Sitting of 12 June 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill (by Order).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
Mr. MOONEY reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills; That Sir Daniel Dixon, one of the members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL
  Petition from Whitland, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA AND CHINA (OPIUM TRAFFIC).
  Petition from Cardiff, for suppression; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Anstey; Ashley; Bredhurst; Cheshunt; Chichester; Duffield; Frenchay; Hull; Kippax;
  810
  Langton; Shipton Thorpe; Stoke Newington; Swale Cliff; and, Whitby; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Alvanley (two); Aston Subedge (two); Ashurst; Blackford Wedmore; Blackwell; Cilgerran (two); Cockshutt; Colne; Dyrham (two); East Bergholt; Highclitfe (two); Llanpumpsaint; Oxton; South Kennington; Stoke Bruerne; Turvey; Whitley Lower (two); Wolverhampton; and, Worlingworth cum Southolt; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; From Salisbury and other places; and, Wiltshire; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSE-LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION.
  Petitions for alteration of Law; From Blandford; Brecknock; Hunslet; Scarborough; Strood; Wem; and, Wheaten-hurst; to lie upon the Table.
  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
  Petitions for alteration: From Andover (two); Bethnal Green (two); Bexhill; Blackpool (two); Bo'ness; Braintree; Broconshire; Chatham; Clackmannan and Kinross; Cockermouth; Diss; Dundee; Falkirk Burghs (two); Gateshead-on-Tyne; Gillingham; Heck-mondwike; Hitchin; Inverness Burghs; Isle of Thanet; King's Lynn; Kinross; Leeds (Contral); Linlithgowshire; Mal-don; Margate; Mid. Derbyshire; Northampton; North Dorset (two); North-West Durham; Ramsgate; Reading (two); Rye; St. Augustine's; Sandwich; Sheffield (Central); Spen Valley; Stamford (two); Stanley; Tunbridge Wells (two); arid, Workington; to lie upon the Table.
  VAGRANT CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions against: From Chorley and Rye; to lie upon the Table.
  VAGRANT CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Hunslet, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3629 to 3632 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN TRADE (COMPARATIVE GROWTH).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 15th May; Sir Howard Vincent]; to be upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 192.]
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Arundel Port, Copy of Annual Report and General Account of the Commissioners of Arundel Port for period from 25th March, 1905, to 25th March, 1906 [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Board of Trade Returns.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether in the Customs Statistical Office in the compilation of the Board of Trade Returns of Imports and Exports any of the entries in the Primary Import and Export Registers of Free Merchandise are checked into those registers from the documents passed by importers and exporters, so as to insure that the particulars thus supplied are correctly shown in the Trade Returns; and, if so, whether he can state approximately the proportion of such entries appearing in those registers which were so checked during the past year.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) A considerable number of entries of Free Merchandise, sufficient to insure reasonable accuracy, are checked into the Primary Registers during the course of each month, but as no record is kept of the number so checked the Board of Customs are unable to state the proportion for the past year.

  Vacancies for Superintendents at the Central Telegraph Office.
  MR. STRAUS: To ask the Postmaster-
  812
  General if he will state why the vacancies now existing in the class of superintendents at the Central Telegraph Office have not been filled up.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The delay in this matter has been unavoidable, but I hope to be able to announce a decision very shortly.

  War Office and American Tinned Meat.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why the meat contract for the supply of the troops stationed at Aldershot and other barracks, in England, Ireland, and Scotland has been given to Armour and Company of America; and why homo produce is not provided as heretofore.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.} Nothing is known at the War Office of any contract for the supply of fresh meat to the troops in the United Kingdom held by Armour and Company of Chicago.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  H.M.S. "Montagu."
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can now give the House any information as to the prospects of salving H.M.S. "Montagu," and (in the event of the prospects being favourable) if he can state whether it is anticipated that she can be ultimately restored to a condition of unimpaired fighting efficiency.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): If there is a continuation of the present fine weather for a sufficient period, it is hoped that the vessel will be salved and repaired. The work is being pressed on with all possible speed, and the reports, of progress received are satisfactory.

  Naval Shipbuilding Programme.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there is any foundation for the statement made in the public Press that the Admiralty has decided upon, or has in contemplation

  813
  the reduction of one or more of the four armoured vessels of this year's programme.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The article in question was wholly unauthorised, and it is not intended to make any statement on the subject until Vote 8 comes up for discussion.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: When this matter is considered, will the Admiralty take into consideration the fact that by the disablement of the "Montagu" the fighting strength of the Navy has been diminished, possibly permanently, by one of its finest fighting ships?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I think I may say that all relevant facts will be duly considered.

  Army Promotion.
  MR. LEHMANN (Leicestershire, Market Harborough, on behalf of the hon. Member for the Harwich Division of Essex): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the advisability of putting a stop to the practice of keeping vacancies open in the list of captains of a battalion where the senior subalterns are not qualified for promotion, having regard to the fact that such a system is not only unfair to the junior subalterns qualified for promotion, but is calculated to militate against the general efficiency of the service. I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state why only one of the two vacancies occurring in the list of captains in the Alexandra, Princess of Wales' Own (Yorkshire) Regiment, has thus far been filled, and that by an officer passing over the heads of two senior subalterns, who presumably were not qualified for promotion; whether there is any intention of keeping this vacancy open, in contravention of the regulations, in order to enable the subalterns, who were non-efficient at that date, to qualify.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): A vacancy is filled at once by the promotion of officers qualified at the date of such vacancy, except—(1) when a supernumerary officer is available for absorption within three months of the vacancy, and it is kept open for such three months,
  814
  in accordance with the terms of the Royal Warrant. (2) When a vacancy occurs with date subsequent to the date of an examination for which the senior officer has presented himself, and it is kept open until the result of the examination is known. In the case alluded to in Question No. 23, the latter vacancy is being kept open for an officer due for absorption on the 16th July.

  Railway Extension in Northern Nigeria.
  MR. SHACKLETON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the assurance given by the Prime Minister to the deputation from the British Cotton Growing Association in regard to the provision of transport facilities in Northern Nigeria, he can state what steps the Government propose to take in order to hasten the provision of these facilities.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The Secretary of State desires me to say that, as a consequence of the speech delivered by the Prime Minister to the Deputation from the British Cotton Growing Association on May 17th, he deems it his duty to prepare a definite scheme of Nigerian railway extension for submission to the Cabinet. This scheme will be prepared in consultation with the Governor of Southern Nigeria and the High Commissioner of Northern Nigeria, who will both soon be in England.

  New Hebrides Mixed Commission.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to give the New Hebrides Mixed Commission power to negotiate fiscally with the Australian Governments.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am unable to give any information with regard to the provisions of the draft Convention respecting the New Hebrides recently drawn up by an Anglo-French Commission, as it is still under the consideration of the two Governments.

  Indian Factories—Hours of Labour.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State

  815
  for India if he has received the Reports called for from the local governments in India as to the proposed limitation of the hours of work in the textile factories of Bombay and neighbourhood; and, if so, can he state what steps have been decided on.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (MR. MORLEY,): The answer is in the negative. The Local Governments are still actively engaged in the inquiry and are not yet in a position to report.

  Imports of Spirituous Liquors into the Sudan.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will furnish or procure information showing in detail and as far as possible the places of origin and the quantities and values of spirituous liquors imported into the Sudan via Wadi Haifa during the several years 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, and 1905, supplementing the statements made in Lord Cromer's Annual Reports on Egypt and the Sudan to the effect that 250 tons (valued at £8,400), were imported in 1900, 241 tons in 1901, 326 tons in 1902, 561 tons (valued at £119,738), in 1904, and a quantity not stated but valued at £84,000 in 1905; and whether he is in a position to explain the increase in the quantity of spirits so imported.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): We have no information on the subject other than that contained in Lord Cromer's Reports, but Lord Cromer will be asked if he can give the further information asked for.

  Spirituous Liquors for Uganda.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and, if so, what stops have been taken with reference to Lord Cromer's statements, in his Annual Reports on the finances, administration, and condition of Egypt and the Sudan, to the effect that in 1900 he had drawn Sir Reginald Wingate's attention to the large amount of spirits which seemed to have been imported into the Sudan [Cd. 1012], page 63, and that in 1904 Sir Reginald Wingate's attention had
  816
  been drawn to the enormous increase in the quantities of spirits finding their way to Uganda via the White Nile, and that the sale of liquors in the Sudan should be carefully watched, and, if necessary, controlled [Cd. 2409], page 122.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: From Lord Cromer's Annual Reports it is evident that this matter is receiving his careful attention. Inquiry will be made as to the precise answer to the hon. Member's Question.

  Soudan Government and the Brussels Act of 1890.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state what action has been taken, in accordance with Article 12 of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement of 1899, in which the contracting parties undertake to pay special attention to the enforcement of the Brussels Act of 1890 prohibiting the importation or manufacture of spirituous liquors in the region of the zone where, on account of religious, or from other motives, the use of distilled liquors does not exist, or has not been developed.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Government of the Soudan have drawn up various regulations for controlling and licensing the import and sale of alcoholic liquors in their territory. These regulations have been modified and added to from time to time, and the matter is one which engages the constant attention of the Soudanese Government.

  Chinese Customs Agreement.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have accepted the note of the Wai-wu-pu repeating and reaffirming the text of the customs articles of the loan agreements of 1896 and 1898 as a satisfactory settlement of the Chinese customs question; and whether he will consider the desirability of pressing for this note being given the same Imperial force and currency as the Imperial edict of May 9th.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government regard the note of the

  817
  Wai-wu-pu respecting the Customs questions as satisfactory, and they are in communication with His Majesty's representative at Peking with regard to making public in China the assurances received.

  Chinese Labour Cartoons.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Chinese labour cartoons, issued by Radical agencies at the last general election, are being reproduced in a popular journal in Peking; and whether, in view of the fact that these pictorial inexactitudes are calculated to inflame Chinese resentment against British residents in China, and interfere with British trade with that country, he will represent to the Chinese Government the desirability of stopping the further circulation of these cartoons.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have noticed statements in the Press to this effect, but have no other information on the subject. His Majesty's Chunjé d' Affaires at Peking will no doubt inform us if he considers any action necessary in order to protect British subjects or British trade from the dangers anticipated by the hon. Member.

  The Congo.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now lay on the Table Papers with reference to the Congo, including the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, and the text of the new Decree issued by the King of the Belgians and the manifesto which accompanied its promulgation.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Papers promised will be laid before the end of the week. Copies of the publication containing the Report to the Sovereign of the Congo State on the results of the Reforms Commission, the text of the new Decrees and the manifesto, will be sent to the library with copies of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry.

  The Aliens Act—Political Refugees.
  *SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is customary at all or any of the immigration ports when an alien immigrant declares that he is a
  818
  political refugee, for the immigration officers to demand any corroboration of such declaration; if so, what is the nature of the corroboration demanded, and to what extent is the mere statement of the immigrant accepted.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I have every reason to believe that the immigration officers take the utmost pains to carry out their duty in regard to political refugees, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and their instructions there under. It is a point on which corroboration or refutation are matters of extreme difficulty; and the Answer to the latter part of the Question must depend on the circumstances of each particular case.

  Immigrants' Means.
  *SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, when an immigrant alien produces £5 as evidence of means, any steps are taken to find out if such immigrant is the bona fide possessor of that sum, and that it has not been supplied to him merely for the purpose of his obtaining admission to this country.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, sir. The Immigration officers pay careful attention to this point, and if they have any reason to doubt that the money is the immigrant's bona fide property they do not accept it as proof of means.

  Factory Act Prosecutions.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of prosecutions instituted by factory inspectors during 1905 for non-compliance with the orders made by the Home Secretary under Section 116 of The Factory Act, 1901; and whether his official information shows that under the present arrangement of inspectors and assistant inspectors the orders can be rigidly enforced in all the Home industries to which they apply.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: Five informations were laid against two firms during 1905 for broaches of orders requiring particulars in non textile trades. It is obvious that

  819
  considerable difficulty must attend the enforcement of the requirement in the case of outworkers, to whom it has been extended during the Last four years, as the inspectors cannot follow each outworker to his home; but I am informed that in fact much has already been done during the short time the orders extending the requirement to outworkers have been in force to ensure that they receive the particulars prescribed.

  Factory Act—Unvisited Factories.
  MR. ARTHUE HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many factories were unvisited during 1905; also whether he will give instructions that when the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories is presented to the House it shall contain, in addition to the mileage travelled, the actual number of factories and workshops visited by each member of the inspectorate during the period covered by the Report.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The number of factories unvisited during 1905 was 23,258 out of a total of 104,666. I do not think it would be desirable to include in the Annual Report the number of places visited by each inspector. The mere number of places visited, without reference to the character of the works or nature of the district, would be misleading as an indication of the amount of work done.

  Factory Department—Cost of Statistical Branch.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual cost of the statistical branch of the Factory Department.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The cost of the staff of the Factory Statistical Branch in the financial year 1905–6 was £1,460. I should add that a certain amount of clerical work connected with the administration of the Factory Act is done by this branch in addition to the collection and tabulation of statistics.

  Factory Inspector's Report.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Deparment when the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories
  820
  for 1905 will be issued, and when the statistical Return of persons employed in workshops during 1901 is likely to be available; and when the volumes for 1903 and 1905 may be expected.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I hope that the Annual Report will be issued before the end of this month. It is already completed, but some time is unavoidably occupied in getting it through the press. As regards the second part of the question, considerable delay in the tabulation by the Factory Statistics Branch of the Returns which were called for in 1901, was caused by the work of preparing a new card register of all places under inspection, which had to be undertaken by the branch about the same time; and it was decided by my predecessor at the end of 1904 not to proceed further with the workshop portion of the Returns; but, instead, to give precedence to the workshop portion in the tabulation of the 1904 Returns which were called for at the beginning of 1905. This has been done, and a Return of persons employed in workshops will be published in the course of the present year. The Returns being triennial, no statistics will be published for 1903 or 1905.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that this Report shall be issued in a reasonable time before the Vote for this Department is brought up for discussion.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I will do my best to secure that.

  Wreck of the '' Star of Hope."
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances attending the wreck of the trawler "Star of Hope," at Collieston, Aberdeenshire, on December 5th, and especially the delay of ten hours before any assistance was rendered to the wrecked vessel, during which time two of the crew were washed overboard and drowned, and a third died of exposure.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The question of ordering a formal investigation into the circumstances attending the wreck of the "Star

  821
  of Hope" in December last was very carefully considered, and it was concluded that no useful purpose was likely to be served by an inquiry. The vessel was engaged on behalf of the Scottish Fishery Board in working as near inshore as possible, and the casualty appeared to be due merely to an error of judgment not attributable to any person holding a certificate of competency. There appears to have been some delay in reporting the wreck to the Life Saving Apparatus Company at Collieston, and of this matter I understand the Admiralty have taken cognisance, but the company acted with promptitude as soon as the casualty was reported to them.

  The Companies Acts Inquiry.
  *SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Committee appointed more than a year ago to inquire into the Companies Acts has yet completed its deliberations; and whether he can state approximately the date when the Report on this subject may be expected.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am informed that the Report is already in draft, but an approximate day for its presentation cannot yet be fixed.

  Post Office Mail Van Work.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can state the result of his inquiries into the conditions under which contracts for mail van work are carried on.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTUN,): The matter is still engaging my attention.

  Postal Official's Pension.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that John Simmonds, of Henley-on-Thames, who retired from the postal service on January 6th last, five and a half months ago, after thirty-nine and a quarter years continual employment, and with the maximum number of good conduct stripes, has not yet been able to ascertain from the postal authorities to what pension he is entitled; that for three months after his retirement no payment whatever was made to him; that thon, after repeated applications, he
  822
  received a sum of £10 on account; and that he has since been unable to obtain any further payment or any explanation of the delay; and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to this man in being left so long without regular payment or acknowledgment of his claims, he will take steps to have the matter put right and to see that such delay does not occur again.
  In putting the question the hon. Member complained that the word "inconvenience" had been substituted for "hardship." He asked whether Mr. Speaker considered that "hardship" was a disorderly expression.
  *MR. SPEAKER: According to the information given to me, the Question was submitted to the hon. Member himself, and he fully agreed with the correction.
  MR. MORRELL: I agreed under protest. May I ask whether it would not be better that Questions should be expressed in the Member's own language?
  *MR. SPEAKER: If we were to admit all the expressions which are contained in Questions, I am afraid that a good many of them would be disorderly.
  MR. MORRELL: Then I will put the question, and ask the Postmaster-General to read the word "hardship" into it.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I regret to find that there has been delay in obtaining the award of a pension in this case, pending the decision of a question which had been raised regarding the admission of the value of free quarters as a pensionable emolument. An advance was made as soon as an application for it was received, and I have directed that a further advance should be made at once, and that steps should be taken to avoid similar delay in future.

  Irish Loan Fund Board.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Fermanagh I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was the duty of the Loan Fund Board for Ireland to supervise and audit the accounts of the various loan funds; whether the Board by such

  823
  audits discovered that various loan funds in county Fermanagh and elsewhere were charging excessive rates of interest and renewal fines, were making loans in excess of their powers, and otherwise going outside the Loan Funds Acts; whether he is aware that several of the loan funds in county Fermanagh have become insolvent and are unable to repay their debentures to people who lent their money on the faith that the accounts were audited by a Government Department; whether it is proposed to make any reparation to the debenture lenders for the neglect of the Loan Fund Board to properly supervise the accounts; and is he aware that the borrowers have in many cases become insolvent, and that very little could be recovered from them.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The Secretary of the Loan Fund Board informs me that the Board's inspector visits annually the office of each working society certified under the Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Act, 1843. It is his duty to check the society's accounts since the date of the last previous inspection, to examine the promissory notes which appear on the society's books, to check the cash balances to inquire concerning the management of the society, and to report to the Loan Fund Board the material facts learned by him during such visit. Each Loan Fund Society is bound under the Act to report periodically to the Loan Fund Board. From time to time the Loan Fund Inspector has reported irregularities, and the practice of the Board has been to require their prompt abandonment. The Committee of Inquiry appointed in 1896 reported that Loan Fund Societies in Fermanagh and elsewhere were charging excessive rates of interests and renewal fines. So far as this prevailed, it seems to have been the outcome of a mistaken interpretation of the Act, dating back to the year 1845. It is a fact that several Loan Fund Societies in Fermanagh are at present insolvent and unable to pay debentures to the holders. This is partly due to defects in the law of a technical character, which cause considerable difficulty and expense to the societies in recovering their debts. These defects were partially obviated by an Act of 1900, but many still remain, and the Irish Government have introduced
  824
  a Bill to amend the Act of 1900. The Second Reading of this Bill has, however, been opposed by some of the hon. Member's political friends. The Government are not responsible for the administration of the Loan Fund Board, which is not a Government Department as stated in the Question.

