embodied in that scheme. He would not labour the point further. His hon. friend opposite said that although the Bill appeared in an emasculated form, another Bill would be introduced next session. A pledge from the promoters that they would introduce a Bill next session was of no practical value from the Parliamentary point of view. Next session might see a more advantageous scheme. From that point of view, therefore, he maintained that the House would be seriously wrong in passing this session this scheme in its truncated and emasculated form. It would be absurd, too, for the House to take into account any feeling of sympathy for individual promoters, or to pay regard to the internal dissensions which had taken place and sanction a scheme at the end of October which very likely, even if the Bill were re-committed by the House, would not be approved of upstairs. He might be allowed to say a word or two on a point germane to the question now before the House. They were dealing in connection with underground locomotion in London, one of the most important social questions of the day in the Metropolis, because the solution of the locomotion question was closely wrapped up with many of the gravest and most important social problems. A Joint Committee examined this question of underground traction in 1901, and since that time cart-loads of Bills had been introduced. No fewer than twenty-six Bills dealing with tubular schemes had been introduced into Parliament this session. They represented eighty-six miles of tubes in the Metropolis, and after all the labours of the Committees of the House of Lords, and of this House, the net result had only been the sanction of four miles in three small extension Bills. He appealed urgently to the President of the Board of Trade, as the Minister responsible for this department of traction service, to take up a vigorous attitude on the question that would obviate some of the difficulties which they had had. During the past session two Committees of the House of Lords and of this House had been appointed to deal with different sets of Bills for tubular lines. There had
    1152
    been no communication between the two Committees, and the result had been that the Bills had been examined on their individual merits, and had not been investigated as a general scheme. He trusted that the whole of this work in regard to London locomotion would be investigated by one general expert Committee.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member was going into a question which was not raised by this particular Bill.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid he apologised, but he asked his right hon. friend to consider this point in view of the future, because they had not yet solved the question of London locomotion. In conclusion he would say that, looking, at the matter from every point of view, it was the bounden duty of the House not to listen to the re-committal of the Bill.
    MR. PERKSsaid that, as Chairman of the District Railway, he would not vote in a division if it were taken, but having a special knowledge of the subject under discussion he might be permitted to refer to one or two points affecting the railways concerned, in consequence of the statements made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. In the first place, the District Company had no control whatever over the Brompton and Piccadilly Railway, the Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway the Great Northern and Strand Railway and the Baker Street-Waterloo line. The only connection between these undertakings was that certain parties holding a large interest in the District Railway were also the chief proprietors in the four railways he had named. So far as regards the travelling public of London they were anxious to work; these railways in unison, and to avoid, the very thing which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Shoreditch as a disadvantage. The effect of these railways being practically under one control, and working in alliance, was that money which otherwise would be spent in duplicating railways would now be saved. For example, the capital of such a railway as that from Charing Cross to Victoria could be saved, and

