Sitting of 19 June 1906

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways Bill [Lords]; Channel Ferry Railway and Quay Bill [Lords]; Hull Joint Dock Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:—

1. "That, in the case of the Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to nsert their Additional

17
Provision, provided that the consent in writing of three-fourths of the existing debenture stock holders and the approval of three-fourths of the existing shareholders of the Company, at a meeting specially called for the purpose, is proved before the Committee on the Bill. That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

Resolutions agreed to.
Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [Lords]. Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Bill to be read a second time.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Seamen's and Soldiers' False Characters Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board; to make the Mynyddislwyn Urban District Council a constituent authority; and for other purposes." [Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [Lords].
And, also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Company; and for other purposes." [Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords].
Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [Lords]; Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  BETTING AND GAMBLING.
  Petition from New Mills, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Allendale; Ashwick; Berwick-upon-Tweed; Lucker;
  18
  Norwood; Nottingham;Retford; Riddles-worth; Sibbertoft; and, Towcester; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Abbotsley (two); Abbots Ripton; Abingdon Pigotts; Aldham (two); Alwalton (two); Arrington; Badwell Ash (two); Barton Mills; Bassingbourne; Bath; Bildeston (two); Bourn (two); Boxford (two); Bradfield; Bradfield St. Clare; Brampton; Brent Eleigh (two); Brockley; Buckworth (two); Bures (two); Bury (two); Cambridge (three); Carleton; Castle Eden; Cavendish (two); Cavenham; Caxton; Childerley; Chingay; Clare; Cockfield; Connington (four); Croydon cum Clapton; Dalham; Dewchurch; Diddington (two); Docking; Drinkstone (two); East Watley; Elsworth (two); Elveden (two); Euston; Eynesbury (two); Felsham (two); Fen Drayton (two); Freckenham (two); Friskney; Gedding (two); Girton; Glatton (two); Graveley (two); Great Catworth (two); Great Cornard (two); Great Fakenham (two); Great Gidding (two); Great Gransden; Great Saxham (two); Great Shelford (three); Great Staughton (two); Guilden Morden (two); Haddenham; Haddon; Hadleigh (two); Hallow; Hamerton (two); Hardwicke (two); Hartest; Hartford (two); Haslingfield; Hatley St. George (two); Hawstead (two); Hemingford Abbots; Hemingford Grey (two); Hessett; Higham Green (two); Histon; Hitcham (two); Holwell; Horringer (two); Houghton; Huntingdon (four); Icklington; Ickworth; Impington (two); Ixworth (two); Kimbolton (two); King's Bipton; Laken-heath (two); Leavenheath (two); Leighton; Lewisham; Lindsey (two); Litlington (two); Little Bradley; Little Shelford (two); Little Stukeley (two); Little Waldingfield; Llanigon; Longstowe (two); Manchester; Mildenhall (two); Molesworth (two); Oakington and Westwick; Offord D'Arcy (two); Offord Cluny; Orwell; Papworth St. Agnes (two); Pidley cum Fenton; Pondsbridge; Ramsey (two); Ramsey St. Mary (two); Risby (two); Rougham; St. Agnes Exning; Sapiston (two); Sawtry; Spaldwick (two); Stanground; Stapleford; Stansfield (two); Stanton; Stapleford; Stangham; Stepney; Stilton; Stradishall (two); Sudbury; Swineshead (two);

  19
  Tadlow; Thorpe Morieux (two); Tilbrook; Tring with Wiltstone; Trumpington; Walsham le Willows; Warboys (two); Waresley; Water Newton; Whaddon; Whepstead; Willingham(two); Wimpole; Wiston (two): Witcham; Witchford (two); Wixol (two); Woodstone; Woolpit; Worlington; Wyton; and, Yelling (two); to lie upon the Table.

  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION.
  Petitions for alteration of Law; From Gateshead; Hoxne; Kingston; Maidstone; and Tisbury; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Carmunnock; and, Rutherglen; to lie upon the Table.
  LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL [LORDS].
  Petition of Central Association of Bankers, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MUNICIPAL POWERS BILL.
  Petition from Cheltenham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PHARMACY BILL.
  Petition from Lincoln, against; to lie upon the Table.
  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
  Petitions for alteration; From Abingdon; Bury; Camberwell; Christchurch; Clapham; Colchester; Earlestown; Edinburgh (four); Enfield (two); Epsom (two); Finsbury (Central); Hereford; Inverness; Kennington; Lanarkshire; Lincoln (three); Manchester (North West); Mid Kent or Medway; Monmouth Boroughs; Newton; North Berks; Norwood; Ravensthorpe; Rushcliffe; St. George's, Hanover Square; Sheffield (three); Stockport; Stockton-on-Tees; Sudbury; Torquay (two); Walsall (two); Wednesbury; West Bridgford; Winchester; and, York; to lie upon the Table.
  REGISTRATION OF HEADMASTERS(ORDER IN COUNCIL, 6TH MARCH, 1902).
  Petition of Thomas Allen, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  VAGRANT CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Uxbridge, against; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATES ACT, 1898.
  Copy presented, of Regulation, dated 15th June 1906, made by the Secretary for Scotland in pursuance of Section 6 as read with Section 25 of The Inebriates Act, 1898, respecting the transfer of Inebriates from a State Inebriate Reformatory in Scotland to a certified Inebriate Reformatory [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 203.]
  WELLINGTON COLLEGE.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Governors of Wellington College for the year ending 31st December 1905, with Accounts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 15th June; Mr. Herbert Samuel]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 204].
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the City of Hereford, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops within the City [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Urban District Council of Stretford, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for Hairdressers' Shops within the Urban District [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
  Copy presented, of Forty-eighth Report of the Board of Superintendence, with