  Irish School Teachers.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can recommend the Commissioners of National Education to withdraw Rules 88 (b), 89 (a), and 94 III., in view of the fact that under these rules school teachers are absolutely prevented from attendance at any public ceremony, taking any part in the public life of the districts in which they reside, or from being members of committees dealing with such matters as education, under pain of withdrawal of salary.
  MR. BRYCE: I understand from the Commissioners of National Education that they are willing to consider the rules referred to with a view to seeing whether they can be modified in some points, but that they hold it to be highly undesirable that school teachers should take an active part in political controversy or sit on public bodies, inasmuch as this would impair their usefulness by tending to bring them into conflict with sections of their neighbours and thereby to lessen the confidence and respect with which it is desirable that they should be regarded by the whole community. It would, moreover, prevent them from devoting their time to their scholastic duties. The matter is one within the discretion of the Commissioners.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: When will the modifications be announced?
  MR. BRYCE: I have not said there would be any modifications. I stated that the Commissioners were prepared to consider if any were possible.
  MR. SLOAN: Do these rules debar a teacher sitting on Education Committees?
  MR. BRYCE: There are no Education Committees in Ireland.
  MR. MURPHY: Is it not the fact a teacher is prevented going anywhere or doing anything under pain of dismissal by these rules?
  MR. BRYCE: I do not think the rules are quite so harsh as that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked when the Second Reading of the Labourers (Ireland) Bill would be taken.
MR. BRYCEsaid the Bill appeared on the Paper for the following day, and he had good hopes of reaching it early.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman's Answer suggested that it was not the intention of the Government to take the Education Bill on Wednesday. In the absence of the Prime Minister, he asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he could give any forecast of the business of the House, which appeared to have been unexpectedly changed.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he understood it had been arranged that the Education Bill should not be taken on Wednesday, but a precise statement as to the business which would be taken could not be made in the absence of the Prime Minister. A statement would be made before the House rose.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had ever known a case in which an interruption of the programme of business had not been accompanied by some definite statement as to what the alternative was. It was very inconvenient that Members should remain without the least idea what was to be put down until eleven o'clock that evening; and the Government ought not to place the House in such a position.
MR. EVELYN CECILasked whether it was the intention of the Government to withdraw the Education Bill.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he had expected that the Prime Minister would be present and that a full statement would be made as to business to be
826
taken. In his absence, he could only say definitely that the Education Bill would not be taken to-morrow and that the Irish Labourers Bill would be the first order.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What will be taken on Friday?Will it be the Education Bill?
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid there would be ample time to make a statement with regard to Friday if the right hon. Gentleman would put a Question to-morrow.
A moment later the Prime Minister entered the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether it would be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement now by leave of the House.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid that, as public business had not yet begun, it would be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to do so.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST-LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,),having apologised for not being in his place before, said that, as already announced, the Education Bill would not be taken to-morrow. The first order would be the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, but he could not say positively what would be taken after that. On Thursday the Scotch Estimates would be taken. As to Friday, he could not say positively what would be taken. It might be Supply. On Monday the Education Bill would be resumed. With regard to a Question put to him by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil yesterday, he was fully alive to the importance of the South African question and to the interest, taken in the House in the Colonial Vote; but he must point out that they had already had a day and a half devoted to the Colonial Vote, and the Government were bound to give a fair amount of attention to other departments of the State which had not yet been touched. Subject to that general consideration, he fully appreciated the anxiety to have further discussion on South Africa, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that it would be provided for in proper course.
MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the Trade Disputes Bill would be taken as second order to-morrow.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Gentleman is always asking me about the Trade Disputes Bill, and that gives me the impression that he is suspicious that there is some desire to give the go-by to that Bill. I can assure him that there is no such desire. In due time it will be taken, but I do not think it will be convenient to take it as the second order to-morrow.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that the second order to-morrow will not be a Bill of a controversial character? When the Government deliberately interrupt their announced programme and interpolate another Bill in the place of a Bill that was to have been discussed de die in diem, I think we are justified in asking that ample notice should be given of what is to be taken in its place. Controversial Bills, such as the Plural Voting Bill, for instance, should not be taken without full notice.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can relieve the right hon. Gentleman's mind with regard to the Plural Voting Bill. It will not be taken to-morrow. But I think he is stretching his objection a little too far when he asks us to promise not to take any controversial Bills. We do not know yet whether any of our Bills are controversial or not, and in the circumstances I think it is too much to ask that we should avoid anything as to which there is serious difference of opinion. But I am anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman, and we will arrange that the matters taken shall not be such as he would object to.

NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the Borough of St. George, Hanover Square, in the room of Colonel the hon. Heneage Legge (Chiltern Hundreds). (Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE, & c.
Ordered, that leave be given to the Standing Committee on Trade, & c, to.sit during the Sitting of the House, Tomorrow, for the consideration of the
828
Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill.—(Mr. Kealey.)

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Ellis William Davies, esquire, for the County of Carnarvon (South or Eifion Division).

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill: —Mr. Shackelton; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. William Tyson Wilson.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill:—Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Bryce, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Gordon, Mr. O'Shaughnessv, Mr. Glendinning, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Thomas Smyth, Mr. Sloan, Mr. Thomas Corbett, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Harrington, and Mr. Roche.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

POLITICAL PENSIONS BILL.
"To repeal The Political Offices Pension Act, 1869," presented by Sir Howard Vincent; supported by Sir Frederick Carne Reach; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 249.]

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 2:—
MAJOR SEELYsaid he desired to move the

829
Amendment which stood in his name, and in doing so to make it clearer than it was by adding some extra words. The intention of the Amendment was sufficiently plain. It was to give a right of appeal to owners or trustees of voluntary schools in the event of the local education authority behaving in a tyrannical and unjustifiable manner. The Amendment he desired to move was as follows —
"Where any existing voluntary school is not taken over by the local education authority the owners or trustees of such school may appeal to the Board of Education, and the Board shall then hold a local inquiry to decide the matter."
The words he wished to add were—
"And if in the opinion of the Board the local education authority had, under good and sufficient, reason, failed to make any proposal and arrangement for the carrying on of such school as a provided school, the Hoard may require the local education authority to take over such school on such terms as the Board may determine."
This was simply an amplification of the suggestion he ventured to make to the right hon. Gentleman on the previous day. It had been pointed out that there was some anomaly in laying down the principle that the Bill desired, viz., that schools in which there was a sufficient preponderance of children should be continued as voluntary schools, while at the same time power was given under the clause to the local education authority to set at naught the expressed will of Government and Parliament. There was no question as to this anomalous position. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education, in dealing with the matter on the previous day, said this was unlikely to occur except in rare cases where the local education authority might be pig-headed and unjust, but he did not anticipate that it would arise frequently. He, however, would suggest that that was a position which the House of Commons had never taken up and never ought to take up. The machinery proposed by his Motion was that of local inquiry. In cases of water and drainage no one would stand up and say that they should interfere with local authorities, but matters of great principle, such as the liberty of conscience and the passionate desire of the people that their children should be educated in the faith to which they themselves belonged, were of such importance that they should not be
830
delegated to subordinate authorities. The matter only required stating to show the absurdity of it. The right hon. Gentleman had stated the previous day that the proposal was a cowardly one. He could not reply to that because it would conflict with his respect for those who occupied the front benches, and, secondly, because the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had undoubtedly been i distinguished for saying what he meant and meaning what he said. But for all that, he was bound to say he could not admit that it was a brave and courageous proposal to make it possible for education authorities to commit acts of oppression and wrong under Act of Parliament, nor did he think it was brave or courageous of Parliament to shelter itself behind those authorities. In matters of great moment, such as the one before them, Parliament must be supreme. It was impossible to delegate such questions to local education authorities, and he would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that if he could not accept the Amendment in the exact form in which it was drawn up he would at least set out in substance a similar Amendment and embody it in the Bill. If they attempted to pass the Bill into law in its present form it would give local authorities the power of exercising bigotry and intolerance which would light a flame in the country which it would be hard to extinguish.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 18, after the word 'manner,' to insert the words 'where any existing voluntary school is not taken over by the local education authority, owing to the authority having made no proposal or come to no arrangement under this section, the owners or trustees of such school may appeal to the Board of Education, and the Board shall then hold a local inquiry, and if, in the opinion of the Board, the local education authority has without good and sufficient reason failed to make any proposal or arrangement for carrying on such school as a provided school, the Board may require the local education authority to take over such school on such terms as the Board may determine."—(Major Seely.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. DILLONwished to say a few words in support of the Amendment before the Government explained its position. He wished earnestly to appeal to Ministerialists not to close their minds upon the question without

831
giving it full and fair consideration. Hon. Members who were present during the course of the interesting debate the previous day upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxford University would remember the ground upon which exception was taken to that Amendment. All the speakers against the Amendment, with one exception, opposed it because it was an unreasonable and unqualified requirement to the local authority to take over all kinds of schools whether they were desirable or not. Illustrations were given of insanitary schools, of schools which had become useless, and of buildings which were unfit for the purposes of schools. It was asked whether the House of Commons were going to make a law whereby the local authority would be forced to take over such schools. Their intention was to insert some security in the Bill whereby the declared instructions of the Minister should be carried out. He contended there was never before in the history of the House a case where, a Bill of a highly contentious character, dealing with the conscience of the people, having been brought forward, Parliament had deliberately declined to put into the measure words which would indicate the intention of the House. In the present instance they were going to throw all the onus upon the local authorities. The thing was absolutely without precedent. The Amendment which had just been proposed by the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool removed every single objection brought forward in the debate the previous day upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxford University, because if the present Amendment were inserted in the Bill the local authority could not be called upon to take over any school which in the opinion of the Board of Education was not a proper school to be taken over. The only effect the Amendment could possibly have would he to make local authorities carry out the Bill in accordance with the intentions of Parliament. The Amendment would come into force in those cases where the local authority was determined to have nothing to do with the voluntary schools. He would quote a ease which he believed was a genuine one—he had the best authority for saying so, although he had not the actual speech with him—where the President of one of the greatest local
832
authorities had declared it to be his intention, and the intention of the authority he represented, to use the option afforded by the Bill for the purpose of wiping out the voluntary schools. He hoped before the end of the debate to establish the veracity of the statement, but until then he did not think it was fair to give the name. It was, however, his deliberate conviction, based upon speeches he had read, that it was genuine. He believed the gentlemen who had made those speeches were absolutely honest in their convictions they had declared that Clause 4 was an outrage upon the Nonconformists of the country, and that in accordance with the declared spirit of their pledges they would be justified in resorting to any measures allowed them within the scope of the Bill to defeat that clause. He made no charges against such gentlemen, but he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether men like himself could fail to feel uneasy in the face of speeches of that character? It might be contended by the local authorities that under the Bill in districts where there was insufficient accommodation for the children in provided schools new-schools must be built. That was an aspect of the question which had raised considerable alarm. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education might say, there was a large body of opinion upon the Government Benches that the proper course under the Bill would be to build new schools all over the country, and the right hon. Gentleman must not blame him if such a course aroused anxiety in his mind. If that was the intention of the Government it was not the programme upon which the Liberal Members went to the great industrial community and secured the votes of the people. He could quote dozens of Liberals who pledged themselves to undo the injustice of the Act of 1902 and to protect the rights of voluntary, and especially Catholic schools. [Cries of "No, no."] Yes, it was quite true; he did not say that that was the intention of the majority of the Liberal Party, but a large section of them and many hon. Members in London gave most specific pledges to that effect, He appealed to the Committee to be honest in the matter. If it was their intention to pass a Bill which would destroy the voluntary

833
schools of the country and force the children into the provided schools, let them say so, and not come forward, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education had done, and say it was their intention to let the voluntary schools go on as before and then insert into Clause 2 an option which would make it perfectly easy for any local authority so minded, without departing for one instant from the letter of the law, to obliterate all voluntary schools from the neighbourhood. That was the question they had to deal with, and no greater question could come before them. The Minister for Education had objected to the Amendment because, he said, it shifted the responsibility from the House of Commons on to his shoulders; but, after all, the Minister for Education was always responsible, and by shifting the responsibility on to the right hon. Gentleman's shoulders it must not be thought that they threw it off the House of Commons. On the contrary, they kept it in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the idea of the clause was to leave perfect liberty to local authorities. He (Mr. Dillon) had already answered that, but he felt bound to enlarge upon it again. The right hon. Member's idea was against the whole principle of the constitution of the country. If they accepted his proposal they might as well do away with the Local Government Board whose purpose was to fetter and Control and cheek the power of local authorities. That was the very principle of the whole political system under which they worked, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would push his idea to a logical issue. he had lived for two or three years in Western America, where the local bodies were masters of the situation. As a result they did just i as they liked, and they could have taught the Hindoo religion had they pleased. They did exactly as they thought fit, without being responsible to either Parliament or a central authority, and they conducted their education upon their own lines. That was one system, but it was not the system we required in this country. If we adopted such a system, and allowed every local authority to have what educational system it pleased, we should find over the greater part of England a full-fledged denominational system, but we should also have various systems, which was undesirable. It was
834
absurd, however, for local authorities to set up a claim of immunity from the central authority when the greater part of their expenses were paid by Government grants. The whole question was one of degree and how far they were going to push the clause. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education that under the present system, and over since the Act of 1870, the Board of Education had exercised control over education authorities, but supposing the education authorities had torn up Clause 14 of the Act of 1870 and had said, "We will teach the Church Catechism as we like," and had set the Board of Education at defiance, would Parliament have sat down under that? He contended that the present instance was exactly the same. What right had they to say to the authorities that they should not teach the Church Catechism if those authorities wished to do so? Again, supposing an authority were to say that they thought that education was rather a bad thing than a good one, that they had got too much of it and they therefore declined to put the ratepayers to any further expense for teaching that which took the people from the land and gave them too high a tone, who would be the authority to say, "But you must provide a place for the children even if it throws a fresh burden on the rates"? The whole thing was without principle, and the very same machinery which was used at the present time to compel local authorities to preserve Clause 14 of the Bill of 1870 could be used under the new Act to make them obey the letter of the law equally well. By having the clause in its present form a direct invitation was offered to local authorities to defy the intention of the Government and the House, and to obliterate, where public opinion required it, all voluntary schools. He was quite aware that it might be said that any proposal to put coercion upon local bodies would be unpopular, and some Liberals might look back to the days when they voted against the Act of 1902; but there was a difference in the selfish coercion Act of 1902 and the proposal now before the Committee. The proposal of the Act of 1902 was to coerce local authorities to act unjustly towards a large section of the people, but the proposal before them at the present time was one simply to put a check upon local

835
bodies who would he inclined to oppress minorities. In view of these facts he most respectfully appealed to the Government to give the matter full consideration and, if they could, to introduce some such proposal, if not the exact words of the Amendment, into the Bill. As it was, they had words in Clause 2 which would make the proposals in Clauses 3 and 4 a mockery and a delusion.
DR. MACNAMARAwished to point out the curious position they had arrived at. The moment the Bill was read a first time everyone from the Bishops of Durham and Manchester downwards said that the Government were guilty of an act of confiscation and robbery.
MR. DILLOX: I did not say that.
DR. MACNAMARAexplained that he was quoting the words of the Bishop of Manchester, and now, because they were afraid that their schools would not be taken over, they came there and complained. He had no objection to the denominational school as such. He got what education he possessed from a denominational school, and therefore he would be ungrateful if he said anything against that system of education; but he did strongly object to Parliament compelling any local authority to take over a dilapidated, insanitary, and unsound building. That was his whole case. He had previously quoted the report of the Sanitary Committee of the London County Council about the condition of some of these schools. The facts which they stated were true, not only in regard to London, but in regard to all great cities. That committee condemned a number of schools as bad in regard to drainage, lighting, and ventilation. The noble Lord opposite had said that the London County Council dealt with this matter, and that the committee reported, with prejudice and for partisan reasons. He thought that such a statement was a very wrong one in point of fact. He held no brief for the London County Council. God forbid! He thought that body should never have been compelled to take over education, but he was quite sure that the report of their committee was a very moderate one and made in the interest of the children attending the schools. If the
836
law compelled a man to send his child to school, the law ought to see that that school was healthy, and he should resist to the bitter end any attempt to take over schools which were thoroughly unsound and unhealthy. If the Party opposite went the length of saying that they would have dogma even if it was associated with bad drains, in his judgment they were making a great mistake. His position was perfectly clear. Hon Members might have as much dogma as they could get into the limit of the capacity of a child, but first of all they ought to put their drains in order. If he had to choose between the Church Catechism with badly drained, badly lighted, and badly ventilated schools and a good building with Cowper-Templeism, his choice would be very simple: he would adopt the latter. An hon. Member had taunted him with the fact that if these schools were not taken over a good many teachers in voluntary schools would be thrown out of employment. He was well aware of that fact, but he did not desire, and he was sure elementary school teachers did not desire, that their interests should be considered to the detriment of the children. The Government had done something to meet this contingency in Clause 7, and he would ask them not only to carry that clause but to strengthen it in the interest of the teachers He had the highest authority in that House, viz., that of the Minister for Education, for saying that there might be local authorities who would be pig-headed about this matter, but his position was, that if there was a thoroughly sound voluntary school which was needed for the school accommodation of the locality, and. the buildings of which were in good condition, he did not think that school ought to be prejudiced under Clause 2, which dealt with the terms of transfer, simply because it was a voluntary school. But he thought the local authorities had no occasion to take over insanitary and ill found schools because they were voluntary. There should, however, be no prejudice against those voluntary schools which were well found, well built, well drained, and well lighted. They all wanted to prevent a local authority saying that they would not treat with a voluntary school because it was a voluntary school, and perhaps the President of the Board of Education.

837
could by some means secure that. It was, he recognised, a somewhat difficult matter, but if the President of the Board, of Education could consider it between now and the Report Stage, which he hoped would come soon, he for one would give him all the support he could if he brought forward a proposal on the subject.
*SIR W. EVANS GORDONdid not think the argument with which his hon. friend who had just sat down commenced his speech was worthy of him. He started by accusing hon. Members on the Opposition side with inconsistency because they stated when the Bill was first sprung upon the public that it was a measure of confiscation and of robbery, and they now keenly scrutinised the terms under which the schools were to be taken over. For his part he thought at the time that the Bill was one of confiscation and robbery, and he thought so still, but the hon. Gentleman seemed entirely to lose sight of the fact that since they said these things Clause 1 had been passed. That entirely altered the situation, and although he thought the Bill was confiscatory and robbed the voluntary schools, still, that clause having been adopted, they were entitled to attempt to get as large a modicum of justice from Ministerialists and the Government as they could obtain. He did not therefore see why, if they supported his hon. friend's Amendment, they were in the least degree inconsistent because they were trying to get a remnant of justice out of the measure. As to the Amendment, the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo seemed to him to be conclusive and unanswerable, and little more remained to be said. They had heard a good deal about the confidence they ought to repose in the local authorities, and he shared that confidence with the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who had spoken. But they must remember that they were placing upon local authorities a wholly new sort of responsibility. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether they meant it or not, were throwing the whole country into a great and burning religious controversy, and they were going to ask the local authority —to compel them, indeed—to take an active part in that controversy. It was all very well to say that they were to
838
have confidence in the local authorities, but which hon. Gentlemen could say what would be the action of the local authorities when they came to decide these burning questions of difference between religious denominations? Surely they had seen enough of religious bitterness and of religious intolerance lately to cause them grave doubts as to what that action would be. Hon. Members would remember the burning religious controversy which took place two years ago in Scotland. They all knew that if it had been possible the parties to that controversy would have been at each others' throats and would have marched against one another in open warfare if they had dared to do so. Were they justified in the belief that the sense of justice and of common sense which characterised our local authorities at ordinary times would be maintained under extraordinary circumstances such as these? Unless there was a right of appeal it was possible that grave injustice would be done. Let them take the case of a village in which there might be a Roman Catholic denominational school which the local authority refused to take over on the ground that it was not in a sanitary condition—had not wooden block floors or something of that sort— any excuse would suffice. If that school were not taken over all the children belonging to it would be compelled to go to the schools of other denominations against the most sacred desires of their parents. In the same district there might be a Protestant school which was very little, if any, better than the Roman Catholic school which the local authority had refused to take over. The Protestant school might be taken over and the children allowed to remain in it. This arbitrary differentiation could not be justified under any principle of justice or fair play. He hoped the reply of the Minister for Education in regard to this appeal would, be favourable.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,)said he could assure the Committee that the desire of the Government was and always had been that as many as possible of the properly equipped voluntary schools of the country should be transferred to the local authorities, and it had never entered into their heads as part of their scheme that the local authorities should.