    1153
    usefully expended in providing accommodation in other parts of London, where at present there was no adequate provision of communication. He would like to correct his hon. friend the Member for Luton in his statement that nothing had been done with reference to the Brompton and Piccadilly Railway and allied lines. That was an absolute and unpardonable error. All the four railways were being rapidly pushed on, and one of them had been in active progress for more than a year. Upwards of a million had been expended on them, the contracts were let, and the land notices had all been served. It was a mistake for his hon. friend to say that these railways were block lines, or were promoted as such.
    MR. ASHTONsaid if he had stated that nothing had been done on the Brompton and Piccadilly Railway he certainly did make an incorrect statement, because he was aware that the notices had already been served. What he meant to say was that nothing had been done until quite recent times, which, he believed, was a correct statement.
    MR. PERKSsaid that his hon. friend must know that it was a very common thing indeed for a railway company to have statutory powers for two, three, or even four years before it saw fit to exercise them and to start work. Such indeed was the case with the Central London Railway. If the Motion was adopted it would tie the hands of the Committee, and would serve very little the purposes of the promoters. Both on the question of procedure, and of fairness to the other railway companies, he hoped the House would not listen to the proposal to re-commit the Bill. It was perfectly true that as a result of the withdrawal of the Tramway Company's Railway Bill and the acquisition of a large interest in the Tramways Company by parties interested in the District Railway and allied lines, new relations of great public importance were opened up between the District Railway Company and the tramways in the West of London. But that was a great advantage to the public as well as to the proprietors of both the Tramways and the Railway Company. It obviated the unnecessary
    1154
    duplication of capital, and it provided the immediate securing of through rates between the tramways and the railways by routes which otherwise would not have been available to the travelling public for some years to come. It was also important that the House should know that it was the intention of the District Railway Company, acting in unison with some of the other companies, to submit to Parliament next session a scheme which would give a second route from Hammersmith to the City. This would involve an expenditure, not of six or seven millions sterling, but of one and a half million or thereabouts, and would accomplish all the, results of the more costly scheme. He would say nothing at all with reference to the reflections which had been passed on the District Railway Company, except that they were now in the midst of the work of converting1 the much-abused District Railway into an electric railway, and, for this purpose, they had raised two and a half millions. It would be running as an electric railway fifteen months hence, while six miles would be open at the end of January next. It would, therefore, be extremely hard to allow a competing route to come into the field under these new conditions until the existing and authorised companies had proved inefficient.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,said that the promoters of the Bill came and asked Parliament to do something which he would not say was unprecedented, but was unusual. When a Committee upstairs had found the preamble of a Bill not proved, it was a very unusual thing to re-commit that Bill. Ho said it was not unprecedented because it had been done in the early part of this session, but the promoters had to make out a very strong case for the adoption of that course. Could it be said that in the present case the promoters had made out a strong case? [Cries of "No."] He was extremely sorry for the promoters, because if he might express his own private opinion he thought that they had been very badly used. But not by the House of Commons or by Parliament. Their enemies were of their own household.

    1155
    The House of Commons had nothing to blame themselves for, or to reproach themselves with. The Committee had done the only thing they possibly could do, bearing in mind the instruction they had got from this House. He thought that the union of the two schemes had been forced on the promoters by the other House, but for reasons which he need not go into they were unable to carry the whole scheme out. That being so, whatever sympathy they might feel for the promoters, he did not think that the House could be fairly asked now to recommit the Bill. He felt that there would be great difficulty in making the passage of this Bill dependent on the passage of the other Bill; and, for all these reasons he thought it would be impossible to ask the House to recommit the Bill. He gave that advice to the House with great regret, because it meant that the solution of the great difficulty of London traffic would be once more delayed; and also because next session they would have to go through again all that mass of work which had been imposed on the Committee, and would again have to wade through all these schemes in order to find the best scheme. It was, therefore, with extreme regret that he asked the House not to accept the Motion.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid there was one point of view in favour of the Motion which had not yet been put to the House. A great many people in the East End of London were anxious that the Bill should go through. They looked upon it, not from the point of view of the promoters at all, but from the point of view of the traffic of London. The scheme formed part of the through route through London, and there was no reason why it should not be welded on to another scheme, which would satisfy the whole of London. He had been requested by the Borough Councils of Hackney and Stoke Newington to lay that view before the House.
    SIR LEWIS M'IVERsaid the discussion had been so ably dealt with by hon. Members, that he felt that the customary speech from the Chairman of the Committee was practically supererogatory. As it would be his
    1156
    bounden duty to reconsider the Bill if it were recommitted, he would speak on the Motion with great restraint. There were two points which he wished to put before the House. Speaking as a private Member he thought that, having regard to the very unsavoury details of the transaction, a scandal which had probably no precedent in the annals of their committee work upstairs, it beloved the House to take care that there was no suspicion upon it of taking any part in such a quarrel. As the Chairman of the Committee, he thought that if this Motion were passed there would be infinite difficulty in giving effect to the wishes of the House. With the greatest sympathy with this big scheme, which had been wrecked by a Stock Exchange ramp, with the feeling that the House should not allow the public interest to be made a counter in a game of this sort—for it was a game in which it was proposed to make the London roads pawns on the chequer board of Wall Street—and with sympathy with the people who were wronged and who ought to have had more sense than to be associated with people who could wrong them in such a manner, it seemed to him that they would not be able within the rules of the House to satisfy the laudable desires of the hon. Member who had fairly and correctly stated the case to the House. Speaking again as a private Member, he advocated the relegation of the whole matter to next session, when they could start with a clean slate, remembering that when two of a trade fell out perhaps the London County Council might come by its own.
    MR. ASHTONsaid that after the opinion which had been expressed the Chairman of Committees, and also by the Chairman of Committee, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [MR. J. W. LOWTHERS (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
    Clause 8:—
    MR. WHITLEYsaid the Amendment he desired to move bad reference to the removal of foundation managers for certain reasons. The First Lord of the Treasury, at an earlier stage, had indicated that there would be no power to remove these managers. He thought that the Committee would agree with him that power ought to be given to the local authority or to the Education Department to remove managers who failed to carry out the conditions under which the voluntary schools had been placed on public funds, and who deliberately overstepped the authority given to them under the Act. The Committee was well acquainted with the working or non-working of the Conscience Clause; and what his Amendment asked was that the children and their parents should be protected from the possibility of managers evading the Conscience Clause by entering the schools at hours other than the hours allocated to religious instruction, and at a time when the children could not be withdrawn under the Conscience Clause acting in a manner which was really contrary to the protection given by Parliament to the children of Nonconformists under the Conscience Clause. The Prime Minister, on a former occasion, asked him not to tell any more blood curdling stories, and in order to save the right hon. Gentleman's feeling, he would put the kind of action to which he referred in a form which the Committee would recognise as of frequent occurrence. A manager might enter the school during the course of the ordinary lessons, and call on the children to attend a religious service in the church. That was not an infrequent, and was, in fact, a growing practice. He had no objection to the managers taking the children of their own denomination to church or chapel during the time devoted to religious instruction; but he had a great objection to the children of Nonconformists being marched from school to a service with which their parents entirely disagreed. What he asked for was that the power of the managers in connection with religious questions should be confined to the hours for religious instruction stated on the time table; and that if a manager went into a School during any other hours and instructed the children
    1158
    on religious matters, it should be regarded as an infraction of duty, and the local authority should have power to remove any manager against whom such a charge had been proved. If the Committee looked with favour on the Amendment, he would be prepared to modify it, and to insert a right of appeal to the Board of Education, which ought to meet any reasonable objection. The Amendment would prevent an injustice to the children of Nonconformists; it would he no hardship on the managers; and would not interfere with religious instruction.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 20, at end, insert, '(e) The LOCAL education authority shall have the right of removing any manager, who, at any time other than that allocated in the timetable of the school for religious instruction, shall question or instruct the scholars on any matter of religious doctrine or observance.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought he would be able to prove to the hon. Gentleman that his Amendment was unnecessary. A day did not consist of more than twenty-four hours, and would be divided up into the hours for religious instruction, the hours in which primary education was given, and the residue. As regarded the residue, the hon. Gentleman did not wish the Committee to interfere, or to lay down that no manager should talk to a scholar on any subject he pleased during it; neither did the hon. Gentleman wish to interfere with the hours to be given up to religious instruction; and there remained, therefore, only the hours which were to be given up to secular instruction. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that during those hours the local education authority would have absolute control over everything that went on in the school. A manager would have no more power to take children away from school during the hours of secular instruction to a church or chapel than he would have to regulate the proceedings of this House. Therefore, the hon. Member would feel that the difficulty which he thought now