839
decline to take over such schools as were properly equipped and fitted to form part of the national system of education. He agreed, and he felt it yesterday, that perhaps on paper, and even in substance, there was a difficult kind of gap between Clauses 1 and 2 and Clauses 3 and 4, which contained, as the Government thought, valuable conditions, but which were made dependent by Clauses 1 and 2 upon the local authority determining to take over those schools. Therefore some difficulty might arise, and there might be a kind of gap between the facility clauses and the other clauses of the Bill. He was not opposed, therefore, to any well considered plan which might be suggested whereby this difficulty might be got over. He assured the Committee that the obstacle did not arise from any want of will on the part of the Government. But the Committee were bound to take into consideration the fact that this Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member put a kind of compulsion on a local education authority to acquire any particular school where the Board of Education were of opinion that a bargain should be struck. He thought it followed, therefore, from this, that if the local education authority was to be obliged to acquire such a voluntary school if the Board of Education thought that the terms upon which it was offered wore reasonable and the school was well equipped, there should also be imposed the corresponding obligation on the owners of existing voluntary schools to transfer their schools to the local authority if the Board of Education correspondingly were of opinion that it was desirable that they should, and if the terms offered wore reasonable and proper. Without wishing to confine himself to any particular words, he read this simply as indicating what, in his opinion, would be a fair settlement of the question on these lines—
"If either the local education authority refuses to take a schoolhouse which is offered I to them, or the owners refuse to accept the offer of the local education authority to take their schoolhouse under thin section, the owners of the schoolhouse or the local education authority may appeal to the Board of Education, and the Board may, if they think fit, after holding a local public inquiry, there being no reasonable ground for refusal, by order require a transfer to be made on such terms as are contained in the order, which shall take effect as if an arrangement were male under this section."
840
An arrangement of that kind would put both parties in a fair position. It would enable the local education authority to acquire such schools as were desirable, and, on the other hand, it would secure that the owners of voluntary schools should be entitled, if the Board thought that the proposals were reasonable, to require that they should be taken over. Although he did not pledge himself to the words he had read, he was prepared to accept a proposal of that kind; and he thought that it would be a reasonable guarantee that the rights of the voluntary schools would be properly considered. The House of Commons ought to indicate to the Minister for Education the kind of lines on which he ought to act in this matter. He could assure his hon. friend that in the course of his administrative capacity there had been occasions when he had to consider the rights of voluntary schools under the Act of 1902; and there was no appeal in the clear form of hideous bigotry or inflamed passion or animated desire to get rid of the voluntary schools. The things presented themselves for consideration enmeshed in circumstances; and where a local education authority desired to suppress a Roman Catholic school, for example, they did not come to the Board of Education and say, "We do not want to keep a Roman Catholic school." They said, "We have already got in the area national schools of our own where there is plenty of accommodation for these children, whore they will get equally good, even better secular education: and therefore, in the interests of the ratepayers, you ought to get rid of a redundant school." That was the way in which the matter had been presented to him over and over again; and the only reason for the denominational school was that the parents of the children desired that the children should continue to receive in a Roman Catholic school, which perhaps they had largely helped to build, a continuance of instruction under the denominational system. In deciding in favour of the continued existence of a denominational school in the area, where there was sufficient accommodation in the national schools, he had decided more than once in favour of the denominational school, and he had done so boldly because he was in favour of the denominational school. But it ought to be made clear by the House on what

841
principles the Board of Education were to act in matters of this kind, and it ought not to lie left to the predilections or predisposition of individual and successive Ministers of Education. He had never shown any intention to share his duties in this matter; but in coming to his decisions he did not get any assistance whatever from the Act of 1902, because that measure required him to take into consideration circumstances which obviously must be inconsistent—namely, the wishes of the parents and the pecuniary interests of the ratepayer. Then he had to consider the secular efficiency of education, and this was pretty evenly balanced between the two. He confessed that he was largely affected always by personal sympathy and consideration for the class of children whose interests were served by the school, and he did not think that this was a satisfactory plan. Parliament ought to lay down that it was of opinion that a denominational school should be maintained, if it was a properly equipped school, even although it was numerically redundant in the sense that accommodation could easily be found within the same school area for the children resident in it; if they chose to give up their religious beliefs and to go to an ordinary council school, the House of Commons ought to say so, the law ought to say so; and it ought not to be left, as now, to the personal predilection of an individual to settle one way or the other. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member, he had no objection whatever to the Board of Education assuming this very responsible and difficult task, though it would require much consideration as to the terms in which it should be embodied. But the clause which might be hereafter brought up on the Report stage should be framed on the principle of reciprocal obligations, that the local authority should be bound to acquire in the same way as the owners of the voluntary schools should be bound to transfer.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid that the Committee would recognises the extreme importance of the question it was now considering, and not less the importance of the speech just delivered by the right hon. Gentleman. he understood that speech to be conciliatory in intention, and it certainly admitted a great deal of what the
842
Opposition had been urging. The Bill was a most complicated measure, and it was extremely difficult at a moment's notice to discover exactly what would be the effect of the change proposed; but he recognised what he believed to be the intention of the Minister for Education, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had considerably cleared the ground for further discussion. He thought that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had helped the Opposition and the Government materially to understand one another There were important circumstances on which they all agreed. He was inclined to agree in substance with the hon. Member for North Camber-well, who said that they did not wish to take over insanitary schools. Did anyone wish to do so? Had anyone ever suggested this? [Cries of "Yes" and "No."] Most certainly not, as far as his experience of the debate was concerned. The leader of the Opposition himself proposed an Amendment to make it absolutely clear that nothing of the kind was intended, and he proposed also to make it clear that the option of the local authority extended to the rejection of a school against which there was a sanitary objection. So far he believed that the House were unanimous. The second statement of the hon. Member was that in respect of a school against which there was nothing to be said as to its efficiency, the character of the buildings, and so on, no local authority should be allowed on its more motion to refuse to take over the school on other and less reasonable grounds. He was inclined to think that for the first time the Government, as represented by the Minister for Education, had agreed to that. They also intended to make it clear in the Bill that in every case where a voluntary school wished to transfer itself, and was a fit, efficient, adequate school, it should be able to go to some impartial authority, and that the power of rejection should not rest with the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman put forward his proposal in a conciliatory tone and as a concession. It was no concession at all, he thought. It was a very important question whether it was a concession or not, because if it were a concession then perhaps they were called upon to make some concession on their side. They met a concession by a concession. They met a conciliatory spirit by a conciliatory

843
spirit. If the latest proposal of the right hon. Gentleman gave some great concession which was not in the original intention of the Government they must try to meet the Government. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman had given thorn nothing, they should consider the matter in a very different spirit. By his present proposal the right hon. Gentleman said he was going to give the power of compelling the local authority, and in return he was to have the power of compelling the voluntary schools, whether under trust or not, and private owners who had retained the property in their own hands, to come in on terms which the Education Department might prescribe. Was that a concession? Now, in his judgment there might be an extremely important point of order to be settled here, as to which it might be wise to have the opinion of Mr. Speaker. There was no rule more clear in the proceedings of the House than that a Bill must be on Second Reading and in Committee and subsequent stages the Bill as brought in, subject, of course, to Amendments openly made in Committee of the House. He had known a Bill carried as far as Second Reading, and in Committee an appeal made to Mr. Speaker, pointing out a divergence between the Bill as expounded by the Minister introducing it on the First Reading and the Bill as produced, and thereupon Mr. Speaker had held that the Bill must be dropped and a new Bill brought in.
*SIR HENRY FOWLER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the reference to such a case?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid he remembered such a case, and, if necessary, he would find the reference. And it stood to reason. After all, if there was not a precedent they ought to make one, always supposing a proper case arose. He might be mistaken in thinking this came within that well understood rule and practice of Parliament, and, if so, his observation, of course, fell to the ground. Now, the way the Government intended to deal with this matter was shown in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill. He would read from Hansard, in which the speech had been corrected by the right hon. Gentle man, and, therefore, must be taken as
844
verbally correct. In the old proposal the appeal against the local authority was taken to the Commission, and the right hon. Gentleman said—
"If they (that is, the Commission) are of opinion that the best mode of giving effect to the trust is to allow the local education authority to use the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary school they "— the Commission—" may by the scheme require the local education authority to apply such conditions as to payment or otherwise, not being inconsistent with this Act, as they think just."
That was what the right hon. Gentleman quoted as being in the Bill. Now, it was not in the Bill. Since the right hon. Gentleman introduced it this had been taken out of the Bill, and that raised a very serious point of order. Section 2 (b) of Clause 8 read as follows—
"If they"—that is, the Commission—"are of opinion that the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary school by the local education authority in accordance with this Act, is the best mode of giving effect to the trusts, they may by the scheme make provision for the purpose, subject to such conditions, if any, as to payment or other matters "—
Not, as might be required by the order or by the Commission, as appeared to have been the original intention, but—
"As may be agreed to by the local education authority, and as the Commission think just."
That was to say, in the Bill the whole option was still left to the local education authority. The Commission had no power, as was intended to be given to them according to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, to make orders as against the local education authority. The Opposition said "Give us your original Bill. Give us those powers to the Commission to revise the decision of the local authority and to require them to take over a school where the requirement is reasonable." Personally, on the whole, he preferred the judicial authority of an impartial tribunal to any decision—which might vary with different Governments—of a Government Department. At the same time the proposal was the same as far as the power over the local authority was concerned. But the Government were, only putting back the Bill where it way at first. There was no concession in that. It was an afterthought to claim, as a return for a so-called concession, these extra powers over the owners of voluntary schools. The Government had been proved by their own showing to have

845
been inconsistent with their intentions. They had been inconsistent with their declarations at an earlier stage of the Bill, and they wore certainly inconsistent with their intentions. The Government made themselves consistent; they did what they promised to do, and then they asked for a reward! They on the Opposition side accepted their decision that they would be in this matter consistent, but they denied altogether their right to have something entirely new, which was never mentioned in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill, and which was clearly open to a great number of serious objections. It certainly involved an interference with private property which might be justified, but at all events some justification was necessary. The Government had to show that those who built those schools had placed themselves in a position in which it was necessary to interfere with them in this arbitrary way, and to prevent them dealing as they would otherwise wish to do with property which was undoubtedly theirs. While they might be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for conceding a right of appeal to the Education Department, he had shown no reason, as he thought, why he should couple that with a new demand. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the Committee should accept his statement as sufficient for the present, upon the promise that at a later stage he would do something in the nature of the paragraph which he read out. The Committee agreed that something ought to be done, and they would be very unwise if they accepted that offer. They ought not to leave the Committee stage without getting something inserted in the Bill. It would, of course, be open to reconsideration. He quite agreed with the Minister for Education that if an Amendment such as that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman were hastily introduced, it might, on further consideration, have to be again amended and improved. That was true, but let them establish the principle on the Committee stage, leaving the Report stage for the amending and improving. He hoped that some means would be found of obtaining, during the Committee stage, a full acceptance of the principle for which they had been contending.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he was anxious to address the
846
Committee upon the matter under discussion, but the spirit of his remarks would be entirely different from that of the speech just delivered. So far as the Irish Party were concerned—and they were vitally concerned in the consideration of this matter—they appreciated fully the spirit in which the Minister for Education had addressed himself to the point at issue, and they certainly accepted his speech as a concession. The right hon. Gentlemen the Member for West Birmingham had contended that in granting a right of appeal to both sides—for that was the promise—the Minister for Education had made no concession. But Clause 8 provided a right of appeal to only one side, the initiative being confined entirely to the local education authority. Further, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be of opinion that an appeal in all cases to the proposed judicial body would be better than to the Board of Education. He (Mr. Redmond) differed entirely from that view. In such matters as were under discussion, it would be far better to have a right of appeal to the Board of Education represented in Parliament by a Minister responsible to Parliament, and whose action would be open to criticism in this House. Yesterday he and his colleagues found themselves it a position of very great difficulty and embarrassment; they felt bound to vote in favour of an Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University, although that Amendment did not accurately represent their view. It went far beyond their view. They had never held that the local education authority should be subject to compulsion to accept the insanitary and dilapidated schools described by the hon. Member for North Camberwell.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: the hon. Member is misrepresenting the character of my Amendment, I said again and again that the Board of Education had ample power to secure that local authorities should not be required to accept insanitary schools, and that I trusted they would exercise that power to the full.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he was not attempting to quote the hon. Baronet's words; he readily admitted that his words were inconsistent with his

847
Amendment. But although the Amendment was wider than they desired, it was the only opportunity he and his friends had of making a protest. Their position in the matter was well known. They had been told that under Clauses 3 and 4 —especially Clause 4—there would be provisions which would really safeguard the interests of the schools with which they were particularly concerned. They had been anxiously waiting for the discussion of Clause 4 and for some indication as to how that clause would be altered and extended so as really to meet the case. Yesterday they had to face a new situation. They found themselves confronted with a provision in the Bill which, if carried as it stood, would make Clause 4 a sham and a delusion, and would prevent the carrying out of the promise of the Minister for Education that Clause 4 would not be illusory or a fraud. If Clause 2 were passed as it stood, Clause 4 would, in theory at any rate, be delusive and fraudulent, because it would be possible under the operation of Clause 2 for the local authority by simply wiping out the schools to prevent Clause 4 over coming into operation. A case was made out for some alteration in the clause, so that there should be at any rate a right of appeal from an unreasonable and pig-headed local authority, which desired to wipe out of existence an efficient, well-equipped, sanitary school, simply because it was a denominational school. Yesterday, unfortunately, they did not succeed in making an impression upon the Government. To-day, however, they had succeeded, and he desired to dissociate himself altogether from the statement made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that there had been no concession. He desired to acknowledge not only the spirit of conciliation of the Minister for Education, but the substance of the concession which he had made. the right hon. Gentleman had coupled a condition with that concession. He had said that the compulsion must not be one sided, that if there was to be compulsion as against the local authority there must be compulsion against the owners. He (Mr. Redmond) confessed he did not consider that much of a concession to ask from them, because there was undoubtedly compulsion on the owners at present under Clause 8 so far as trust schools were concerned, and with regard to privately owned schools there
848
was the compulsion of the liability to be starved out. He did not therefore consider the condition a very hard one, and he did not make any objection. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham had advised the Committee there and then to settle the words and put them into the Bill, but he differed altogether from that advice. He trusted the Minister for Education in the matter and had confidence in the pledge he had given. He was perfectly certain that nothing which happened in the discussion would induce him to modify or evade the pledge he had given. Farther than that, it was very risky for them to put there and then into the Bill an entirely new form of words which no one had seen in print. It would be far more reasonable for the Minister to bring up well considered words on the Report stage when they had had an opportunity of considering them. He confessed that until he saw exactly the form in which Clauses 3 and 4 would emerge from discussion in Committee he was not able to offer an opinion of any value whatever as to the proposal which had now been tentatively put before the Committee. It would be far better for them to get to the discussion of Clauses 3 and 4, and to see whether they could come to an arrangement which would enable those who represented Roman Catholic day schools to do what they were most anxious to do, which was not only to withdraw their opposition—and he thought everyone would admit that up to the present their opposition had been moderate and reasonable—but to support the Bill. That was all he had to say. His advice was exactly opposite to that of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. He advised the hon. and gallant Gentlemen to withdraw his Amendment and to rest satisfied with having obtained a considerable concession. He hoped that what had occurred that afternoon might be an omen of what would come in the future, and that this controversy which threatened them with such lamentable consequences, not only to the interests of education and religion but also to the future of politics and of political parties in the country, might be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and that they might be found able, as they were anxious, to join with the great body of Nonconformists in passing a measure which, while safeguarding the real

849
interests and religious rights of the minority they represented, would at the same time remove the injustice which had been inflicted upon Nonconformists.
MR. A. J. BALFOURdesired to put one or two questions in reference to the important and interesting statement of the Minister for Education. He did not know whether to interpret the speech of the Leader of the Irish Party as indicating that there was any understanding—[" No "] then it was merely the expression of a pious hope that in Clauses 3 and 4 the Government would make important concessions which would not only satisfy one section, at all events, of those interested in denominational education, but convert those opponents of the Bill into warm friends and supporters. For his part he could not but believe that any concession which really satisfied the desires of those interested in denominational education would be received with satisfaction by all who were anxious to keep alive the possibility, at all events, of something more than Cowper-temple teaching being given in the schools. As regarded the proposal of the Minister for Education, he understood that the intention was to bring forward a now clause. ["No."] That was what the right hon. Gentleman had stated—that, though naturally he did not pledge himself to the words, he did intend to bring forward a new clause roughly on the lines of the words he read out. But would that be consistent with the clause the Committee were now asked to pass as it stood? Not having the words before him, and being unable, therefore, to compare them with the wording of Clause 2, he was unable to give an opinion of any value on the point Would that be consistent with the clause he now asked the Committee to pass in its present shape? He had not seen the words, but certainly his impression was that, if the present clause were passed without modifications, it would hardly be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to bring in a separate clause of such a nature.
MR. BIRRELLsaid it would be an Amendment on Report, not in Committee.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman used another phrase; he said on Report or "elsewhere."
MR. BIREELL: I did not mean anything by that.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it would not have been a criminal action on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He now understood that the Government pledged themselves to bring in their proposal in this House on the Report stage, and probably in the form of a new clause.
MR. BIRRELL: As an Amendment to this clause.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered the relations between the promised Amendment and Clause 8 (power to obtain schemes with respect to voluntary school buildings hold under trust). He could not see where Clause 8 came in if the proposal held good.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that had been in his mind when he said he could not pledge himself in any way to the language. he had felt that Clause 8 was very much mixed up in it, and that the new proposal might have some effect on that clause. Clause 8 ought to be considered very carefully in connexion with this matter.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid no doubt the right hon. Gentleman was right, but he himself thought that Clause 8 would be profoundly modified—he should have said entirely dropped.
MR. BIRRELL: No.
MR. A. J. BALFOURhoped the Government would put them in full possession of their view before they came to discuss Clause 8.
MR. BIRRELLassented.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the grievance of which the hon. and gallant Member the mover of the Amendment complained was that it was left to the local authority to decide whether a school should be taken over, and that therefore there was no security that facilities for denominational education would be retained in every district as promised. But what had that got to do with the other half of the proposal of the Government, that

851
there should be a compulsory appropriation of all the voluntary schools, whether privately owned or under trust? The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had told them that perhaps the great majority of these schools were already under compulsion, and would be obliged to go to the local authority whether they liked it or not. But there were other schools which were not in that category; and he was unable to see why the Government should go further than the absolute substance of the Amendment now before them, whose object was to bring the Bill into conformity with the Government's promises. He failed to see why the carrying out of that admirable purpose should carry with it so controversial an addendum. It seemed to him a wholly illogical and impossible proposal, and he did not think it was one his friends would assent to without strenuous resistance. It had no connection, sentimental, logical, practical, or administrative, with the broad issue now before the Committee, which was that they should not, by leaving an undue latitude to the local authorities, enable them if they so willed to destroy all opportunities of denominational education in their area. That was an obvious grievance, and that he understood the Government desired to meet. Why then should they associate it with a wholly different and alien proposal which added a fresh element of controversy to the Bill?
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the Minister for Education had twice referred to a new clause. Had he made up his mind that the proposal of the Government would be in the form of a new clause? A great deal depended on that. Was the new clause to be introduced on the Committee stage?
MR. BIRRELL: It will be a new clause in the Bill.
MR. WYNDHAMasked whether they were to discuss the other portions of the Bill while still in the dark in regard to the terms of the new clause.
MR. BIRRELL: It will be on the Paper.
MR. WYNDHAM: You will put down the new clause in anticipation of the Report stage.
MR. BIRRELLwas understood to assent.
MAJOR SEELYsaid he regarded the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman as a real concession. He believed it was necessary in order to carry out the pledge which had been given, but it was nevertheless a concession. He entirely disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London who said this was an alien proposal. He entirely agreed that there should be a reciprocal obligation, and if his right hon. friend would tell the Committee that he would bring up on the Report stage words similar to those used, with the addition of words providing for a reciprocal obligation, he would be most happy to withdraw the Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?
MAJOR SEELYsaid he wished to give his right hon. friend an opportunity of stating what he had not yet done. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn? [Cries of "No."]
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he desired to say a few words not in any spirit hostile to the Government, and certainly not in any spirit hostile to the hon. Members representing Ireland. He desired to enter his caveat at the present moment against the assumption made on the other side that there had been some concession unconditionally given by the Minister for Education. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to suggest a sort of compromise as to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division. The right hon. Gentleman had employed a form of words which contained two sets of proposals. The so-called concession already seized upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London was conditional on the second part of the proposal of the Minister for Education, namely, that there should be an agreement to put compulsion on the owners of voluntary schools just as compulsion was being put on the other side. And that, as he understood, was not the view taken by him. He said, "We take

853
your concessions, but we won't give anything in return for them." Upon the merits of that matter, he reserved his own opinion; but he asked the Government to say that they would not concede what had been demanded of them without any concession being made by the other party. He entirely agreed with the very moderate, clear, and statesmanlike speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. They had been discussing Clauses 3 and 4 over and over again. These clauses contained what the Government proposed to be the provisions for the voluntary schools which were to be continued as denominational schools. When they came to Clause 4, he was quite willing that that clause should be made real. He did not mean by that that the clause should be made mandatory. He would not discuss that clause until the proper time came. But he desired before this Amendment was withdrawn to point out what the position actually was. The proposal in the Amendment really was, to put it in plain words, that the local educational authorities should be compelled to take over all sanitary and structurally efficient denominational schools and support them for ever. But, if not, what was the test to be? Was his right hon. friend the Minister for Education to ask himself whether there ought to be a strictly denominational school in that neighbourhood, or not? There were two classes of schools with which this Amendment dealt. Of course, they were all denominational schools. First of all, there were the schools in the single school areas. And secondly, there were the schools in localities where two kinds of schools existed and where those two kinds of schools might not be necessary. Did his right hon. friend propose that in a single school area, where a school was structurally fit, the local authority must maintain that school, although it was unnecessary, simply because it was of a denominational character? [OPPOSITION cries of "Yes."] That, of course, was What would please hon. Gentlemen opposite. But then they would revert to the state of things which now existed. what he said was, that it ought to be the intention of the Government that in single school areas no local education authority should be obliged to take over a school on the terms of this Bill at all. Did his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, as a Member of
854
the Government, propose that where there was only one school, and that a Church of England School, the local education authority should be bound to take over that school on five days of the week, but allowing the full control of the school for all other times to be in the hands of the denomination? As regarded the second class of schools, did the Government propose to say that where they had a small denominational school and where the locality was amply provided with schools otherwise, nevertheless because that denominational school was structurally fit, the local education authority should be bound to take over that denominational school and make arrangements to keep it in good repair for ever? If the Government had really made the concession which was stated by the Member for the City of London, then the Amendment of his hon. and gallant friend had placed the Government in a position of great difficulty, because they would never get a majority of the Committee behind them.
LORD R. CECILsaid he thought that the speech to which they had just listened was very illuminating. It showed what was the spirit of a certain number of Members in regard to this Bill. The hon. and learned Member asked, "Did the Government really mean that an efficient and properly constructed school in a single area was to be taken over compulsorily, and conducted under Clause 3?" The hon. and learned Member regarded that as a monstrous proposal. He confessed that it was really monstrous from the other point of view—that an hon. and learned Member should get up and tell the Committee that to compel the local authority to take over a school on Clause 3 conditions was a great outrage on those who were not members of the denomination by which the school was constructed. That was a revelation to some of them as to the position taken up by certain hon. Members. From what the Minister for Education had told the Committee he understood that Clause 3 was to be a compulsory clause; but it was quite true that some Members on that side of the House were filled with misgiving that the local education authorities would not take over the denominational schools, and would even build other schools. He was still more amazed at the hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude towards Clause 4.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he wanted to make it quite clear that he had stated that he would be quite out of order in discussing Clause 4.
LORD R. CECILsaid that the hon. and learned Member had stated that the Government would not have a majority in the Committee at their back if they proposed that the local education authorities should be compelled to take over those schools which were on the Clause 4 scale.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: No.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was glad to hear that from the hon. and learned Member. Perhaps his hearing was defective. He desired to say a word or two about the attitude of the Government and the concession which they proposed to offer. It had been said that the concession which the Government offered must be met by a concession from the other side; and there seemed to be an idea that the two dealt with the same class of points. But if looked at closely they were quite distinct—the one had nothing to do with the other. The object of compelling the local authorities to take over the schools was to give some security that the denominational teaching under the Bill would be effective. The object or compelling private owners to hand over their school had nothing to do with denominational teaching. He did not know why the Government desired to have nothing to do with denominational education. He knew that there were many private owners of denominational schools who would regard it as a very serious grievance if they were compelled to hand over their schools to the local education authority, and if the general frame of the Bill was to be maintained. He could well see that the proposal in the Bill would be regarded as a very serious breach of the fairness with which this House had always regarded the rights of property. He could only say that he associated himself with the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition in that he could not hold out the slightest hope to the Minister for Education that this clause would be accepted without the strongest opposition.
MR. LUPTONhoped the Amendment would be re-
856
jected. He was one of the moderate Members of the House who had done nothing but the humble and necessary work of voting for the Government Bill. Between 300 and 400 Members had with poor, dumb mouths voted for the Bill exactly as it stood. Now, what was the reward they got? It was that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of thanking these Members for keeping silence, was going to give their case away to those who made a row. It seemed to him, under the circumstances, that it was high time that those who supported the Government should make a row, and if they were to be thrown over he did not think the Government Bill would get through. His supporters in Lincolnshire would be glad the Bill did not get through if it was to be modified in the sense proposed. The proposal was that there should be compulsion, and that if the local authority, for good reasons or bad reasons, decided that it would not take over a particular school there should be a reference to the Board of Education. There might be 14,000 such references, and did the President of the Board of Education contemplate with joy and delight the prospect of 14,000 references being made to him. Some of his constituents had heard with delight that they would not be compelled to take over these old schools. They wanted to erect schools of their own. The effect of the Amendment was far reaching and would entirely prevent that. These schools would be forced upon them. The hon. Gentlemen who represented the Opposition were exceedingly desirous to have their schools confiscated. The Bill was a local option Bill, but it ceased to be that if the local education authority was to have its wishes over-ridden by a Department. The men on these local authorities were greatly respected and were of substance and experience, and the whole point of the Bill was that the decision should rest with these men. If the President of the Board of Education gave way on Clause 2, he would also have to give way on Clauses 3 and 4, and the Bill would be transformed. If, by the aid of hon. Members opposite the Bill, was run through the House like the Bill of 1870, it would destroy the Liberal Party, as that Bill did. He dared say hon. Gentlemen opposite viewed that contingency with great complacency.

857
But he hoped the Committee would reject this Amendment and all other Amendments of the same character. If they did that they would secure a consistent Bill.
*MR. F. E. SMITHsaid one observation made by the last speaker which evoked loud cheers from the Ministerialists, was that Members of the Opposition were anxious to have their schools confiscated. He could assure the hon. Member that they would much rather have them left in their present position, but if they were to be taken over, they would not assent to the closing of the only avenue which gave them facilities for denominational education. If the Government were determined to take the schools it was idle to taunt the owners because they insisted on such facilities being afforded. The speeches made by the hon. Member for Mid. Glamorgan and the Member for Sleaford indicated that there was great discontent with the concession made by the Government on the part of Ministerialists, because it deprived local authorities of the power of excluding those facilities under Clauses 3 and 4 which were the only means of preserving the denominational character of the schools. These speeches threw upon the intention of the framers and supporters of the Bill a light which was both lurid and novel. If the spirit underlying such observations were representative of the intentions of the Government in introducing the Bill, then the Bill might be entitled not "A Bill to make better provision for education," but a Bill to deprive voluntary schools not merely of the support from the rates they had received since 1902, but also of the support they had enjoyed from the grants since 1870. He doubted whether a single member of the Government told his constituents that they intended to do such a thing. As
to the proposal put forward by the Minister for Education, so far as the second was put forward as the necessary corollary of the first, he and a number of his friends would have nothing to do with it. They would accept the first with gratitude but would strongly oppose the second.
*MR. CAVEwished to raise a point as to procedure. The suggestion was made that upon Report a proposal should be made which would give effect to the concession of the Minister for Education If that were so, they would be kept for a long time in ignorance of the exact nature of the concession made, and they would be unable to discuss Clauses 3, 4 and 8 properly. The question of this proposal would always be cropping up. Could not the right hon. Gentleman undertake to bring forward his proposal, when next they considered the Bill, as an addendum to Clause 2? That would be quite easy. He would also be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would consider an Amendment which he had on the Paper on the same subject.
MR. BIRRELLsaid he would bring forward his proposal as quickly as he could. He could not say that he would do so before Clauses 3 and 4 were considered, but he would certainly produce it before Clause 8 was dealt with.
Question put.
MAJOR SEELYsaid he had expressed a desire to withdraw the Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: I put the question of withdrawal, and it was not accepted.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes, 330. (Division List No. 115.)

AYES

Acland-Hood.Rt.Hn.Sir AlexF

Bowles, G. Stewart

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Boyle. Sir Edward

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bull, Sir William James

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

Balcarres, Lord

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(City Lond.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim.S,

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Carlile, E. Hildred

Craig,Captain James (Down.E.

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Craik, Sir Henry

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Castlereagh, Viscount

Dalrymple. Viscount

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cave, George

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Doughty, Sir George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Du Cros, Harvey

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan

Lee,ArthurH. (Hants.,Fareham

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Faber, George Denison (York)

Liddell, Henry

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.

Lockwood, Rt. Hn.Lt.-Col. A. R.

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton)

Fell, Arthur

Long, Rt. hn. W. (Dublin, S.)

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

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Fletcher, J. S.

M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh. W

Starkey, John R.

Forster, Henry William

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Manson, James F. (Windsor)

Thornton, Percy M.

Gordon,Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Turnour, Viscount

Haddock, George R.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Valentia, Viscount

Hardy, Laurence (Kent,Ashford

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Morpeth, Viscount

Walrond, Non. Lionel

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Heaton, John Henniker

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'ds)

Nield, Herbert

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

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.

Percy, Earl

Younger, George

Hills, J. W.

Powell, Sir Fra cis Sharp

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Mr. Ashley.

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

Roberts.S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col.W.

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Brooke, Stopford

Dobson, Thomas W.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Duckworth. James

Adkins, W. Ryland

Brunner, Sir John T. (Chesh.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Agnew, George William

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

Alden, Percy

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Elibank, Master of

Armitage, R.

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Erskine, David C.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Essex, R. W.

Astbury, John Meir

Byles, William Pollard

Evans, Samuel T.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Cairns, Thomas

Everett, R. Lacey

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cameron, Robert

Faber, H. (Boston)

Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Fenwick, Charles

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Ferens, T. R.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Barker, John

Cawley, Frederick

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Barlow, John Emmott (Som'rs't

Channing, Francis Allston

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Tuller, John Michael F.

Barnard, E. B.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Fullerton, Hugh

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Furness, Sir Christopher

Beale, W. P.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Cleland, J. W.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Beck, A. Cecil

Clough, W.

Gill, A. H.

Bell, Richard

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Glover, Thomas

Belloo, Hilaire Joseph PeterR.

Collins, Sir W; J. (S. Pancras.W

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Benn, John Williams (Devonp'rt

Cooper, G. J.

Gooch, George Peabody

Bennett, E. N.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex,EGrins'td

Grant, Corrie

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Bertram, Julius

Cowan, W. H.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford

Crombie, John William

Griffith, Ellis J.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Crooks, William

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Billson, Alfred

Crosfield, A. H.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dalziel, James Henry

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff.)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Hart-Davies. T.

Brace, William

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Branch, James

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Brigg, John

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Bright, J. A.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

Brodie, H. C.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Henry, Charles S.

860

861

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morse, L. L.

Snowden, P.

Higham, John Sharp

Murray, James

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hobart, Sir Robert

Myer. Horatio

Soares, Ernest J.

Hodge, John

Napier, T. B.

Spicer, Albert

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nicholls, George

Stanger, H. Y.

Hooper, A. G.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncst'r

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Steadman, W. C.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Strachey, Sir Edward

Horniman, Emslie John

Nuttall, Harry

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Horridge. Thomas Gardner

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Snmmerbell, T.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Parker, James (Halifax)

Sutherland, J. E.

Hudson, Walter

Paul, Herbert

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk. Eye

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Jardine, Sir J.

Philipps. Col. Ivor (S'th'mpton)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Jenkins, J.

Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Jones, DavidBrynmor (Swansea

Pirie, Duncan V.

Thompson, J. W. H. (Soraerset,E

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pollard, Dr.

Thorne, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Tillett, Louis John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Tomkinson, James

Kekewich, Sir George

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Torrance, A. M.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford. E.

Toulmin, George

Kitson, Sir James

Radford, G. H.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Laidlaw, Robert

Rainy, A. Rolland

Ure, Alexander

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Raphael, Herbert H.

Verney, F. W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Lambert, George

Rees, J. D.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Lamont, Norman

Rendall, Athelstan

Wallace, Robert

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Renton, Major Leslie

Walsh, Stephen

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h

Walters, John Tudor

Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n

Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Richardson, A.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lehmann, R. C.

Rickett, J. Compton

Ward, W. Dudley (S'th'mpton

Lever,A.Levy (Essex, Harwich

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wardle, George J.

Lever, W. H (Cheshire, Wirral

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Levy, Maurice

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Waterlow, D. S.

Lough, Thomas

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lupton, Arnold

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Whitbread, Howard

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Robinson, S.

White, George (Norfolk)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robson, Sir Willia D Snowdon

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Roe, Sir Thomas

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Whitehead, Rowland

Maclean, Donald

Rose, Charles Day

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rowlands, J.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

M'Arthur, William

Runciman, Walter

Wiles, Thomas

M'Callum, John M.

Russell, T. W.

Wilkie, Alexander

M'Crae, George

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wills, Arthur Walters

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Scarisbank, T. T. L.

Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.

M'Micking, Major G.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Maddison, Frederick

Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Mallet, Charles E.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

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

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Sears, J. E.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

Seaverns, J. H.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Marks. G. Croydon (Launceston

Seddon, J.

Wood house, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Shackleton, David James

Yoxall, James Henry

Massie, J.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Mond, A.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Montgomery, H. H.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

MR. RAWLINSONsaid the object of the Amend-
862
ment he now proposed to move was very simple. This clause dealt with the

863
agreements to be entered into between the local education authority and the owners of the voluntary schools, and the Amendment simply stated the intention of those in charge of the Bill, namely, that the local education authority should not enter into an agreement solely on the ground that the school owners would not insist upon the facilities under Clauses 3 and 4. It was a perfectly simple Amendment, and one which he thought, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, and the speeches of other speakers on that side, the Government would have no difficulty in accepting. If those in charge of this Bill did not accept this Amendment, then Clauses 3 and 4 became a farce, because it would be seen that the Government did not propose to carry out the avowed intention of the Bill.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: Would the hon. Member read the Amendment?
MR. RAWLINSON:—
"In page 1, line 18, after the word 'manner' to insert the words, 'provided that the local education authority shall not refuse to enter into an agreement because the owners make it a condition that facilities for giving religious instruction of some special character shall be afforded in accordance with the provisions of this Act.'"
MR. SAMUEL EVANS, on a point of order, contended that the Amendment was not in order because the Committee had already decided to retain the word "may" in place of "shall" and this Amendment provided that the local education authority "shall not refuse."
MR. RAWLINSONsaid the Chairman of Committees had already ruled that the Amendment was in order, and therefore he should submit it.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIEMAN (MR. CALDWELL,)said the Amendment was no doubt in order, because, although the earlier portion of the clause was optional, the second portion was mandatory.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that having regard to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill there could be no objection to this Amendment,
864
because his expressed intention had been that, assuming a school to be in a good state of repair, and one which in every way it was proper should be taken over, the local education authority should take it over. All the Amendment amounted to was that the local education authority should not refuse to take it over simply on the ground that the owner was insisting on denominational teaching being taught. If Clauses 3 and 4 were a reality and not a sham he felt convinced that the Government upon consideration would accept the Amendment, but he would admit at once that the hon. and learned Member for Mid. Glamorganshire in his very able speech had given the Committee an insight which they had not before Certainly the hon. and learned Gentleman said, or gave one the impression that ho possibly meant Clauses 3 and 4 not to be a reality. Very possibly he gave a wrong impression. If so, the hon. and learned Gentleman would support this Amendment. If, on the other hand, the conclusion they came to was correct, then it was only right that this Amendment should be before the Committee, and they should learn definitely whether, in the case of a school being tit to be taken over, it was the intention of the Committee that the local education authority should then say, "Though in every way your school is desirable, and we shall take it over provided you do not insist upon the facilities under Clauses 3 and 4, if you do insist upon those facilities we will not take it at any price." As the hon. Member for Perth said yesterday, if they meant to stamp out denominational schools let them say so at once, but if, on the other hand, they really meant what had been said time after time in this debate, to give a fair and proper chance to utilise the facilities under Clauses 3 and 4, surely the Government would accept this Amendment, which would amount to a direction to the local education authority that they should not refuse to take over the schools which were otherwise fit simply because the owner wished to avail himself of the facilities mentioned. It was a very small concession to owners of schools, if a concession at all. Such owners had considerable difficulties under this clause, as it was, in coming to an agreement.. Even if the Amendment were carried, it was conceivable that excuses might be made

865
for not taking over schools. The hon. and learned Member for Mid. Glamorganshire had said it would be a monstrous thing if a local education authority in a single school area were to take over a voluntary school and be tied with the facilities under Clauses 3 and 4. If so skilful and distinguished a lawyer allowed the feline animal out of the bag to that extent, surely they might take it that members of local education authorities would treat the matter in a very curt way, and openly refuse to take the school-house because it would give denominational teaching to which the objected. The least they could do in this Committee was to show that where other things were satisfactory the local education authority ought not to decline to take over a school simply because the owner insisted on facilities being given which this Bill provided.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 18, after the word 'manner' to insert the words 'Provided that the local education authority shall not refuse to enter into any agreement because the owners make it a condition that facilities for giving religious instruction of some special character shall be afforded in accordance with the provisions of this Act.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. LOUGHhoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press this Amendment. He thought that after the concession which the Government had made such an Amendment would not have been brought before the Committee. The Government had gone a long way to meet the objections of the hon. Gentleman. He could only think that the Amendment was recommended to the Committee on the ground that it would improve the drafting of the Bill, but the Government could not allow the Bill to be drafted on the other side of the House. The material point which he believed the hon. and learned Member desired was fully covered. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the opening line of Clause 3 he would see that it provided for these special facilities being granted. Clauses 3 and 4 would be meaningless if it were not intended that the granting of facilities might be one of the conditions of taking over schools. If this particular proviso were inserted, others would be
866
required, and it was a little difficult to consider fully the effects of an Amendment of this kind which did not appear on the Paper. The Bill was better drafted in its present shape than would be the case if they carried an Amendment which was suddenly moved without even being put on the Paper.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he thought the answer of the hon. Gentleman was an entirely inadequate one. He would be able to show the Committee that the Bill, at all events, so far as the drafting was concerned, was faulty in the matter of allowing arrangements to be made for obtaining facilities, such as they were, as provided by Clause 3 of the Bill, and he believed, before he had done, the hopes of those who thought that denominational teaching was going to be preserved would be even further removed. He would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether any power was given in the Bill to the local authorities to make arrangements with the owners for the giving of religious education in the school. He could find it nowhere. Arrangements might be made between the local education authority and the owners, but this arrangement must not be inconsistent with the fact that the school was a provided school. They were therefore driven back to this, that the only arrangement that could be made was an arrangement that the old Cowper-Temple Clause was to be applicable to the new schools. That was the only religious arrangement that could be made in any provided school by law so far as he knew. The hon. and learned Member for Mid. Glamorganshire had referred to Clause 3, and said that the arrangement was certain to happen, but if they could not under the previous clause make the providing of facilities a condition of arrangement, how could it ever happen? He knew his hon. friend would say that they ought to imply things. They wanted it, however, to be expressed.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: Clause 3 says they shall have facilities.
SIR E. CARSONsaid his point was that there was nothing in the Bill allowing it to be made a condition. The hon. Member was, he thought, under the

867
impression that the words "any arrangements they think fit by agreement with the owners" covered religious arrangements, but he had pointed out that that could not be so because they would be inconsistent with the school's being a provided school. If the words "any arrangements" included any arrangements with regard to religious instruction, then they would be allowed to make any arrangements they thought fit. He defied anyone to find out what it was that was intended, or any provision whatever for giving power to the local authority and the owners to make arrangements regarding religious instruction. He now came more directly to this particular Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Mid-Glamorganshire was, at all events, candid; he contemplated that in the case of a single school area it would be a monstrous thing for a local education authority to allow any denominational education in it at all.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he did not say that. What he said was that it would be a monstrous thing to compel the local education authority to take over the school.
SIR E. CARSONsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman therefore contemplated that the local education authority of the one school area would not take over any school in which denominational education was to exist. But the hon. and learned Gentleman went on to the area where there might be two or three schools. What did he contemplate there? That the local education authority might be bound to ask what was the good of keeping up one denominational school when they had two undenominational schools, and therefore they would put an end to the denominational school. That meant that the hon. and learned Gentleman contemplated that they were going to put an end to denominational education altogether.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: Except so far as it applies to Clause 4.
SIR E. CARSONsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to forget that Clause 4 did not come into play until the education authority had elected to take over the school. The hon. and learned Gentleman had mentioned Clause 4 with a
868
view of showing, he presumed, his great fairness towards the Irish Party and the Catholic population. The hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt, like many others, saw that it might be prudent to give a preference to Catholics which they denied to Protestants of a different denomination from themselves. Having regard to that speech the importance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge University became apparent. The Amendment was simply that if the local education authority took over a denominational school pressure ought not to be allowed to be put upon the owner by saying that they would not permit the provision that religion of a particular denomination was to be taught in the school. Was that fair in the case of a school that was a fit school in every respect to be taken over? They were dealing herewith trusts, and this section was putting an end to those trusts. He should have thought, at least, that care would have been taken to see that the terms of the trust were inserted, and he did not doubt that an Amendment would be brought forward to enable the owners of the school to insist that those educational trusts should be carried out. But the Government went to the other extreme, and compelled the trustee absolutely to abandon the trust imposed upon him, failing which an end would be put altogether to the school as a rational school. His hon. friend's Amendment was absolutely necessary, and without such an amendment the local education authority would be enabled to hold such a lever as would put upon a man absolutely unfair terms in his endeavour to carry out a trust. The Committee were entitled to some further answer than they had so far received. No concession whatever had been made, and even if there had been it was no reason why they should not compel the local authority to give the facilities which were laid down by the Government themselves in Clauses 3 and 4.
*MR. EVELYN CECILsaid the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had refused to accept the Amendment partly on the ground that a concession had been made already, partly on the ground that it merely concerned drafting, and partly on the ground that the matter was covered by Clause 3. As to the concession having been made,