    1159
    existed, and which he himself was not prepared to deny did occasionally arise, would be removed under the Bill, without the Amendment.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid he quite agreed that the local authority would have control during the hours of secular instruction, but this Amendment would provide a penalty not now in the Bill. Where was the remedy for dealing with managers who acted in the way the Amendment indicated?
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid such action would be forbidden. If the recommendations of the local authority were disobeyed, the school would cease to be maintained; the teacher who permitted and action contrary to such recommendations would be dismissed; and nothing else short of the regiment of soldiers could be suggested to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid there was a very simple remedy, namely, the removal of the manager who offended.
    Question put and negatived.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for East Somerset is not in order on this Clause, for this reason. The Clause we are now dealing with relates to the maintenance of non-provided schools. His proposal really relates to a mutual arrangement for maintaining a school as a provided school. The next two Amendments standing in the name of the Member for the Morley Division are out of order for the same reason.
    MR. M'KENNAsaid he handed in an Amendment at the Table to sub-Clause (d) which he thought should have precedence over the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Morley Division, which would be a new sub-Clause.
    MR. LAURENCE HARDYasked if sub-Clause (d) had not been disposed of, and would the Amendment of the hon. Member be, therefore, in order.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was quite right. The Amendment could not now be moved.
    MR. BRYCEasked if the Amendment of the hon. Member which had been ruled out of order would not be in the nature of a positive enactment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The beginning of the Clause is that the local education authority are to maintain non-provided schools on certain provisions and conditions. The Amendment is hardly a provision or condition which can regulate the maintenance or non-maintenance of non-provided schools. It is a separate proposal, which, of course, can very probably be made in the proper place. This also applies to the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Denbighshire.
    DR. MACNAMARAsaid the Amendment he wished to move dealt with the small matter of practical administration, namely the question of the wear and tear of furniture and the putting of the premises in proper order, if used outside school hours. The Amendment on the Paper was substantially agreed to by the Secretary to the Board of Education and himself, after the Government had agreed to the substance of his original proposal. The previous night, however, the Prime Minister agreed to give to the local authority the right to use the promises rent free for three nights a week. That being so, he asked permission to recast the Amendment on the Paper, and move it in a form which would meet the altered condition, arising from the Prime Minister's Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 20, at the end, to insert the words 'the managers of a school not provided by the local education authority in respect of the use by them of the school furniture out of school hours, and the local education authority in respect of the use by them of the school furniture out of school hours, and the local education authority in respect of the use by them of any room in the school out of school hours, shall be liable to make good any damage caused to the furniture or the room, as the case may be, by reason of that use other damage arising from fair wear and tear, and the managers shall take care that after the use of a room in the school by them, the room is left in a proper condition for school purposes.'"—[Dr. Macnamara.]
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. M'KENNAsaid the Amendment was one to which the Committee ought not to be asked to agree. They were asked to permit the managers to use the furniture supplied by the local authority without being liable for fair wear and tear. It could not be suggested that the local authority were to provide furniture for Sunday schools. If the Amendment were accepted, it would be admitting a right on the part of the managers to use the furniture supplied by the local authority; and it was hardly reasonable to ask the Committee to hand over to the managers the plant supplied by the local authority without entitling the local authority to charge for fair wear and tear.
    MR. LOUGHsaid he thought the Government were labouring under some mistake. The Clause provided that payment was to be made for fair wear and tear, but the whole sense of that provision was reversed in the Amendment, which was perfectly absurd in the form in which it was put before the Committee, and which should therefore be restored to the form in which it appeared on the Paper.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought that the Amendment was a reasonable one. The hon. Member who had just spoken thought that the Government had committed themselves to the phrase in the original Amendment, which would make it necessary for the managers to pay for the wear and tear of the furniture of the schools. They had never committed themselves to anything of the kind. It was not made impossible under this Amendment for the local authority if they chose, after school hours, to remove their furniture, though every one knew that they would keep it in the schools. It would be futile to suggest, as a practical policy, that the local authority should remove the furniture every afternoon after school hours, and put it back every morning before school hours. But the suggestion was that, if they left it in
    1162
    the school, it might not be altogether desirable from the point of view of the managers of the school. It was a great illusion to suppose that furniture which was most convenient for elementary education was necessarily convenient for every purpose to which the school-house was put. According to the hon. Member for North Camberwell, dancing sometimes took place in the schools, and if the school was to be used for dancing nothing could be more inconvenient than desks and benches. But apart from dancing, meetings of various kinds, such as bazaars, were held; and the furniture of the education authority might then be found to be merely a nuisance. On the other hand, there was a certain amount of wear and tear by the education authority during school hours of the school buildings, and the Government thought it fair that the two things should be set off one against the other. It would be absurd to try to estimate the annual amount of damages to be paid for the use of the furniture. That would be neither equitable in abstract theory nor practicable in the ordinary work of life. For these reasons the Amendment could not be adopted.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he regretted that the Amendment had been moved by his hon. friend in an altered form. In order to raise the matter in its original form he would move, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after "provided" and to insert" if they make use of any room, etc.," down to the end of the Amendment on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that as the managers gave to the local education authority the school buildings during ordinary school hours free of charge, it was a fair set-off that the local authority should give the managers the use of the furniture during non-school hours. What became of the other bargain if that were to be the set-off? He understood that the bargain was that the managers were to get their own teachers and have their own denomination taught, and only pay about 5s. a week as against 55s. to be paid by the local education authority. Now a new bargain was imposed which he thought