869
they very much doubted it; but whether it was a concession or not it was no ground for refusing to accept an Amendment which was in itself wise and just. As regarded drafting, it was a most astonishing argument to bring forward that because an Amendment was a more; drafting Amendment it could not be accepted. It was the commonest thing that if an Amendment were a more drafting Amendment it should be accepted without further discussion. Perhaps they came to the substance of the hon. Gentleman's opposition when he told them that the whole object of the Amendment: was really contained in Clause 3. He might remind the Committee what this Amendment really did. It proposed that, assuming the schools were sanitary, the local education authority should not refuse to enter into an agreement with owners who wished to make it a condition that special religious facilities should be given. The whole thing turned upon whether the local education authority was willing to make arrangements for the affording of facilities of this character. Supposing it refused to make a condition of this sort, where would the owners of the school-house be? This Amendment wanted to make it perfectly clear that the local education authority was not to be allowed to refuse to make an arrangement with the owners merely on the ground that the local education authority objected to special facilities. Clause 3 allowed these special facilities to be given if the local education authority chose to grant them. The Amendment desired to prevent there being any choice in the matter, and to compel the local authority to make arrangements if the only ground for their refusal was that they did not like these special facilities. The hon. Member opposite, who seemed to have some doubt as to the need of putting this provision in the Bill, showed a very child-like faith in local education authorities. He seemed to suppose that if it were said in debate in this House that it was their intention that such facilities were not to be unreasonably withheld, then under no circumstances would the local education authority unreasonably withhold them. He was afraid he had no such child-like faith in local authorities. He thought in many cases they would withhold facilities. Some members of local authorities had already made it perfectly clear in frank
870
statements that they were disposed to take advantage of the position in order to withhold special facilities and to refuse to make any arrangements with the owners of the school-house. If the object of what was called the concession by the Government was to prevent local education authorities from exercising any unjust: option of that kind then the Government should all the more readily accept this. Amendment, so as to make it perfectly plain what the position and intention of the clause really was.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary was hopelessly inadequate. The Government seemed to labour under a fundamental misconception of the position. They always argued as if Clause 3 created rights. Such rights as were contemplated by Clause 3 were not created by this statute. The Parliamentary Secretary had made two answers to the Amendment. One was that it was adequately dealt with by the concession the Government had made, and the other that it was adequately dealt with by Clause 3. The hon. Gentleman forgot that they could not all take the same view of the concession as he did. That concession had been made a ground for demanding a kind of compensation which had no relation to the matter at all. It was no use saying that the local authority could be trusted to negotiate such contracts in a reasonable manner. Laws were not made for reasonable persons. They were made to restrain and coerce unreasonable persons; if there were no unreasonable persons laws would probably not be required at all. The Amendment asked? that the question whether there should or should not be facilities granted by the local authority should be open and should, remain open from the beginning of the negotiations, and that it should not be open to a local authority to nullify the intention of Parliament.
MR. WYNDHAMasked whether the Committee might accept the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary as meaning that the concession which had been promised by the Minister for Education would cover the case contemplated in this Amendment. The promise was given in respect of a hypothetical position, namely, that a local authority could

871
give the go-by to the owners of a voluntary school and proceed to build a school of its own. Would the owners of a voluntary school in such a case have the right of appeal?
*MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he had not heard a reply to the arguments advanced in support of the Amendment. He thought the Parliamentary Secretary had not contemplated what might occur if the Government did not accept the Amendment. After the speech of the hon. Member for Mid - Glamorganshire they were bound to face what was a very disagreeable prospect for the future. The hon. Member had said he thought it would be a monstrous thing if local authorities wore not allowed to discontinue certain voluntary schools in a one school area. He also said that the only concession he would give would be under Clause 4, which would entirely cut out all voluntary schools in the rural districts. They had to consider the case of a school which was perfectly efficient, and about which the local authority refused to come to an agreement. What was to be done in a case like that if the Government were not going to put in this Amendment? It meant that the children in those schools would be cut out from the facilities which the Government had announced they intended them to receive. If the Government refused the Amendment, was it or was it not their intention that the children now being educated in the voluntary schools should have a certainty of the facilities for religious teaching in the future under the Bill? If they refused the Amendment there was no certainty of that; in fact there was a great probability that a great many would not have the facilities.
*MR. HERBERTthought the hon. Member for Cambridge University would find that there was a good deal more sympathy with the substance of his Amendment among hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House than he seemed to imagine. It seemed to him, however, that the Amendment was entirely unnecessary, because the point would be covered by the words which the President of the Board of Education proposed to introduce. What he understood
872
was that when a local education authority was found to be, using the right hon. Gentleman's word, "pigheaded," there should be an appeal to the Board of Education, and that there should be a local inquiry in such cases. Where an existing denominational school was in every respect efficient, and was required by the educational circumstances of the district, he was not prepared to allow a local authority to refuse to take it over merely because it was a denominational school. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side should understand also that there would be reciprocity in this matter. There should be no obligation on a local authority to take over a school unless it was really required in the interests of educational efficiency and economy. He did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Mid-Glamorganshire to say that he thought it was a monstrous thing that where there was an efficient provided school and a small non-provided school it should be obligatory on the local authority to take over the small school if it was required in the interests of economy and educational efficiency. What he did understand him to mean was that it would be monstrous if the local authority was bound to take over a school whore they could make a better bargain for the public by not taking it over. He understood that the Commissioner appointed to hold the local inquiry would ascertain the facts, and that the Board of Education would finally determine whether the school was required to be taken over, having regard to economy and educational efficiency in the district. He thought the Committee should give the Minister for Education the guidance for which he had asked to determine his action in the matter, and that he should be directed that his decision should be given without reference to denominational considerations, but solely on grounds of educational efficiency. He hoped a local authority would not be forced to take over a denominational school, simply because it was denominational, when it was really not required in the interest of the community. They ought to look upon this question not as members of this or that denomination but as citizens who had in view as their primary object the efficiency of the educational system, not neglecting, of course, the question of

873
fairness or unfairness between the different, denominations. He would support the Amendment if he was not clearly of opinion that what was desired would he covered by the words to be introduced by the Minister for Education.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he certainly hoped the Committee might have some further guidance on this matter from the Minister for Education. The right hon. Gentleman was not in his place when the Parliamentary Secretary spoke. The hon. Gentleman made an amiable and pleasing contribution to the debate, but he did not make clear the very things they desired to have made clear; he criticised the proposal as a drafting Amendment, and asked with indignation in his voice whether it was customary for Governments to accept drafting Amendments of the kind proposed. He himself had accepted many drafting Amendments, although he did not say that they always improved the Bills in which they were made. Probably the Parliamentary Secretary himself when in Opposition had proposed drafting Amendments which he had had the honour to accept. But this was not a drafting Amendment. If it were a drafting Amendment the amount of interest in it would be small, and the amount of time spent upon it might be still smaller, but the hon. Member for the Wycombe Division in his contribution to the debate had shown that it was really a most important point. The intentions of the Government, as he understood them, were in direct opposition to the views of the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan, who said that the Bill would be wholly unacceptable if it deprived the local authorities of an option in regard to providing facilities for denominational education. That was the view the hon. Member had laid down clearly, and he had received a large measure of adhesion from the hon. Members who sat behind him. But it was not the Government view, as he understood it, and it certainly was not the view of the hon. Member who had just spoken, for he had clearly said that he did not want to allow local option in the matter of concessions connected with denominational religion. The Government took the same view. The Government, partly by the concession made that afternoon, and partly by speeches made before, had laid it down clearly
874
that the subject was not to be left entirely to the locality. Did the concession of the Government that afternoon render the Amendment of his hon. friend unnecessary? If the concession rendered the Amendment unnecessary he would deprecate any further continuation of the debate, because the Committee had already discussed the subject, and he was not anxious to go over the same ground twice. But he did not think that the concession of the Government covered the Amendment of his hon. friend. The questions dealt with by the Bill were far more important since the concession was made by the Government He thought the right hon. Gentleman had used rather excessive language in regard to this subject, although he agreed with him that the responsibility thrown upon himself and his successor might be of a very onerous character. As he listened to the right hon. Gentleman he thought that there was nothing in the Minister's words, and that there would be nothing in the Bill if it became law, even with the additions promised by the Government, to make clear to both the local authority and the Board of Education to whom appeals were to come, that it was not to be a case of hindering an arrangement between the two parties as to what denominational education was to be given in the schools to be handed over. His hon. friend's Amendment would make it perfectly clear that that was not to be a bar to a bargain. If these words were inserted it would be a complete defeat of the party of local option; if they were refused he wanted to know why they were refused by a Government which professed to be opposed to the party of local option. The Government said in the first place, that they desired that these religious facilities should be given; and, in the second place, that the Minister of Education ought to be safeguarded and guided by Parliament. Both these conditions were carried out by the Amendment of his hon. friend, and he was unable to see what were the objections to the admission of the words. Clause 3 had no reference to this question direct or indirect, immediate or remote. It was a question antecedent to Clause 3.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that his objection to the Amendment was that it was practically worthless. His acquaintance with local authorities was not great—he

875
wished it had been less— but it was much greater than that of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon. Members imagined that a, local authority which had a mind to refuse to take over a voluntary school would put in the forefront what their real reason was. That was not the way people went to work in these matters. They would give other reasons than those which had been mentioned in support of their objection to take over the school. They would never boldly assert that the reason why they did not take over the schools was that if they did they would allow the Catechism to be taught and the Prayer-book expounded twice a week. They would find some reason in the drainage or in the accommodation for cloaks, or in the inadequacy of the class rooms. Some of the reasons perhaps would be very difficult to dispose of if the Board of Education were to send one of its architects or inspectors to survey the premises to ascertain whether they were such buildings as the local authority required and should be taken over. The words proposed to "be introduced by his hon. friend were of no value whatever.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he felt very deeply on the subject, and would like to say a word or two in reply to the President of the Board of Education, who had told the Committee that there were certain people about the country who would not do these things.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that what he had stated was that if they were so minded to do such unjust acts they would not be so foolish as not to conceal their object.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that there was a different class of persons altogether left out of account in the calculations of the right hon. Gentleman. He was not dealing with political antagonists, who might or might not put forward some dishonest reason for doing a certain act. He was dealing with many religious people whom he knew, not only Nonconformists, who felt very deeply on this matter. If they were called upon to take over Roman Catholic schools, for instance, they would view the obligation as a great and intolerable burden on their conscience to apply the money of the ratepayers for the support of such chools. Since the Bill had been before
876
the House he had had communication with really religious Nonconformists who had told him that Clause 4 was an intolerable burden on their conscience. Such people, when the matter came before the education authority, he assumed would act honestly, and not say that they were disinclined to take over the Roman Catholic schools because the drains were wrong and the cloak rooms insufficient. People of this sort would say that they ought not to take part in taking over a school for teaching Roman Catholicism in this country. He had the greatest respect for that type of man, but when people of that sort found that it was within their power to refuse to take over a school, he thought that they might be influenced in that way. Therefore, although the greater number of educational authorities would, no doubt, act straightforwardly and honestly, there remained this danger in certain eases. That being so, it would be of advantage to have in the Bill a provision laying it down that local authorities were bound to take over a school if they found that it was fit to be taken over, and must not allow religious differences to enter into the matter. He thought the Act of Parliament should say that they would be acting contrary to their duty and rights if they were to carry it out in that particular way. Besides that, he submitted that this Amendment would not be covered by the proposed Amendment which the President of the Board of Education was to bring forward. If this Amendment were accepted, the Bill would contain an instruction to the local authority that they should not refuse to enter into any agreement because the owners made it a condition of an agreement that facilities for giving religious instruction should be accorded, in accordance with the facility clauses. Not only that, it would be also an instruction to the Board of Education in case of an appeal. The right hon. Gentleman himself had told them that, in his duties as President of the Board of Education, it would be of the greatest possible assistance to him to have a direction from Parliament. He therefore asked the Committee to give that direction, especially as the Minister in charge of the Bill had admitted that the Amendment only carried out the intention of the Government. Although no doubt there were a large number of people

877
who were opposed to that intention, he asked the Committee to accept the Amendment so that there should be an instruction to the local education authority and the Board of Education, acting upon which they would carry out the intentions of members of the Government.
LORD BALCAREESsaid the right hon. Gentleman had opposed this Amendment on different grounds from those advanced by his colleague. He did not wish to refer to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, which that hon. Gentlemen might upon reflection regret, but in regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he was quite sure that the local education authorities, with whom he said he had himself come into conflict, when they desired to defy the law would desire to say why they did so. The Parliamentary Secretary had objected to this Amendment on the ground that it was superfluous and redundant, but the right hon. Gentleman had said that he agreed with the Amendment in substance, and that it was already in the Bill That was a point of great importance, in regard to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee to what had been said by members of the Government. The President of the Board of Education had said more than once that the facilities under Clause 3 were compulsory, and the Chancellor of the Duchy also had said so when he said that these powers were not subject to the control of the local education authority, tout that parents would be entitled to have their children given this religious teaching. The President of the Board of Education himself put the matter still more clearly when he said that it was plain that, if the trustees of a school made the stipulation in regard to transfer, that there should be these facilities given, the obligation became statutory. They were in direct issue with the Government on that point, because they on the Opposition side of the House said that under Clauses 3 and 4 the facilities were not mandatory. The whole of Clause 3 was governed by the first word" If." It was laid down there that "if" an arrangement had been come to for affording facilities, those facilities should be given. There was nothing in
878
the clause, however, binding the local authorities to accept an arrangement in regard to facilities as a condition of transfer. The right hon. Gentleman said that owners or trustees could make this stipulation before transfer, but if they did so and the local education authority did not wish to afford the facilities it need not come to an agreement, and the managers must in that case consent to be excluded from the Bill or to come under the Bill and receive no facilities. Under Clause 8, moveover, there was no provision which gave the Commission of three power to enforce facilities. Therefore he thought that it was most necessary that they should have some Amendment of this kind. The minatory speeches which had been made on the other side seemed to indicate that in the opinion of hon. Gentleman the best thing the local education authorities could do would be to refuse to take over as many elementary schools as possible. The hon. Member for Mid Glamorganshire, who had spoken in this manner, no doubt represented a great deal of public opinion, and they had to take into account speeches of the kind which he and the hon. Member for Lincolnshire had made. He was quite convinced that unless Clause 3 was made mandatory, that was to say, unless it was made what the Government had repeatedly stated it was intended to be, there was great danger that in thousands and thousands of these schools all facilities for religious education would be refused. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education agreed that those facilities if they were not compulsory ought to be made so. He had told them that these facilities had been inserted in order to escape the harshness of Clause 1, but after the discussion they had had that afternoon he should say, not the harshness, but the inconveniences of Clause 1. That being the case, he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not insert a provision to make it absolutely certain that these facilities should be compulsory. They on the Opposition side of the House attached incalculable importance to such a provision, and therefore his hon. friend had asked that, at the outset of Clause 2, they should put in a direction to the local education authorities, which was really only a drafting Amendment, because the

879
right hon. Gentleman himself had said that he agreed with it in substance.
MR. BIRRELLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided :—Ayes, 333; Noes, 142. (Division List No. 116.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Harwood, George

Agnew, George William

Clarke, C. Goddard

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cleland, J. W.

Haslam, Lewis (Monnmouth)

Alden, Percy

Clough, W.

Helme, Norval Watson

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen. W.)

Armitage, R.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras W

Henry, Charles S.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Higham, John Sharp

Astbury, John Meir

Cowan, W. H.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Atherley-Jones, L.

Cremer, William Randal

Hodge, John

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Crombie, John William

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.

Crooks, William

Holland, Sir William Henry

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Hooper, A. G.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset,N

Barker, John

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Horniman, Emslie John

Barlow, John Emmott (S'm'rs't

Davies, W. Ho well (Bristol, S.)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Barnes, G. N.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Hudson, Walter

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Beale, W. P.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hyde, Clarendon

Beauchamp, E.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Duckworth, James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Beck, A. Cecil

Duncan, C. (Banow-in-Furness

Jardine, Sir J.

Bell, Richard

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Jenkins, J.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Benn, John Williams (Devonp't

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Benn, W. (Tow'rH'ml'ts, S. Geo.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Bennett, E. N.

Elibank, Master of

Jones. Leif (Appleby)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Bertram, Julius

Erskine, David C.

Jowett. F. W.

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romfoid

Essex, R. W.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Evans, Samuel T.

Kekewich, Sir George

Billson, Alfred

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Everett, R. Lacey

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Kitson, Sir James

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.

Fenwick, Charles

Laidlaw, Robert

Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire. N. E.

Ferens, T. R.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Brace, William

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lambert, George

Branch, James

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lamont, Norman

Brigg, John

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Bright, J. A.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lavland-Barratt, Francis

Brodie, H. C.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lea, HughC'ecil (St. Pancras, E.

Brooke, Stopford

Gardner,.Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

Lehmann, R. C.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh

Gill, A. H.

Lever, A. Lev v(Essex.Harwich)

Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirra)

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs

Glover, Thomas

Levy, Maurice

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lewis, John Herbert

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Grant, Corrie

Lough, Thomas

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lupton, Arnold

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lynch, H. B.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Griffith, Ellis J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Cairns, Thomas

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghsr

Cameron, Robert

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Maclean, Donald

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Causton, Rt. HnRichard Knight

Hardie, J. Keir (Merth'rTydvil

Macpherson, J. T.

Cawley, Frederick

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Arthur, William

Chance, Frederick William

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r

M'Callum, John M.

Channing, Francis Allston

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

M'Crae, George

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hart-Davies, T.

M'Kenna, Reginald

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Bidsdale, E. A.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

M'Micking, Major G.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

Maddison, Frederick

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thorne, William

Mallet, Charles E.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Tillett, Louis Join.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Tomkinson, James

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Torrance, A. M.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Robinson, S.

Toulmin, George

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Massie, J.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Ure, Alexander

Masterman, C. F. G.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Verney, F. W.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Rowlands, J.

Villiers Ernest Amherst

Mond, A.

Runciman, Walter

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Montgomery, H. M.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Wallace, Robert

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Walsh, Stephen

Morrell, Philip

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Walters, John Tudor

Murray, James

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Myer, Horatio

Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Napier, T. B.

Sears, J. E.

Wardle, George J.

Nicholls, George

Seaverns, J. H.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Nicholson, CharlesN. (Doncast'r

Seddon, J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Norman, Henry

Seely, Major J. B.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Shackleton, David James

Waterlow, D. S.

Nuttall, Harry

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.

Whitbread, Howard

O'Grady, J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Paul, Herbert

Simon, John Allsebrook

Whitehead, Rowland

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'uthampton

Snowden, P.

Wiles, Thomas

Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wilkie, Alexander

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Soares, Ernest J.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Spicer, Albert

Williams, W, L. (Carmarthen)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Stanger, H. Y.

Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn

Pollard, Dr.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Steadman, W. C.

Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Radford, G. H.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

Rainy, A. Holland

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Panrcas, S.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Sutherland, J. E.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rees, J. D.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Woodhouse. SirJ. T. (Huddersf'd

Rendall, Athelstan

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Yoxall, James Henry

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhamptn

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Richardson, A.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Rickett, J. Compton

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Dillon, John

Ambrose, Robert

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Dixon - Hartland, SirFred Dixon.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Donelan, Capt. A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Doughty, Sir George

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Burke, E. Haviland-

Douglas Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Arnold-Forste,Rt. Hn.HughO

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Du Cros, Harvey

Ashley, W. W.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Faber, George Denison (York)]

Balcarres, Lord

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fardell, Sir T. George

Balfour, Rt.Hn.A. J. (CityLond.

Cave, George

Fell, Arthur

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Cavendish. Rt.Hon. VictorC. W.

Ffrench, Peter

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Field, William

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Fletcher, J. S.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

Flynn, James Christopher

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Forster, Henry William

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Craig, Charles Curris (Antrim,S.

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Blake, Edward

Craik, Sir Henry

Haddock, George R.

Boland, John

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hammond, John

Bowles, G. Stewart

Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

882

883

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Hazleton, Richard

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Remnant, James Farquharson

Hervey, F. W. F. (BuryS. Edm'ds

M'Killop, W.

Roberts, S. (Slieffield, Ecclesall)

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Hills, J.W.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Hogan, Michael

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Mooney, J. J.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Joyce, Michael

Morpeth, Viscount

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Murphy, John

Starkey, John R.

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hon.Col.W.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Sullivan, Donal

Keswick, William

Nolan, Joseph

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

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thornton, Percy M.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Lee, ArthurH.(Hants., Fareham

O'Hare, Patrick

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.).

Liddell, Henry

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. -Col. A. R

O'Malley. William

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

Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Younger, George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pease, HerbertPike (Darlington

Lundon, W.

Percy, Earl

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Power, Patrick Joseph

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:— Ayes, 104; Noes, 326. (Division List No. 117.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood. Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F

Du Cros, Harvey

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morpeth, Viscount

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fardell, Sir T. George

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson. Wm. G. (Petersfield

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Ashley, W. W.

Fletcher, J. S.

Pease. Herbert Pike (Darlington

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Percy, Earl

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Glover, Thomas

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

Haddock, George R.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Samuel. S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury S. Edm'ds

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staffsh.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hills, J. W.

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

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Starkey, John R.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.

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

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hon. Col.W.

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark

Carlile, E. Hildred

Keswick, William

Thornton, Percy M.

Castlereagh, Viscount

King, Sir HenrySeymour(Hull)

Valentia, Viscount

Cave, George

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Cavendish, Rt.Hon. VictorC.W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

Walsh, Stephen

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Liddell, Henry

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

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

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glagsow)

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

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

Craik, Sir Henry

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Younger, George

Dairymple, Viscount:

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Dixon-Hartland, SirFred. Dixon

Magnus, Sir Philip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Salter.

Doughty, Sir George

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinat'd

Horniman, Emslie John

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Agnew, George William

Cowan, W. H.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cremer, William Randal

Hudson, Walter

Alden, Percy

Crombie, John William

Hyde, Clarendon

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Crooks, William

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Armitage, R.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jardine, Sir J.

Armstrong, W. C Heaton

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jenkins, J.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Astbury, John Meir

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Atherley-Jones,, L.

Dewar, John A. (Invorness-sh.)

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Duckworth, James

Kekewich, Sir George

Barker, John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Barlow, JohnEmmott (Somerset

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Dunne, MajorE. Martin (Walsall

Kitson, Sir James

Barnes, G. N.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Laidlaw, Robert

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Beale, W. P.

Elibank, Master of

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Beauchamp, E.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lambert, George

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Erskine, David C.

Lamont, Norman

Beck, A. Cecil

Essex, R. W.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Bell, Richard

Evans, Samuel T.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Bellairs, Carlyon

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Benn, John Williams (Devonp't

Everett, R. Lacey

Leese, SirJosephF. (Accrington)

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lehmann, R. C.

Bennett, E. N.

Fenwick, Charles

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Ferens, T. R.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Bertram, Julius

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Levy, Maurice

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lewis, John Herbert

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lough, Thomas

Billson, Alfred

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lupton, Arnold

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Fullerton, Hugh

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lynch, H. B.

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs;

Brace, William

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. HerbertJoh

Maclean, Donald

Bramsdon, T. A.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Branch, James

Grant, Corrie

M'Arthur, William

Brigg, John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Callum, John M.

Bright, J. A.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Crae, George

Brodie, H. C.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Kenna, Reginald

Brooke, Stopford

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Brunner, Sir JohnT. (Cheshire)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Micking, Major G.

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Maddison, Frederick

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Mallet, Charles E.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hart-Davies, T.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Harvey, A. G. O. (Rochdale)

Massie, J.

Cairns, Thomas

Harwood, George

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cameron, Robert

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Mond, A.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Helme, Norval Watson

Montgomery, H. H.

Cawley, Frederick

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Chance, Frederick William

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Morrell, Philip

Channing, Francis Allston

Henry, Charles S.

Murray, James

Cheetham, John Frederick

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Myer, Horatio

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Higham, John Sharp

Napier, T. B.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nicholls, George

Clarke, C. Goddard

Hodge, John

Nicholson, CharlesN. (Doncaster

Cleland, J. W.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Norman, Henry

Clough, W.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Norton, Capt, Cecil William

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hooper, A. G.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Nuttall, Harry

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

O'Donnell, C. (Walworth)

886

887

Parker, James (Halifax)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Paul, Herbert

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Ure, Alexander

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

Verney, F. W.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Sears, J. E.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Seaverns, J. H.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

Seely, Major J. B.

Wallace, Robert

Phillips, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Shackleton, David James

Waters, John Tudor

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Pollard, Dr.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wardle, George J.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Radford, G. H.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Waterlow, D. S.

Rainy, A. Holland

Snowdon, P.

Wedgwood. Josiah C.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Whitbread, Howard

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Soares, Ernest J.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Rees, J. D.

Spicer, Albert

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Rendall, Athelstan

Stanger, H. Y.

Whitehead, Rowland

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Richards, F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Steadman, W. C.

Wlittaker, Thomas Palmer

Richardson, A.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wiles, Thomas

Rickett, J. Compton

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilkie, Alexander

Ridsdale, E. A.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Williams, ff. L. (Carmarthen)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Summerbell, T.

Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Sutherland, J. E.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradford

Tavlor, John W. (Durham)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Robinson, S.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Woodhouse. Sir J T (Hudd'rsf'd

Rose, Charles Day

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset. E.

Yoxall, James Henry

Rowlands, J.

Tillett, Louis John

Runciman, Walter

Tomkinson, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Russell, T. W.

Torrance, A. M.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Toulmin, George

*MR. CAVEmoved to leave out in lines 18 and 19 the words "but it shall," and insert "and it may." The right hon. Gentleman had said last night that the local authority would have absolute freedom in concluding an agreement. So long as paragraphs (a) and (b) were made compulsory that freedom did not really exist, and he wanted to leave it open to the local authorities to put in these clauses if they thought fit and the Board of Education approved. It might be said that the effect might be detrimental to the voluntary schools to make the first part of paragraph (a) optional and not compulsory. No doubt in form it was an advantage to the owners of the schools that the local education authority should be compelled in all cases to keep the school premises in repair, but he did not think it was a real advantage. The rent would be made less on account of that obligation, and therefore it seemed to him to be merely a nominal advantage. The other parts of (a) and (b) were fetters upon the free bargaining powers
888
of parties, and they ought not to be made compulsory in all cases. The second object he had was to lead up to further Amendments on the Paper, one of which said "that the local education authority during the continuance of the arrangement shall pay a reasonable rent or sum for the use of the school-house." He thought that was necessary, inasmuch as they were dealing with a public authority which had control over public funds, and they should give express power to the authority to make payments out of public money.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman was discussing an Amendment which he proposed to move at a later stage, but as that Amendment contained a proposition which had been disposed of already it was not in order.
*MR. CAVEsaid he also moved his present Amendment for the purpose of inserting another Amendment later on which would empower the parties to an

889
agreement to provide for the authority affording facilities for religious instruction.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman's other Amendment was also out of order.
*MR. CAVEsaid that being so, it simply remained for him to say that he desired to make paragraphs (a) and (b) optional.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words 'but it shall,' and insert the words" 'and it may.'"
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. BIRRELLsaid if it were desirable to make (a) and (b) optional it would be much better to omit them altogether than to encumber the Bill with them. But he did not think that was desirable. It was desirable that it should be made perfectly clear that it was a condition of the bargain that the school-house should be kept in good repair, and also that the educational authority should have the power to make alterations and improvements which time might reveal us being necessary. On the whole, he thought the clause as it stood was best, and secured for the local authority that control over the premises they acquired which was absolutely necessary if they were to retain the best possible places for education.
MR. BLAKEsaid he thought the Amendment would, if agreed to, facilitate those agreements which those interested in the schools were anxious to come to with the local education Authorities. It was in the interest of the public and in the interest of the schools themselves that they should be kept open. He agreed that if it was to be made optional the provision had better be struck out altogether. But he thought it was better to keep it in and make it compulsory.
LORD R. CECILsaid he could not agree that this Amendment was useless. In the first place he could not follow the argument put forward more than once fey the Minister for Education that if a
890
provision was not compulsory on the authority which had to deal with the matter it was no use whatever. It was at all events an indication, and sometimes a very important indication, of the policy Parliament desired the local authority to carry out. In most cases the local authority would take the course suggested by such an indication, whereas if it was made compulsory the local authority would have to take that course in every case whether it was the best course to take or not. Sub-section (b) was also governed by the words "shall." That was the section which said that the school-house was to be free from any trusts and condition? which were not consistent with the conduct or management of the school as a public elementary school provided by the local authority or in any way restricted their full control of the school. That was a very strong phrase. It might be desirable that it should be part of the arrangement in certain cases that the local education authority should enter into an arrangement which would restrict their full control, and it would be a very strong thing to say that they should not do so. In this matter he ranged himself on the side of the local optionist. He did not yet feel confident that the Government had made up their minds as to whether this was to be a local option Bill or not For some purposes it was, and for others it was not. Here, for instance, was a case in which the discretion of the local education authority was to be absolutely controlled and fettered; where they were not to be allowed to make the arrangement which might be most desirable. He could not see the least objection to the Amendment of his hon. friend, and he saw many advantages in it The Amendment, in his opinion, would conduce to the smooth working of the Bill, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept it.
*MR. CARLILEsaid he believed if this Amendment was accepted a large amount of very natural suspicion would be averted. The suggestion that the local education authority should carry out the repairs of buildings owned by other people would at once suggest to the minds of the owners of those buildings that the object of undertaking the repairs and alterations was in

891
order to get a lien on the buildings, and a very strong feeling would prevail in the minds of the trustees and the private owners that all this was merely a first step in the direction, of confiscating the property of the school on a subsequent occasion. If the section were made optional and the local education authority allowed a free hand to negotiate as it pleased in regard to this question of repairs and alterations and reconstruction, such a suspicion might be easily done away with. The local authority might prefer to pay a reasonable rent and be at the same time relieved from the necessity of carrying out the repairs. To most owners it would be particularly objectionable and must meet with the strongest suspicion on their part. Private owners did not want the local authorities to come meddling with their property. They had spent £30,000,000 on their schools since 1870. He himself had recently spent £1.400 on his own school, and would gladly spend that amount again rather than see people come meddling with his building. He entered a most vigorous protest against the charge which had been levelled against the private owners that they wanted to part with their schools now that Clause 1 was passed, whilst before that they were opposed to these schools being taken over. They merely wanted their schools to be continued, but they would not put up with the erection beside their present efficient school buildings of another school building in order that the local authority might be able to dip their hands into the pockets of the largest ratepayers of the district. That was what would occur under this miserable and iniquitous Bill. He supported the Amendment of his hon. friend, and hoped it would be made optional, so that the private owners of the schools would be able to make such arrangements as would enable them to continue to do their own repairs and alterations.
*MR. CAVEsaid that after the ruling of the Chairman he felt that the strongest argument in favour of this Amendment had gone, and therefore he would with the permission of the Committee, withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONmoved an Amendment providing that rent should not be paid for the use of any schoolhouse for the purpose of public elementary education which was held upon trust to be used exclusively or mainly for such purpose. He said it was not only a question of rent that was involved. It was also a question of repairs and extensions. The whole responsibility of the premises were to be thrown on the local education authority. There was no power of bargaining to be left, and the local education authority was obliged to take over any kind of premises offered to them unless found to be entirely useless for the purpose of an elementary school. Under the circumstances he saw no reason why the rights which the public had under the Act of 1870, and also under the Act of 1902, should not be continued. He thought it was a valuable right in the possession of the public at the present time, and he did not see why they should lose it unless they received a very substantial equivalent.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 22, to leave out from the word 'repair' to end of sub-section."—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
Mr. BIRRELLsaid he could not accept the Amendment of his hon. friend. The Government thought that the matter of rent might safely be left to the local education authority. Of course, the question as to the purposes of a school under the trust would enter into the determination of the rent to be paid. In the same way public money which had been granted for the building of a school and had not been repaid was an element which the local authority would be entitled to take into consideration. It would be inconvenient to begin by saying that in particular circumstances no rent should be given. That would entail that the matter should go to the Commission, and would very much delay the operation of the Bill. He could not imagine that there would be any desire.

893
on the part of the local authorities to pay extravagant rents.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he was not sure that the hon. Member for the Morley division was right in regard to the Act of 1870. In the debate last night, if he did not mistake its meaning, it was shown that the peppercorn rent was a discovery of the official mind, and not a restriction imposed by the Act itself. He thought it was desirable that this point should be raised now, and that it should be clearly understood that the imposition of a rent was not a novelty.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he was glad to hear the President of the Board of Education say that rent was a matter not to be excluded from the consideration of the Commission.
LORD BALCARRESsaid the President of the Board of Education had stated that the question of rent should be left to the local authority. That seemed to be in contravention of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that in the case of a transferred school there was to be an adequate rent paid. Where was that provided for in the Bill? Would the right hon. Gentleman put the word "adequate" in the Bill?
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the question which the noble Lord was discussing really did not arise on this Amendment.
MR. HUTTONasked leave to withdraw the. Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. CAVEmoved an Amendment to provide that where repairs to, or alterations in, school buildings were required by the local authority they should be carried out by the owners at the cost of the authority.
And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being private business set down, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding stood postponed without Question put.

NORTH EAST LONDON RAILWAY BILL (BY ORDER).
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JAMES CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid.) in the Chair.]
*MR. CAVE, continuing his speech, said that although the local education authorities were, under the Bill, entitled to the use of the schools for a certain period, the ownership remained with the trustees. Everybody who was familiar with the administration of property knew that where alterations on a building were to be made it was desirable that this should be executed by the owners, and not by what were practically licensees. Let me take the case where part of a building was used for school purposes and the rest, say, as a parish hall, the owner was the person who ought to decide exactly in what form the alterations to the building should be made. The agreement between the local education authority and the owner or owners of the voluntary school might be for only a short time— one, two, or three years. Was it right that lessees or licensees for a short period only should be able to take possession of the building, put their own workmen into it, and make architectural alterations without the control of the owner or owners? Surely the freeholder ought to make the alterations, put in his own contractors or workmen, and supervise the work.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20, after the word 'that' to insert the words 'the owners of the school-house shall at the cost of."
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. LOUGHsaid that extraordinary liberality had been shown by the State to owners under this sub section and it

895
was significant that no proposal was made to omit it. Under this provision owners were relieved of the duty of repairing schools and their upkeep would probably cost the public over £250,000 per annum. He recognised the friendly tone of the hon. Member, but he asked him to look at the question somewhat broadly, and he would see that the Bill had been drawn in a very considerate manner in regard to owners. The case put by the hon. Member was extreme; there would surely be give and take between the local authority and the owners of the schoolhouse. The substance of the Amendment, too, must be examined. There was often a difficulty in getting owners of property to execute necessary repairs; sometimes they could not be found and if found they raised many objections. It might be a great inconvenience to the local authority if it were prevented from taking action at once. Then, it was not a sound principle for one to spend and another to pay. There was an old maxim that the person who paid the piper should call the tune. He imagined that a friendly arrangement could always be come to. It was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid that he could give one instance of the manner in which a school-house might be made absolutely unfit for other than school purposes. The local authority might decide on placing double desks in the schoolroom, and these would make it impossible to hold, say, a bazaar or a large parish meeting in the building. There were, in fact, innumerable instances in which the education authority might do considerable injury to the owner or owners of the school. He confessed that the Amendment of his hon. friend was rather too broad to meet most cases; but there were other instances in which alterations to the school buildings might be made which would be extremely unsatisfactory to the owner. If alterations were to be made on a school building on which a patron had spent a considerable sum of money, the owner should have a chance of seeing that these alterations were carried out according to his wishes. The Parliamentary Secretary had spoken of the
896
generosity with which this part of the Bill had been drawn. He agreed, but there were other parts of the Bill which did the grossest injustice. He thought that the State did owe something to the men who had done so much to advance the cause of education in England in the past. He hoped that at some future time the Government could give an assurance that some alteration of this kind would be made in the Bill, so that the wishes of the owners and managers of the school could be met.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLthought they were under an obligation to his hon. friend for submitting this proposal, even if it had no other result than the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. He thought it was an act of justice that the owners should have as much control over their property as was consistent with the Act. This Amendment would give the owners some remnant of authority at any rate, and he was quite sure that the good feeling to which the hon. Member had referred would be made more secure by the adoption of some Amendment in the sense of that now before the Committee. He would be very glad, therefore, if this Amendment were carried now, although it might have to be itself amended at a later stage. He was indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for the friendly spirit which he had shown.
*MR. LEIF JONESsaid he had a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment, but he hoped it would not be pressed to a division, a; he preferred the Amendment standing in the name; of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shropshire. He would like to remind the authorities of the Board of Education that unless they were inclined to meet private owners of schools in some such way as was suggested by the Amendment they might find that these owners would be unwilling to enter into arrangements under the Bill. He quite recognised that if the building was to be used as a school it was absolutely necessary that the local education authority should have the last word as to what was to be done with the school buildings. If the

897
owners were willing to meet the authorities to that extent it seemed only fair—if the owners were willing to concur in alterations—that they should be consulted in regard to them. There were a good many village schools which were used as the village forum, and if the local authority insisted in treating the schools in a particular manner it might destroy their utility for that purpose. The local authority might, for instance, provide fixtures of a kind which would render the schools unfit for the purpose of meetings at night. He hoped the President of the Board of Education would take into consideration the rights and wishes of private owners and endeavour to meet them in the way suggested.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid, as reference had been made to his Amendment, perhaps he might, suggest that if the Minister in charge of the Bill would indicate that when reached it would have a favourable reception, it might then be open to his hon. friend behind him to withdraw the present Amendment. If that course were adopted he would not detain the Committee by an elaborate argument which otherwise he should have to address to them. His Amendment gave the owners the option of carrying out alterations or improvements at their own expense, and charging a fair percentage on the expenditure they incurred.
*MR. LOUGHthought the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment which was under discussion might rest satisfied with the debate which had taken place and withdraw it. Even he was not very well satisfied with the form of this Amendment, but when they came to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman he was sure that the President of the Board of Education would carry out the undertaking he had given in regard to it.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he was not prepared to say that the right hon. Gentleman had given an undertaking, but he had certainly expressed a favourable view, although he guarded himself in regard to certain small matters.
898
From what had passed, however, he should think the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to give a favourable consideration to his Amendment.
*MR. CAVEsaid that in view of what had been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially after what had been said by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, he thought it would conduce to a final settlement if he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONmoved to insert that the alterations and improvements should be made "with the consent of the owners of the-schoolhouse." That, he said, involved the same important principle as had been dealt with during the last quarter of an hour It was that premises which belonged to owners and trustees should not be altered in character or use by any action by the local authority without the consent of the owners. He did not know whether the Government were prepared to accept, or at any rate to regard with a favourable consideration, the Amendment of his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Shropshire, which stood lower down on the Paper. That Amendment would carry out his wishes more thoroughly than his own would do, and if the Government were prepared to accept it, or to give it favourable consideration, he would not occupy the time of the Committee by pressing the Amendment which he had moved.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 22, after the word 'enabled' to insert the words 'with the consent of the owners of the schoolhouse.'"—(Sir W. Anson)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. LOUGHsaid that with reference to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, he thought the same remark might be made as that which he had made in regard to the previous one. He did not think the Amendment was in the very best form, but he thought there ought to be a disposition on the part of the

899
local authorities to consult the owners and make an arrangement in a conciliatory spirit. The Government would do their best to see that the Bill was so worded as to permit of conciliatory action being adopted. As to any future Amendment, when they came to it, his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education would be present,; and no doubt he would deal with it.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid if he could get no better answer than that he must press his Amendment, because it was most important that owners and trustees should not find their property altered without their consent. As he understood the compromise offered by the Government that afternoon, school owners would be bound to offer their property to the local authorities. That made it all the more important that the owners of the schools should not find buildings, erected for a definite purpose, possibly in the neighbourhood of their own residences, altered without any consultation with them. The purpose for which these schools were to be taken over was that they should be used as public elementary schools during a certain number of hours on a certain number of days in the week. Was it fair that persons having the use of a school for a particular purpose should be able to alter the character and use of the building so as to make it unavailable for other purposes where the owners had erected a building which might be used only not for elementary school purposes but for many other purposes. Besides this, unless some sort of provision of the kind he suggested was introduced, the local authority might make changes which would be unsightly excrescences upon the buildings. They were told that the President of the Board of Education was prepared to be conciliatory on this point, but he wanted a more definite assurance. He was somewhat weary of the conciliatory assurances they had upon this point as well as upon others.
MR. BIRRELLsaid the right hon. Member for Shropshire had had a conversation with him upon this subject, and he told the right hon. Member that the Government could not agree with his
900
Amendment because it would deprive the local education authorities of important powers. When it came to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Oxford University, he thought something might be said for the private owners. If, therefore, it was confined to private owners, and if it were understood that the additional rent would be confined to a fair interest upon the money expended, he would, when the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment came before the Committee, take that into consideration. If through some unforeseen circumstance the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was not reached, he (Mr. Birrell) would consider himself bound to give this subject some consideration and arrive at some means of meeting the objection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALCARRESsaid he rose to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Holborn, to leave out from the word "alterations" to the end of the sub-section, and insert the words "which the Government inspectors may hold to be necessary." It seemed to him under subhead (a) that the authority now vested in the Board of Education to demand improvements was taken away. The local education authority was enabled to make alterations and improvements which in their opinion were necessary, or which in case of any dispute arising were in the opinion of the Board of Education necessary. The subhead (a) did not say who the parties to the dispute were in case of a dispute arising, but he assumed that they were the owners on the one hand and the local education authority on the other. In that case the Board of Education had no status until a dispute arose, which was a most undesirable state of things. Everybody familiar with elementary schools, voluntary or provided, knew that the main pressure to improve those schools from the structural point of view came in nine cases out of ten, or at least in a large majority of cases, from the Board of Education itself, through its inspectors, who were in and out the schools from time to time, and who were constantly saying, "If this is not done and if that alteration is not