    1163
    was unfair. The Prime Minister suggested that it was possible that the school furniture would not be convenient for school purposes. Everyone knew that it would be the very thing that would be wanted for, for instance, Sunday schools. That development with regard to the furniture was a new revelation. Today they discovered, for the first time, that the intention of the Government was that the old furniture should be purchased by the local authority, although the Government had, after a great deal of pressure, promised to reconsider that proposal. At any rate, in future it was distinctly understood that the local authority was to find all the new appliances that might be required, and that the managers wore to be at liberty to use them for their own denominational purposes with-out any charge. The Attorney General said that afternoon that the charge for the furniture would be a matter of arrangement between the managers and the local authority; but the Amendment changed all that and gave the managers a legal right to use the furniture, without payment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid not if the education authority chose to remove it.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that that was really such an impossible suggestion that he would put it out of the purview of the discussion. It was too preposterous even for a Parliamentary discussion. Ho was not even sure that the local authority could remove the furniture, because, if the Amendment were passed, the managers would be entitled to argue that there was a provision in the Act as to the manner in which the furniture could be used by them. He thought it was perfectly clear that the managers would have a legal right; but, in any event, unless the furniture were removed, it would be perfectly clear under the Amendment that as long as the managers did not break the furniture, they could use it without making any payment for it. It was becoming clearer and clearer that the Bill was designed entirely in the interests of the Church, and not in the interests of education.
    1164
    The cost of providing new appliances and furniture would fall on the local authority, and that change would be entirely in the interests of the Church, as the present appliances were distinctly inferior. Every alteration that had been made in the Bill, notwithstanding apparent concessions, was in the interests of the Church.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
    "To leave out from the first word 'authority' to the end of the proposed Amendment, and insert the words 'if they make use of any room in the school-house oat of school hours, shall be liable, if required, to make a reasonable payment to the local education authority in respect of wear and tear of, or damage to, any school furniture belonging to the local education authority resulting from that use, and shall take care that after any such use the room is left in a proper condition for school purposes.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. The hon. Gentleman put it as if the use of the furniture were to be enjoyed by the managers as a set-off against giving the use of the school buildings for educational purposes during school hours. That was not the question at all. The hon. Gentleman entirely forgot that the managers would be entitled to the full use of the buildings out of school hours were it not for the provision introduced yesterday which provided that the local authority should have the right to use the buildings three nights I a week if required for the purposes of education. That was a cardinal fact in connection with the Amendment. The managers had given up the use of the buildings for three nights a week, and as against that, they were now to have the use of the furniture, if the local authority chose to leave it in the school, during the remaining evenings in the week. Was it not reasonable and business-like to set off