901
made you will got yourselves into trouble." It was no use telling the Committee that the Board of Education could stop the grants. No doubt it had that right, but according to Sub-head (a) it had no status before a dispute arose. He considered that the Board of Education ought to have a status prior to what was practically their ultimatum, namely, the stoppage of supplies. There might be some explanation to be made on this point, and, if so, he would be glad to hear it, but it appeared to him that the Bill deprived the Board of Education of the faculty which they had possessed for many years for bringing pressure on the schools for the purposes of improvements. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 2*2, to leave out from the word 'alterations' to end of sub-section and insert the words 'which Government inspectors may hold to be necessary.'"—(Lord Balcarres.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there, inserted."
MR. BIRRELLopposed the Amendment. He did not like dragging in the Government inspectors, who were the servants of the Board of Education, and giving them an independent position authorised by Act of Parliament. That the local education authority should only be entitled to insist on alterations which the Board, through their inspectors, thought necessary, was, in his opinion, most undesirable. At the same time, he gladly recognised that there had been growing up a spirit on the part of the managers of unprovided schools that they must keep up a certain standard of excellence, and in his opinion the persons more immediately concerned might be left to come to their decisions for themselves, leaving the powers of the Board of Education in reserve.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsupported the Amendment. Speaking as a London Member he knew, he said, from his own experience that a good many of the requirements made on the then voluntary schools of London by the London County Council as educational authority had been greatly in
902
excess of what was necessary. They had been fanciful and extravagant to a degree. The tendency of the voluntary schools to improve their efficiency to which the right hon Gentleman had referred had grown up and been carried on under the guidance of the inspectors of the Board of Education. He did not know how far other local authorities would follow the example of the London County Council, but when the Council's Report was considered by those in charge of the voluntary schools which were hitherto considered thoroughly efficient and well equipped, they found the requirements of that Report were in many cases extravagant and even absurd. He was surprised to find his hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell making a plea for economy, when his friends on the County Council had shown such a tendency. Many of the requirements of the local education authority in this case had been in the direction of unnecessary extravagance. He drew from that experience an argument that to place the repairs entirely in the hands of the local authority would not tend to economy of the ratepayers' money.
*SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid that as he had been Chairman of the Education Committee of the London County Council for the past two years, he might be able to remove a little misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member and of others who in the course of debates on the Bill had alluded to the Report of the London County Council on the non-provided schools. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had intimated that this was a prime example showing how local authorities might deal harshly with voluntary schools. If hon. Gentlemen knew the facts as well as he did they would modify their statements.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I was speaking from experience of the facts.
*SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid he held an extract from the minutes of the London County Council of May 30th, 1905, with regard to the requirements on managers

903
of non-provided schools. It was as follows—
"That with regard to the results of the survey and inspection, the managers be informed that the Council is prepared to consider any representations which the managers may think fit to make in regard to the requirements or directions which the Council may erve upon them."
He also held in his hand copies of a letter sent by the Clerk of the Council in June last year to the managers of non-provided schools in the County of London informing them of the alterations and improvements in buildings required to render them suitable for the purposes of public elementary education. The letter concluded—
"I am to add that the Council is prepared to consider any representations which the managers may think fit to make with regard to the requirements and directions now made."
He might say further that during the past twelve months architects representing the managers of non-provided schools and the architect of the London County Council had been engaged in friendly negotiations, and he had himself seen letters of thanks sent by managers of non-provided schools for the courtesy and consideration shown to them. No instructions of the kind suggested were given to the architect of the county council who made his survey in a perfectly official capacity, and unbiassed by political motive. If hon. Members would make inquiry as to the facts they would find that the London County Council was innocent of the charges made against it.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid he did not wish to accuse the London County Council of discourtesy or want of consideration for the managers, but only to give some idea of the requirements which would be made by local authorities by comparing the requirements of the County Council with those of the inspectors of the Board under which the schools had always been maintained in a state of efficiency.
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid the real question was as to who should be the judge of the structural efficiency of the schools. The President of the Board of Education often told the Committee that he had great experience in dealing
904
with local authorities. Well, other members of the Committee had also experience in that direction. Did the right hon. Gentleman find that local authorities had always perfect judgment as to the proper efficiency of school buildings? In his own experience over and over again they had had to find fault with premises of local authorities just as much as they had had to find fault with the premises of voluntary schools. Both classes of schools were earning public grants, and the standard of efficiency must be judged, only by the public department which allocated the grant s. It was not fair t hat one body of managers, who were called, the local authority, should be set as judges of the work of another set of local managers. It was far better to leave the judgment entirely to the Board of Education.
*MR. BRIDGEMANsaid that as the Member for West St. Pancras had referred to some remarks of his he might be allowed to say a word in explanation. What he stated last night was that he was not prepared to accept the Report of the London County Council on the sanitary and structural conditions of voluntary schools in London. He did not say that that Report had in it political bias, but that the action of the London County Council with regard to the administration of the Education Act was marked from the first with the strongest possible political bias. It was not against the hon. Gentleman, for whom he had the greatest respect, and who was deeply interested in the cause of education, that he levelled this accusation. It was against those who controlled the policy of the London County Council. As he said last night he defied anyone to say that that Council was not controlled by political reasons. [" No."] He could j prove what he said by a speech delivered in November, 1904.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Gentleman would not be in order in opening a question about the London County Council.
*MR. BRIDGEMANsaid the hon. Gentleman opposite had made a personal reference to a speech of his.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid it was answered, and they could not go into it again.
*MR. BRIDGEMANsaid they were not prepared to accept the Report of the London County Council in preference to that of the Board's inspectors. The point of the Amendment was that they should have something more than the Report of the local education authority to go upon, and that the authority to which they ought to submit was that of the inspectors of the Board of Education.
LORD BALCARRESsaid he was not quite satisfied, but he did not wish to divide the Committee, and would therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. He was not aware that the hon. Member for West St. Pancras was Chairman of the Education Committee of the London County Council when he made certain remarks yesterday, and, quite apart from the position which the hon. Gentleman occupied, he hoped he would accept his assurance that there was nothing personal towards him in the statement.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELL, moved an Amendment requiring that improvements made to a school building should be "not prejudicial to the use of it by the owners for any purpose consistent with the trust." One of the first communications received by him in reference to the Bill dealt with this point. Some of the buildings contained rooms of a considerable size used for purposes not wholly educational, but of great social value. Such rooms were often divided into classrooms by partitions, which, though impervious to sound, were easily removed. It was possible for local authorities to insist on their being replaced by thick walls, thus entirely defeating the intentions of the owners of the building, who wished to use the rooms sometimes for public worship or for recreations and amusements of a most innocent and laudable kind. The object of the Amendment was to protect buildings from capricious or unreasonable alterations, and to make it certain that the school-houses would be reserved during the tenancy of the
906
local authority 'for the purposes of elementary education.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 23, after the word 'improvements,' to insert, the words 'not prejudicial to the use of it by the owners for any purpose consistent with the trust.'"—(Sir Francis Powell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. DILLONmaintained that this Amendment was not in the interest of the voluntary schools. If hon. Members insisted upon introducing these restrictions, they would give a very plausible reason to the local authority for declaring that the voluntary schools should not be taken over by them. He had always said that the sub-section was a most valuable one and entirely in the interest of the voluntary schools. He thought there was ample protection given by the sub-section. The words were—
"That the local education authority during the continuance of the arrangement keep the school house in good repair, and are enabled to make any alterations and improvements which in the opinion of the local education authority (or in case of dispute in the opinion of the Board of Education) may be reasonably required by the authority."
There were two courses open to the Committee. One was to endeavour to get the Bill so amended as to meet their views; and the other was to declare war on the Bill absolutely, and to say that they would not consent to have it under any conditions whatever, and that every concession offered, or conciliatory speech, made on behalf of the Government, was really a fresh insult to those who did not like the Bill as drafted. The second alternative did not represent the position he was going to take at all. He thought they ought to acknowledge that the Government in putting in Sub-section (a) were protecting the voluntary schools. They ought to give the Government credit for that good intention. Instead of quarrelling over Sub-section (a), he thought it would be better to pass on to the consideration of some of the very important Amendments of which notice had been given with respect to the clause. If they discussed Amendments of this kind at such length, there would

907
be no opportunity for discussing the other Amendments.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought that the hon. Member who had just defended the Government had mistaken the intention of the mover of the Amendment and the class of schools which he had in view. There were other schools besides those belonging to the Roman Catholics where this Amendment was perhaps more needed, because they were used for a greater variety of purposes than the Roman Catholic schools. Was it rot reasonable that there should be an appeal where an alteration was proposed in a school which might be suitable during the hours of elementary education, but was not reasonable for the hours when the school was being used for other public or private purposes?
MR. DILLON: There is an appeal in this sub-section to the Board of Education.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the local authority might suggest to the Board of Education the desirableness of certain alterations being made. Those alterations might be absolutely reasonable, but they had a side which touched the interests of the trustees and the private owner. From that point of view the alterations might be unreasonable.
MR. BIRRELL: In a case of dispute I should hear both sides.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What harm does the Amendment do?
MR. DILLON: The Amendment in my opinion would give the local authority a reasonable ground for saying, "We won't take over the school, because we may be unreasonably restricted in making reasonable alterations."
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked how the education authority was going to be unreasonably obstructed. The general desire of the Committee was, he believed, that the interests of the two parties to the bargain should be looked after, and he wanted the Government to do something to protect the owners of the schools from
908
the possibility which the mover of the Amendment had in view.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that the interests of all parties were safeguarded by the sub-section in the Bill, which must have escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The duty was thrown on the Board of Education to act as an arbitrator between the two disputants, and it had to consider whether it was absolutely necessary in the interests of the education of the children that suggested alterations in a school should be carried out. If they were absolutely necessary they must be carried out. If the owners were not able to substantiate their case, no doubt the Board of Education would insist upon the alterations being carried out. If the alterations were not of an important character the Board of Education would act accordingly. The necessary protection was afforded in Sub-section (a), and he thought they might be allowed to proceed with the discussion of the clause.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid no one had stated more distinctly than the Minister for Education that during Saturday and Sunday and five evenings in the week these schools would remain the property of those who owned them according to law. This was an Amendment of an innocuous character to make that clear. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not accept it? Why did he leave the sinister impression that if difficulties arose proceedings might be taken as if the Bill was of a totally different character?
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the object of the Amendment was to provide that no alterations should be made which would prejudice the use of the buildings by the owners for the purposes of the trust deed apart from educational purposes. He asked the Committee to consider from that point of view what the position was. It appeared to be the desire of hon. Members opposite that the local authority should only acquire the right to use the schools for five days a week, and that for all the rest of the time—all the evenings, the whole of Saturday, and the whole of Sunday—they should be kept for the use of the denomination to which they originally belonged. The local authority

909
must not alter a school, according to the Amendment, in a way "prejudicial to the use of it by the owner for any purpose consistent with the trust." Were those the schools which the local authority was to be compelled to take over? This was a most excellent object lesson to the Government, and he hoped they would take it to heart.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Leave was not granted.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 70; Noes, 349. (Division List No. 118.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers-

Remnant, James Farquharson

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Du Cros, Harvey

Rutherford. John (Lancashire

Ashley, W. W.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Balfour. Rt Hn. A. J.(CityLond.)

Fletcher, J. S.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Forster, Henry William

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

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

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Haddock, George R.

Starkey, John R.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardy, Laurence (Kent. Ashford

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

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staffordsh.

Thornton, Percy M.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Kenyon-Slaney. Rt. Hn. Col.W.

Tumour, Viscount

Brotherton, Edward Allen

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Valentia, Viscount

Bull, Sir William James

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Liddell, Henrv

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

Carlile, E. Hildred

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Younger, George

Cave, George

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Magnus, Sir Philip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Francis Powell and Sir Henry Craik.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Ratclifl, Major R. F.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.).

Bertram, Julius

Cawley, Frederick

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bethell, J. H. (Essex,Romford)

Chance, Frederick William

Acland Francis Dyke

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Channing, Francis Allston

Agnew, George William

Billson, Alfred

Cheetham, John Frederick

Alden, Percy

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Allen. A. Acland (Christchurch)

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Black, ArthurW. (Bedfordshire)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Ambrose, Robert

Blake, Edward

Cleland, J. W.

Armitage, R.

Boland, John

Clough, W.

Astbury, John Meir

Bolton. T. D. (Derbyshire. N. E.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Atherley-Jones, L.

Brace, William

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Collins, SirWm.J. (S. Pancras, W.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Branch, James

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Brlgg, John

Cooper, G. J.

Baring. Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bright, J. A.

Corbett. C. H (Sussex. E.Grinst'd

Barker, John

Brooke, Stopford

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Barlow, John Emmott (Someraet

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Cowan, W. H.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

Cremer, William Randal

Barnes, G. N.

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Crombie, John William

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Crooks, William

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Davies, David (MontgomeryCo.

Beale, W. P.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion.)

Beauchamp, E.

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Beck, A. Cecil

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Delany, William

Bell, Richard

Byles, William Pollard

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Benn, John Williarus (Devonport

Cairns, Thomas

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Benn, W. (Tow'rHamlets,S. Geo.

Cameron, Robert

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Bennett, E. N.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dilke. Rt, Hoa. Sir Charles

Dillon. John

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

O'Hare, Patrick

Dobson, Thomas W.

Laidlaw, Robert

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N.

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

O'Malley, William

Donelan, Captain A.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Duckworth, James

Lambert, George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furnes3

Lamont, Norman

Partington, Oswald

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Paul, Herbert

Dunne. MajorE. Martin (Walsall

Lea, Hugh Cecil (S. Pancras, E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Elibank, Master of

Lehmann, R. C.

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye),

Essex, R. W.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Philipps. J. Wynford (Pembroke

Evans, Samuel T.

Levy, Maurice

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lewis, John Herbert

Pirie, Duncan V.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lough, Thomas

Pollard, Dr.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lundon, W.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Fenwick, Charles

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Ferens, T. R.

Lynch, H. B.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Ffrench, Peter

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs

Priestlev,W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Maclean, Donald

Radforcl, G. H.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Fuller, John Michael F.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Fullerton, Hugh

Macpherson, J. T.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Gibb, James (Harrow)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Gill, A. H.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Rees, J. D.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Arthur, William

Rendall, Athelstan

Grant, Corrie

M'Callum, John M.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Crae, George

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Kenna, Reginald

Richardson, A.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Killop, W.

Rickett, J. Compton

Halpin, J.

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Hammond, John

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

M'Micking, Major G.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

Maddison, Frederick

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mallet, Charles E.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Hart-Davies, T.

Marks, G. Groydon (Launceston)

Robinson, S.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Marnham, F. J.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Harwood, George

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Massie, J.

Rowlands, J.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Runciman, Walter

Hayden, John Patrick

Meagher, Michael

Russell, T. W.

Hazleton, Richard

Micklem, Nathaniel

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Helme, Norval Watson

Mond, A.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Montagu, E. S.

Scott, A. H.(Ashton, underLyne)

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

Montgomery, H. H.

Sears, J. E.

Higham, John Sharp

Mooney, J. J.

Seaverns, J. H.

Hodge, John

Moss, Samuel

Seddon, J.

Hogan, Michael

Murphy, John

Seely, Major J. B.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Murray, James

Shackleton, David James

Holland, Sir William Henry

Myer, Horatio

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Hooper, A. G.

Napier, T. B.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset,N.

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Horniman, Emslie John

Nicholls, George

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Hudson, Walter

Nolan, Joseph

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hyde, Clarendon

Norman, Henry

Snowdon, P.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel i

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Soares, Ernest J.

Jacoby, James Alfred j

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Spicer, Albert

Jardine, Sir J j

Nuttall, Harry

Stanger, H. Y.

Jenkins, J.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary,Mid

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Steadman, W. C.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Connor. James (Wicklow, W

Stewart, Halley (Greenoek)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Jowett, F. W.

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

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Joyce, Michael

O'Donnoll, C. J. (Wal worth)

Sullivan, Donal

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Dowd, John

Summerbell, T.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul,

O'Grady, J.

Sutherland, J. E.

912

913

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Williams W. L. (Carmarthen)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Williamson, A. (Elgin&Nairn)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wardle, George J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Waterlow, D. S.

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

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Thomasson, Franklin

Whitbread, Howard

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Thompson, J.W. H.(Somerset, E

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Thorne, William

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Woodhouse, Sir J.T. Huddersfi'd

Tillett, Louis John

White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Tomkinson, James

Whitehead, Howland

Torrance, A. M.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Toulmin, George

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wiles, Thomas

Ure, Alexander

Wilkie, Alexander

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper to provide that the local authority should be able to make arrangements with the trustees as well as with the private owners of school houses as to alterations and improvements. Before dealing with it he should like to have some explanation on the subject from the Minister of Education.
MR. BIRRELLsaid it was quite true that he had promised to consider an Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Newport, which dealt with private owners of school houses. But in his opinion, it would be undesirable to extend the arrangement any further than to private owners who had a permanent interest in the school house, and who resided on the adjacent property.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the Minister for Education had in the course of the afternoon obliterated the distinction between private owners and trustees. He had said that he was unable to see any distinction between the owner who owned the whole fabric and the trustees; but now he was resuscitating it. He really hoped that the Minister for Education would extend this provision to trustees.
MR. BRIDGEMANsaid that the object of his Amendment was to give the local education authority free scope in dealing with private owners or trustees. Unless this full scope was given to the
914
local authority to treat with trustees as well as private owners it might lead to more friction than was necessary.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 23, after the word 'improvements, to insert the words 'or to make any arrangements with the owners of the school house as to alterations and improvements.'"— (Mr. Bridgeman.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. LANE-FOXsaid that the whole object of the Amendment was to give the owner the opportunity of making the improvements if he wished, and if he did not wish it to allow the local authority to execute the improvements themselves. The owner of the property would be much better conversant with the needs of the people and the kind of improvement to be made than the local authority. He hoped the Minister for Education would allow trustees as well as private owners to carry out needful improvements and so diminish friction.
MR. BIRRELLsaid the only exceptions the Government felt justified in making were with regard to the private owner who was living in the district. Owners and trustees generally were people difficult to find or to communicate with; they would often be abroad, and it would be impossible to get all their consents. He could only make an exception in favour of the private owner living in the district.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 87; Noes, 321. (Division List No. 119.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. SirAlex. F.

Fell, Arthur

Percy, Earl

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Ratcliff, Major R, F.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fletcher, J. S.

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.

Forster, Henry William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Ashley, W. W.

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J.(CityLond.

Haddock, George R.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Hervey, F. W. F. (BuryS. Edm'ds

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hills, J. W.

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

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Bowles, G. Stewart

Kenyon-Slaney. Rt.Hon. Col. W.

Starkey, John R.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Keswick, William

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

Bull, Sir William James

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Thornton, Percy M.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Liddell, Henry

Tumour, Viscount

Carlile. E. Hildred

Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham

Valentia, Viscount

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cave, George

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid).

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. VictorC.W.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Younger, George

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Craik, Sir Henry

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Bridgemati and Mr. Lane-Fox.

Dairymple, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Poase, HerbertPike (Darlington

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Acland, Francis Dyke

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Agnew, George William

Black, ArthurW. (Bedfordshire

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

Alden, Percy

Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.

Cooper, G. J.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Brace, William

Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E.Grinst'd

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Armitage, R.

Branch, James

Cowan, W. H.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Brigg, John

Cremer, William Randal

Astbury, John Meir

Bright, J. A.

Crombie, John William

Atherley-Jones, L.

Brooke, Stopford

Crooks, William

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Crosfield, A. H.

Baker, JosephA. (Finsbury, E.)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bryco, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Buchanan, Thomas Rybum

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Barker, John

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-shire

Barnard, E. B.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dickson-Poynder. Sir John P.

Barnes, G. N.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Byles, William Pollard

Dobson, Thomas W.

Beale, W. P.

Cairns, Thomas

Duckworth, James

Beauchamp, E.

Cameron, Robert

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Beck, A. Cecil

Cawley, Frederick

Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

Bell, Richard

Chance, Frederick William

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Bonn, John Williams (Devonp'rt

Channing, Francis Allston

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Benn, W. (Tow'rHamlets, S. Geo.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Elibank, Master of

Bennett, E. N.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Bertram, Julius

Churchill, W'inston Spencer

Essex, R. W.

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Evans, Samuel T.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cleland, J. W.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Billson, Alfred

Clough, W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Fenwick, Charles

Lynch, H. B.

Robertson. Sir G Scott (Bradford

Ferens, T. R.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Robinson, S.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Maclean, Donald

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Fullerton, Hugh

Macpherson, J. T.

Rowlands, J.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Arthur, William

Runciman, Walter

Gill, A. H.

M'Callum, John M.

Russell, T. W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

M'Crae, George

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Kenna, Reginald

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Grant, Corrie

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Sears, J. E.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Micking, Major G.

Seaverns, J. H.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Maddison, Frederick

Seddon, J.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Mallet, Charles E.

Seely, Major J. B.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Shackleton, David James

Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Marnham, F. J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Harmsworth, R L. (Caithn'ss sh.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hart-Davies, T.

Massie, J,

Simon, John Allsebrook

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Harwood, George

Micklem, Nathaniel

Snowdon, P.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Mond, A.

Soares, Ernest J.

Haalam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Spicer, Albert

Haworth, Arthur A.

Montagu, E. S.

Stanger, H. Y.

Helme, Norval Watson

Montgomery, H. H.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Steadman, W. C.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

Morrell, Philip

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Henry, Charles S.

Moss, Samuel

Stewart-Smith D. (Kendal)

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.)

Murray, James

Strachey, Sir Edward

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

Myer, Horatio

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Higham, John Sharp

Napier, T. B.

Summerbell, T.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Sutherland, J. E.

Hodge, John

Nicholls, George

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Nieholson, Charles N (Doneaster

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Norman, Henry

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hooper, A. G.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen.E.)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Nuttall, Harry

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomasson, Franklin

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Partington, Oswald

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset,E,

Hudson, Walter

Paul, Herbert

Tillett, Louis John

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Tomkinson, James

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Torrance, A. M.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Toulmin, George

Jenkins, J.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Ure, Alexander

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Philipps, J. Wynford (Pem broke

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Walters, John Tudor

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Jowett, F. W.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wardle, George J.

Kekewich, Sir George

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Price, Robert John (Norfolk,E.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Laidlaw, Robert

Priestly, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Radford, G. H.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Whitbread, Howard

Lambert, George

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, George (Norfolk)

Lamont, Norman

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rees, J. D.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Rendall, Athelstan

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Whitehead, Rowland.

Lehmann, R. C. Lever, A.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Levy (Essex, Harwich

Richardson, A.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

Rickett, J. Compton

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Levy, Maurice

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wiles, Thomas

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilkie, Alexander

Lough, Thomas

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lupton, Arnold

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

918

919

Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Woodhouse, SirJ. T (Huddersf'd

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

Yoxall, James Henry

*MR. LEVYmoved to insert the following words—
"But a separate account shall be kept of all moneys expended by the local education authority on repairs, alterations, and improvements of the structure, and the amounts so expended shall be taken into consideration in fixing, at any future time, the amount to be paid by the local education authority in respect of the hire or purchase of the building; and in the event of the non-renewal of the agreement by reason of the action or demands of the owners, the local education authority shall be empowered to recover from the owners the unexhausted value of such structural improvements, alterations, and repairs."
The main object of his Amendment was to safeguard the local education authorities against unreasonable actions when it was necessary to renew agreements for the use of schools. He thought, if the Amendment were accepted, it would promote good feeling between the local education authorities and the owners of non-provided schools. It would also tend to prevent the erection of a lot of small schools, which did not tend to educational efficiency. He was quite sure that unless they had some provision and safeguard such as this, friction would arise, and the local education authorities would build new schools themselves. Therefore, he thought the Amendment was, not only in the interests of the general public, but also in the interests of the owners of the schools. He would point out also that the owners of the schools would enjoy the benefits of the alterations and improvements during two whole days of the week, and five evenings a week, whereas the local education authority, who carried out the improvements and alterations at their own expense, would only have the benefit of them for a few hours on five days a week. Therefore, it was not unreasonable to say that the local authority should have the unexhausted value of structural improvements, alterations, and repairs.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 26, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words, 'but a separate account shall be kept of all moneys expended by the
920
local education authority on repairs, alterations, and improvements of the structure, and the amounts so expended shall be taken into consideration in fixing, at any future time, the amount to be paid by the local education authority in respect of the hire or purchase of the building; and in the event of the non-renewal of the agreement by reason of the action or demands of the owners, the local education authority shall be empowered to recover from the owners the unexhausted value of such structural improvements, alterations, and repairs.'"
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. LOUGHsaid the provision which the hon. Member would like to insert no doubt referred to a very prudent arrangement which it might be desirable to make, but the question was whether it was desirable to make it a statutory arrangement. Although there might be circumstances under which it might be a good thing to make such a bargain as was suggested by the Amendment, yet there might be circumstances in which a different kind of bargain might be proper.
*MR. LEVYsaid his provision would only come into operation when the question of the renewal of the lease arose, and if it were inserted it would afford a safeguard to the local authorities and tend to prevent the owners from being unreasonable.
MR. LOUGHsaid the words assumed that the local authorities were unable to make a bargain for themselves. They could not assume that. They must assume that they were capable local authorities and well fitted to make a bargain. If they altered the arrangements in this way, they should alter the whole structure of the scheme. Therefore, although, as he had said, the arrangement might be a very desirable one in many cases, he did not think they ought to make it statutory. Moreover, the Amendment extended to repairs, and he thought to apply such a provision to repairs would be rather straining the principles of justice. The local authority carried out their own

921
alterations for their own purposes and they might not be available for other purposes. Moreover, the Amendment would involve the necessity of recovering the money personally, which he did not think his hon. friend would desire. For all these reasons the Government thought it better to retain the idea embodied in the Bill, that the local authority should make its own bargain, and therefore they could not accept the Amendment of his hon. friend.
*MR. LEVYasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
The Amendment was, by leave with-drawn.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYmoved an Amendment to provide that where a school house was made over by agreement to the local education authority for the purposes of the Bill, and owing to an increase in population, a demand by the Board of Education, or some other circumstance an enlargement was found necessary, the owner should have the option of carrying out such alterations at his own cost and of recouping himself by charging such a fair percentage on his expenditure as would be equivalent to the amount the local authority would have to spend in carrying out the work in its own way. It was, of course, an underlying principle of the Amendment that the owner would have to satisfy in full the requirements made by the local authority in respect of space, ventilation, etc. But an owner might have built a school more architecturally beautiful than was necessary for strictly utilitarian purposes, and if alterations were carried out in the strictly economical way in which the local authority would be bound to carry them out the architectural beauty of the building might be destroyed. He therefore thought the owner should have the option of carrying out the work himself with absolute security to the local education authority. The Amendment would not only add to the inducement of the owner in the first instance to come to an agreement with the local education authority, but would also obviate a claim being raised at the
922
expiration of the lease because of the mischief done to the owner's property.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 26, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words, 'but the owners shall have the option of carrying out such alterations or improvements at their own expense, and to charge, in addition to any arrangements already made, such a sum as may represent a fair percentage of such expenditure.'"
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BIRRELLsaid the Government were quite prepared to consider this Amendment. He had before him a rough draft of words which he thought would give effect to it, but they would probably require revision before the report stage. He would then be prepared with words which would carry out the right hon. Gentleman's intention.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid in view of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALCARRESmoved to omit Sub-head (b) of Sub-section (1), which provided that one of the conditions of an arrangement for taking over a school-house should be that it was free from any trusts or conditions which were not consistent with the conduct of a public elementary school or restricted the full control of the school by the local authority. He moved the Amendment formally in order that the President of the Board of Education might give some explanation of the sub-section. The impression one got from it was that it was an attack on the existing system of trusts, and the latter part appeared to be a diminution of those powers of delegation which were to be conferred on county councils by Clause 26 and on which the right hon. Gentleman in his introductory speech laid so much stress.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 1, to leave out paragraph (b), of subsection (1).—(Lord Balcarres.)
Question put, "That paragraph (b), of sub-section (1), to the word 'any,' stand part of the clause."
MR. BIRRELLsaid the object of the sub-section was, he thought, obivous enough, namely, to liberate a school-house when obtained by the local education authority from trusts which would bind the authority in a denominational sense. It was, therefore, essential that if the main principles of the Bill were to have any effect—if there was to be full popular control and a cessation of religious tests—that some such sub-section as this should be inserted. If the subsection were struck out a number of denominational schools might continue to be hampered by trusts absolutely alien to the main purpose of the Bill.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONthought all were agreed that if the local education authority was to have the use of the building during school hours it should be unfettered in the use of it for the purposes of a public elementary school; but he should have thought words might safely have been introduced to ensure that the sub-section did not give away privileges which it was proposed to confer by Clauses 3 and 4. This was one of several instances in which those privileges were rendered nugatory by other words in the Bill.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORasked for the Chairman's ruling as to an Amendment of which he had given notice, but which was not on the Paper. The Amendment would enable the owners of a voluntary school to include in their arrangements with the local education authority not merely the facilities under Clause 3, but also Christian instruction under the Cowper-Temple clause on every day. If his Amendment were not in order he would have to say now what he desired to bring forward.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he had not had time to look at the Amendment, but if it were in order he would put the Question in such a way as would save the hon. Member.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the Minister for Education in opposing the Amendment stated that he must preserve local control. Surely that phrase was now threadbare. Under Clause 1 a general rule had been laid down restricting the liberty of the local authority to Cowper-Temple regulations. Under Clauses 3 and 4 it was said there was to be a certain degree of exception allowed for those preferring denominational education. He did not say it was a very logical plan. But why encumber the Bill by putting in sub-section (b)? It was wholly un-necessary.
MR. BIRRELLsaid it was unfortunate that Members on the front bench opposite did not agree one with another. The hon. Baronet believed the sub-section was necessary, but raised the point that its language might conflict with the provisions of Clauses 3 and 4. He was advised that this would not be the case; but he would undertake to consider whether any saving words were necessary in order to ensure that nothing should be done that would in any way interfere with the full force of these subsequent clauses.
*MR. EVELYN CECILsaid the Amendment raised the serious question of tampering with trust deeds. There were many trustees who felt that they ought under no circumstances to depart from the conditions of their trust deeds. The feelings of those trustees were grossly disregarded by this sub-section, and the legislature ought not lightly to set about so dangerous a policy. Tampering with trust deeds was a thing which had never been attempted to this extent before. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman in a speech the other day stated that something of the kind was done in 1902. But it was done in a more limited way, and there were even stronger protests made then against its being done. He felt perfectly justified, therefore, in protesting against what was likely to become more and more a dangerous policy, and in insisting that no such general policy should be inserted in a Bill of this kind. The Committee ought to consider very seriously before passing Sub-section (b). The trusts had

925
proved of great public benefit and utility, and he thought it would very ungrateful on the part of the legislature so summarily to disregard them.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he wished to point out the position in which religious education would be left in the transferred voluntary schools by this sub-section if passed without alteration. Under the subsection as it stood the owners or trustees of voluntary schools would be able to bargain with the local education authority for special facilities on two days of the week. That was the limit of their interest in religious instruction under Sub-section (b) if it went through as it now stood. If he was to believe some of the speeches to which he had listened from hon. Members on the other side of the House he must suppose that in regard to Cowper-Temple teaching they would prefer religious instruction in the transferred schools to be limited to two days of the week. He did not believe that the great majority of those who owned the schools would share that indifference. He believed it would add to the utility of the sub-section if power was given to the owners or trustees of voluntary schools to include in their bargain with the local authority a stipulation for the simple Bible teaching which was permitted under the Cowper-Temple Clause of the Act of 1870. He thought the Parliamentary Secretary would admit that the transferred schools would, unless something of this kind was put in, be loft to the absolute discretion of the local education authority.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is an amendment that Sub section (b) be left out. The hon. Member is now proposing to add something to the sub-section. He is, therefore, not in order.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he was arguing on the merits of the sub-section. The point was whether the sub-section should remain in the Bill or not.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to do that, but he did not seem to be addressing his remarks to that point when I stopped him.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that one of the weaknesses of the position in connection with the Act of 1870 was that there was no security for the continuance of religious instruction at all. He submitted that this House had a particular duty to fulfil in regard to the transferred voluntary schools. If these schools were going to be transferred it would not satisfy the religious sentiment of those who owned or used them now to have facilities only two days a week for special religious instruction, while at the option of the local education authority there might be no religious teaching at all on the remaining days of the week. This House had rejected the secular solution of the question, and that, he thought, was a matter of general satisfaction. Having arrived at that decision, he submitted that it was the duty of the Committee to see that in the denominational schools, hitherto dedicated to religious instruction, there should be security for the simple Bible teaching allowed under the Cowper-Temple clause. He trusted that words would be introduced here or later which would secure by statute that in the transferred voluntary schools there should be not only the special facilities for which their owners would contend on two days of the week, but also some definite Christian teaching on the other days such as was permitted under the Act of 1870.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division had raised one of the most important questions in the whole problem of the education of the country. The hon. Member had suggested, if he understood him rightly, that there should be a differentiation between a transferred voluntary school and an existing provided school, the difference consisting in this: the transferred school was to make Cowper-Temple teaching obligatory, while it was not obligatory in the case of the ordinary provided school.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that on the question of making simple Christian teaching statutory some of them had an Amendment on Clause 1 which was ruled out of order as not being in the proper place. He would like to ask what would be the proper place for such an Amendment?
*THE CHAIRMANsaid it was hardly his place to answer that question. He could only deal with an Amendment when it was put before him.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid that if Clause 2 passed in its present shape, even subject to the concessions foreshadowed by the Minister of Education, they would have lost the opportunity of discussing the question that those schools which had
been religious schools should remain religious schools.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that that was only another way of putting the question which he had already stated he was not in a position to answer.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 382; Noes, 97. (Division List No. 120.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Evans, Samuel T.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Burke, E. Haviland

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Acland, Francis Dyke

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Everett, R. Lacey

Agnew, George William

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Fenwick, Charles

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ferens, T. R.

Alden, Percy

Buxton, Rt. Hn. SydneyCharles

Ffrench, Peter

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Byles, William Pollard

Field, William

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cairns, Thomas

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Ambrose, Robert

Cameron, Robert

Flynn, James Christopher

Armitage, R.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Asquith.Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Fuller, John Michael F.

Astbury, John Meir

Cawley, Frederick

Fullerton, Hugh

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Chance, Frederick William

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Gill, A. H.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Barker, John

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Gooch, George Peabody

Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

Clarke, C. Goddard

Grant, Corrie,

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cleland, J. W.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Barnard, E. B.

Clough, W.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Barnes, G. N.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Beale, W. P.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hammond, John

Beaucharap, E.

Cooper, G. J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Corbett, CH. (SussexE.Grinst'd)

Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

Beck, A. Cecil

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Bell, Richard

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cowan, W. H.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Benn, John Williams (Devonp'rt

Crombie, John William

Hart-Davies, T.

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets. S. Geo.

Crooks, William

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Bennett, E. N.

Crosfield, A. H.

Harwood, George

Berridge, T. H. D.

Davies, David (MontgomeryCo.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Bertram, Julius

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Billson, Alfred

Delany, William

Hazleton, Richard

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

Helme, Norval Watson

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff.)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.).

Blake, Edward

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Henry, Charles S.

Boland, John

Dillon, John

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Brace, William

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Higham, John Sharp

Bramsdon, T. A.

Duckworth, James

Hobart, Sir Robert

Branch, James

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Fumess

Hodge, John

Brigg, John

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Hogan, Michael

Bright, J. A.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Brodie, H. C.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Brooke, Stopford

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Hooper, A. G.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Elibank, Master of

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

Ells, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset,N

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs(

Erskine, David C.

Horniman, Emslie John

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Essex, R. W.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Moss, Samuel

Runciman, Walter

Hudson, Walter

Murphy, John

Russell, T. W.

Hyde, Clarendon

Murray, James

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Myer, Horatio

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Napier, T. B.

Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

Jenkins, J.

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Nicholls, George

Sears, J. E.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Soaverns, J. H.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Nolan, Joseph

Seddon, J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Norman, Henry

Seely, Major J. B.

Jowett, F. W.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Shackleton, David James

Joyce, Michael

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Nuttall, Harry

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

O'Connor, Jamos (Wieklow, W.)

Simon, John Allsebrook

King, Alfred John (Knutsford

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Smeiton, Donald Mackenzie

Laidlaw, Robert

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Snowdon, P.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

O'Doherty, Philip

Soares, Ernest J

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Spicer, Albert

Lambert, George

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

Stanger, H. Y.

Lamont, Norman

O'Dowd, John

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyluph (Chesh.)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

O'Grady, J.

Steadman, W. C.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

O'Hare, Patrick

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E.)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Leese, Sir JosephF. (Accrington

O'Malley, William

Strachey, Sir Edward

Lehmann, R. C.

O'Mara, James

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Sullivan, Donal

Levy, Maurice

Partington, Oswald

Summerboll, T.

Lewis, John Herbert

Paul, Herbert

Sutherland, J. E.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Pearce Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Lough, Thomas

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Lundon, W.

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclifle

Lupton, Arnold

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Philipps. Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Tennant, H.J. (Berwickshire)

Lynch, H. B.

Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

Thomas, A bel (Carmarthen, E

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Pirio, Duncan V

Thomasson, Franklin

Maclean, Donald

Pollard, Dr.

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset,E.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Tomkinson, James

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh,Central)

Torrance, A. M.

Macpherson, J. T.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk.E.)

Toulmin, George

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down. S.)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford,E.)

Ure, Alexander

M'Arthur, William

Eadford, G. H.

Verney, F. W.

M'Callum, John M.

Rainy, A. Holland

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

M'Crae, George

Raphael, Herbert H.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Walters, John Tudor

M'Killop, W.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Walton, Sir JohnL. (Leeds, S.)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

M'Laren, H, D. (Stafford, W.)

Rees, J. D.

Wardle, George J.

M'Micking, Major G.

Rendall, Athelstan

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Maddison, Frederick

Richards Thomas (W.Monm'th

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Mallet, Charles E.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Manfield, Harry Northants)

Richardson, A.

Waterlow, D. S.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

Rickett, A. Compton

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Marks, G. (Croydon Launceston)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whitbread, Howard

Marnham, F. J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Mason, A. E. W. (Covontry)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Massie, J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Meagher, Michael

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Whitehead, Rowland

Meehan, Patrick A.

Robertson, Sir G, Scott (Bradf'rd

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Mond, A.

Robinson, S.

Whittker, Thomas Palmer

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Wiles, Thomas

Montagu, E. S.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wilkie, Alexander

Montgomery, H. H.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Mooney, J. J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Rose, Charles Day

Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn

Morrell, Philip

Rowlands, J.

930

931

Wills, Arthur Walters

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

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

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersfi'd

NOES

Acland-Hood. Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Nield, Herbert

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fletcher, J. S.

Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Forster, Henry William

Percy, Earl

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn.Hugh O.

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Ashley, W. W.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond

Haddock, George R.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Banner, John S Harmood-

Harrison Broadley, Col. H. B.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Baring. Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hervey. F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Smith,AbelH. (Hertford, East)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hills, J. W.

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

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Kennaway. Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Starkey, John R.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Kenyon-Slaney. Rt. Hon. Col. W.

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (OxfdUniv

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Keswick, William

Thomson-W. Mitchell-Lanark

Carlile, E. Hildred

King, Sir Renry Seymour (Hull)

Thornton, Percy M.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Tumour, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

Valentia, Viscount

Cave, George

Liddell, Henry

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Cavendish. Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone.E.

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

Wardet Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

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

Craig, Captain James (Down,E.)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Craik, Sir Henry

Magnus, Sir Philip

Younger, George

Dairymple, Viscount

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Rawlinson and Sir William Bull.

Du Cros, Harvey

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Morpeth, Viscount

Fardell, Sir T. George

Muntz, Sir philip A.

And, it being after Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

ADJOURNMENT.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY, Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey) moved, "That the House do now adjourn."
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODasked what would be the order of business for to-morrow.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYthat said the first order would be Irish Labourers'
932
Bill, the second the Finance Bill, the third the Revenue Bill.
MR. KEIR HARDIEasked what business would be taken on Friday.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he wished to know what would be the fourth and fifth Bills taken. It was quite clear that during the last week or so the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury had been ready to spring Bills on the House.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid the fourth Bill would be the Post Office Sites Bill; the fifth, the Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Bill; the sixth, the Indian Railways Act Amendment Bill, and others. Nothing had been yet decided as to what business would be taken on Friday.
Adjourned at twelve minutes after Eleven o'clock.