    1165
    one against the other, and say that in neither case would wear and tear be taken into account? If the local authority conducted their business in a disorderly manner, and if the scholars smashed the windows, their damage would have to be made good. On the other hand, if the managers conducted their meetings in such a manner as resulted in the furniture being smashed, they would have to pay compensation; but neither party need trouble about fair wear and tear. The matter seemed quite simple when one realised what the conditions were; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
    MR. BRYCEsaid that if he understood the position of the Government, they had completely forgotten what they had said three months ago was the main object of the Bill—namely, the establishment of one authority. Apparently now there were to be two authorities, and the local education authority was to be entirely different when it was dealing with elementary education from what it was when dealing with secondary education. For the education authority to be thus divided into an elementary and a secondary authority was quite inconsistent with the alleged principle of the Bill.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that was not the case. All they had done was to put the buildings during school hours at the disposal of the local education authority, and then, in addition, the managers were to give the use of the school for education purposes on three evenings in the week. There was no division of the authority. If damage was done during
    1166
    that evening instruction the authority ought to give compensation.
    MR. BRYCEsaid that originally the authority, being one authority for educational purposes, was to get the use of the buildings free for all such purposes, but this attempt to sever elementary from secondary education.—
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: There is no such division.
    MR. BRYCEsaid it seemed to him that the education authority qua secondary education authority was to make a payment or give a consideration for the use of the buildings and furniture which he had understood it was to receive as a matter of course as a part of the general bargain.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANScontended that the effect of the Amendment had been entirely changed. The hon. Member for North Camberwell seemed to have swallowed his own proposal, and accepted a provision of the Government which would place on the local authority an additional obligation.
    DR. MACNAMARAexplained that since he placed his Amendment on the Paper, a new engagement had been entered into under which the local authority were to get the free use of the school on three nights in the week. That, he thought, had modified the situation.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that that concession was made because everybody considered that the schools should be devoted to educational purposes. It was never intended that the bargain should,

    1167
    in consequence, be varied in another respect so as to make the local authority pay for the use of the room. The Committee had already decided that the repair of the school was an obligation on the managers, but by this Amendment the repair of a room—which might mean the repair of every room in the school—was to be undertaken by the local authority.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: If they damage the room.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid repairs only became necessary if a room was damaged. He should certainly vote for his hon. friend's Amendment.
    MR. PYMsaid the whole discussion was on the commonest of common subjects, viz., the value of the depreciation of furniture by wear and tear. It was really a matter with which Parliament ought not to deal at all. The
    question of wear and tear would not arise for some time, and surely it would be much better to leave such petty questions to be arranged between the local authority and the managers as and when they arose.
    MR. LOUGH,who spoke amid continued cries of "Divide," was understood to complain that the arguments of the Prime Minister were inconsistent cut with those of the Attorney General in this matter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment' be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 193; Noes, 71. (Division List No. 438.)

    AYES

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Doughty, George

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A(Worc.

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

    Arrol, Sir William

    Chapman, Edward

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W.)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Charrington, Spencer

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Balcarres, Lord

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

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

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

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

    Finch, George H.

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Beminck, Lord Henry C.

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

    Beresford, Lord Charles William

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Bignold, Arthur

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Flower, Ernest

    Bigwood, James

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Forster, Henry William

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S.W.

    Bond, Edward

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

    Gardner, Ernest

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Denny, Colonel

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St, Albans)

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

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

    Butcher, John George

    Dorington, Rt Hon. Sir John E.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Renwick, George

    Greene, Sir EW(BurySEdm'nds

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Greene, Henry D, (Shrewsbury

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

    Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Lowe, Francis William

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Gretton, John

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Groves, James Grimble

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Gunter, Sir Robert

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

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

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Smith, H C(North'mb. Tyn'side

    Hamilton, Rt Hn LordG(Midd'x

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdinburghW

    Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

    Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Spear, John Ward

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Malcolm, Ian

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Henderson, Sir Alexander

    Morgan, David. J (Walthamst'w

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Higginbottom, S. W.

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Mount, William Arthur

    Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n, N

    Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset E.

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Hoult, Joseph

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Walrond, Rt. H n. Sir William H.

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Johnstone, Hey wood

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

    Kemp, George

    Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    Percy, Earl

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York E.R.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

    Keswick, William

    Pilkington, Lieut. -Col. Richard

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

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Wylie, Alexander

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Lawson, John Grant

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Purvis, Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Pym, C. Guy

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Rankin, Sir James

    NOES

    Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Runciman, Walter

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Shackleton, David James

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Brigg, John

    Joicey, Sir James

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Langley, Batty

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Burns, John

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

    Caldwell, James

    Levy, Maurice

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lloyd-George, David

    Tomkinson, James

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lough, Thomas

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Cremer, William Randall

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Whiteley, George (York W.R.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Emmott, Alfred

    Markham, Arthur Basil

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

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Mather, Sir William

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersf'd

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

    Norman, Henry

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Harmsworth, R. leicester

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Mr M'Kenna and Mr.

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Rigg, Richard

    Trevelyan.

    (11.38.) Question put accordingly "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 198; Noes, 68. (Division List No. 439.)

    AYES

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    M'Arthur Charles (Liverpool)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Forster, Henry William

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W

    M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Malcolm, Ian

    Arrol, Sir William

    Gardner, Ernest

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Bain, Col. James Robert

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Balcarres, Lord

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

    Morgan, David J (Walthamtst'w

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

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

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Greene, Sir E W(B'rySEdm'nds

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

    Beresford, Lord Chas. William

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Gretton, John

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Bigwood, James

    Groves, James Grimble

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gunter, Sir Robert

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Bond, Edward

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

    Percy, Earl

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Butcher, John George

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Pilkington, Lt. -Col. Richard

    Carlile, William Walter

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Henderson, Sir Alexander

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Higginbottom, S. W.

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Purvis, Robert

    Chapman, Edward

    Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Rankin, Sir James

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Renwick, George

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Hoult, Joseph

    Richards, Henry Charles

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

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

    Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Johnstone, Heywood

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Kemp, George

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    Seely, Maj. J. E. B (IsleofWight

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Keswick, William

    Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

    Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

    King, Sir Henry Seymonr

    Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

    Denny, Colonel

    Law, Andrew Bonar (G1asgow)

    Spear, John Ward

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Lawson, John Grant

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart

    Doughty, George

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W.)

    Long, Col. Charles W, (Evesham

    Valentia, Viscount

    Faber, George Denison (York)

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

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Lowe, Francis William

    Walker, Col. William Hall

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

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Finch, George H.

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

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

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

    Wylie, Alexander

    Sir Alexander Acland-

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

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

    NOES.

    Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Barran, Roland Hirst

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire

    Joicey, Sir James

    Spencer, Rt. H n. C. R (Northant

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Brigg, John

    Langley, Batty

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Levy, Maurice

    Tomkinson, James

    Caldwell, James

    Lough, Thomas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Causton, Richard Knight

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Cawley, Frederick

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Markham, Arthur Basil

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Woodhonse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Norman, Henry

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Rea, Russell

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

    Rickett, J. Compton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Rigg, Richard

    Mr. Alfred Hutton and

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Mr. Whitley.

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Runciman, Walter

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Shackleton, David James

    Mr. A. J. BALFOURclaimed to move. "That the Question 'That the proposed words be there inserted' he now put."
    Question put accordingly, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 194; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 440.)

    AYES

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bond, Edward

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Arrol, Sir William

    Butcher, John George

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Carlile, William Walter

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Bain, Col. James Robert

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

    Balcarres, Lord

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Denny, Colonel

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

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh'e)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Balfour, Kenneth R. Christch.

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.

    Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Chapman, Edward

    Doughty, George

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Beresford Lord Charles William

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Bignold, Arthur

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Bigwood, James

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

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (M'nc'r

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Keswick, William

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Finch, George H.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Purvis, Robert

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Pym, C. Guy

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

    Rankin, Sir James

    FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Fitzroy, Hon. Ed. Algernon

    Lawson, John Grant

    Renwick, George

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge

    Forster, Henry William

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(S'lop

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

    Seely, Maj. J. EB. (Isle of Wight

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

    Lowe, Francis William

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

    Greene, Sir E W(B'rySEdm'nds

    Lucas, Reginald. J. (Portsmouth

    Spear, John Ward

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

    Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Grenfell, William Henry

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Gretton, John

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Groves, James Grimble

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Gunter, Sir Robert

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

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

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    M'Killop, James (Stirlinghire)

    Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Malcolm, Ian

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Hardy Laurence(Kent, Ashford

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Morgan David J (Walthamstow

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

    Henderson, Sir Alexander

    Mount, William Arthur

    Whiteley, H (Ashtonund. Lyne

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Higginbottom, S. W.

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

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

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

    Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E)

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brights'de

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wylie, Alexander

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Pease Herbert Pike(Darlington

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Hoult, Joseph

    Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Howard John(Kent Faversham

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Percy, Earl

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Sir Alexander Acland-

    Johnstone, Heywood

    Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

    Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

    Kemp, George

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Plummer, Walter R.

    NOES

    Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Brigg, John

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Norman, Henry

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Rea Russell

    Caldwell, James

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Joicey, Sir James

    Rigg, Richard

    Cawley, Frederick

    Kearley, Hudson, E.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Langley, Batty

    Runciman, Walter

    Cremer, William Randal

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Shackleton, David James

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Levy, Maurice

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Lough, Thomas

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersfd.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Tomkinson, James

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W R)

    Mr. Alfred Hutton and

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Mr. Whitley.

    It being after Midnight, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the Business.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOURclaimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause from the first word" The," in line 21, to the word "managers," in line 24, both inclusive, stand part of the Clause, be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause from the first word "The, "in line 21, to the word "managers," in line 24, both inclusive, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 191, Noes, 64. (Division List No. 441.)

    AYES

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

    Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

    Arrol, Sir William

    Denny, Colonel

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Henderson, Sir Alexander

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

    Doughty, George

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Higginbottom, S. W.

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. SirWilliam Hart

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Beresford, Lord Charles William

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Faber, (George Denison (York)

    Houldsworth, Sir William Hy.

    Bignold, Arthur

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Hoult, Joseph

    Bigwood, James

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manch'r

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Jebb, Sir Richard (Claverhouse

    Bond, Edward

    Finch, George H.

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Johnstone, Heywood

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Kemp, George

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    Butcher John George

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

    Carew, James Laurence

    Forster, Henry William

    Keswick, William

    Carlile, William Walter

    Foster, PhilipS. (WarwickS. W.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

    Lawson, John Grant

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

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

    Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

    Chapman, Edward

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Legge, Col. Hen. Heneage

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Grenfell, William Henry

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

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Gretton, John

    Lowe, Francis William

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Groves, James Grimble

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Gunter, Sir Robert

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Macartney, Rt. Hn. WG. Ellison

    Pilkington, Lieut. -Col. Richard

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

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Platt- Higgins, Frederick

    Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n, N.

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Valentia, Viscount

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Malcolm, Ian

    Purvis, Robert

    Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Willam H

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Pym, C. Guy

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

    Renwick, George

    Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Robertson. Herbert (Hackney)

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

    Mount, William Arthur

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Smith, Hon W. F. D. (Strand

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Spear, John Ward

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

    Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Sir Alexander Acland-

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Stewart, Sir Mark. J. M'Taggart

    Percy, Earl

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    NOES

    Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Runciman, Walter

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Shackleton, David James

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Joicey, Sir James

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Brigg, John

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Langley, Batty

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Levy, Maurice

    Tomkinson, James

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lough, Thomas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Channing, Francis Allston

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Cremer, William Randal

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsf'd

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Norman, Henry

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Rea, Russell

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Rickett J. Compton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Rigg, Richard

    Mr. Nussey and Mr. Caldwell.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

    Question, "That the words of the Clause from the first word 'The,' in line 21, to the word 'managers,' in line 24, both inclusive, stand part of the Clause," put accordingly, and negatived.
    The chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.
    MR. SPEAKER,in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October, adjourned the House without Question put.
    Adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.