  21
  Appendices, for the year 1905–6 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3542 to 3545 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Principal Chemist upon the work of the Government Laboratory for the year ended 31st March 1906, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INCLOSURES (COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER).
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the number of Inclosures of common land made under the Inclosure Acts from 1845 to 1899, in the County of Gloucester; (2) list of parishes within which such lands are wholly or partly situate; (3) total acreage of such Inclosures; (4) average acreage of such Inclosures."—(Mr. Essex.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Pay in Dungannon Post Office.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.): To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that an officer appointed last year at the Dungannon office was started at 18s. per week, although over 20½ years of age; and, seeing that, under the Stanley revision, an officer is entitled to 18s. at 19 years of age, thus allowing him to reach 22s. at 21 years of age, will he have the officer referred to placed on this scale.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is the case that an officer was appointed at Dungannon last year at wages of 18s. a week although over 20 years of age. The rule that an officer is to receive 18s. at 19 years of age does not mean that in all cases he will receive more than 18s. if he is appointed at an age above 19.

  British Consul at Chicago and the Meat Scandals
  Sir WILLIAM BULL (Hammersmith): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's
  22
  consul in Chicago has made any investigations into the charges against the meat business; and, if so, when his Report is likely to be received, and if it is proposed to publish it.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I suppose that the hon. Member has in his mind a telegram in the Press, stating that His Majesty's consul had inspected the meat-packing establishments, and that his Report was understood to be generally favourable. Mr. Finn, the consul in question, has telegraphed to the effect that he has refused to make any statements, but that he has written a Report, which was despatched on the 14th instant. I cannot say whether the Report will be published until I have examined it. It seems to me, however, that the subject is one which can only be adequately treated by an expert.

  Unrest in Russia.
  MR. HARWOOD (Bolton): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that certain members of the Duma fear a revival of outrages on Jews; and whether any representations on the subject can be made by the British Foreign Office.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) We have no official information, and the Question is not one which can be made the subject of official representations.

  Payment to Messrs Stillwell for Goods supplied to South. African Constabulary.
  MR. R. PEARCE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that goods supplied by Messrs. Stillwell and Son between October 1902 and August 1903, and amounting to £412 7s. 3d., to the officer then commanding E division, South African Constabulary, have not yet been paid for, in spite of many requests, calls, and correspondence with the authorities in South Africa and the Colonial Office up to the 25th April, 1906, since which date the supplying firm can get no further consideration; and whether he will take steps to have the matter settled.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The matter is one which cannot be conveniently discussed within the limits of

  23
  a Question. It has formed the subject of prolonged correspondence with the authorities in South Africa, which is now being finally considered by the legal advisers of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must not be taken to admit that the facts are accurately stated in the Question or that the South African Constabulary are liable. In all probability the matter will prove to be one which can only be decided by a Court of Law.

  Transfer of Second Division Clerks to Dublin.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that several Irish second division clerks serving in Government departments in London have intimated to the heads of these departments that they are desirous of being transferred to Government departments in Dublin, and that the Civil Service Commissioners recently issued a circular to English and Scotch second division clerks waiting for appointments, asking them if they would serve in Dublin, and actually appointed some of them there nolens volens, he can explain why the former were not transferred before circularising and appointing the latter.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Civil Service Commissioners inform me that for any vacancy for a permanent appointment in Ireland they always select an Irish candidate if one is available. Indeed, owing to a dearth of Irish competitors in the open competition last autumn they were at considerable pains to transfer Irish clerks from London departments. The circular to which the hon. Member refers concerned temporary service in Ireland, and to this purpose transfer was not applicable. Consequently volunteers for this temporary employment were asked for from among the candidates (residing in Great Britain), but no clerk was forced to go against his will, and no Irish candidate available was passed over.

  Amounts and Bates of Interest on Sums issued under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he will state the amounts and the varying rates of interest of sums issued under
  24
  The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, and subsequent Acts by the Commissioners of Public Works and other bodies; the total amount of principal outstanding at the various rates of interest; and whether he will consider the advisability of reducing the interest on these outstanding loans.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna). The total amount issued to 31st March 1906 under the Labourers Acts was £3,138,333 8s. 8d., at the following rates of interest:—2¾, 3, 3¼, 3⅜, 3½,3¾,4, and 4¼. per cent. At the same date the principle outstanding amounted to £2,601,737 5s. 11d., apportioned amongst the various rates of interest as follows:—

  Rate.

  Principal outstanding.

  £

  s.

  d.

  2¾

  9,710

  7

  0

  3

  19,737

  12

  11

  3¼

  531,472

  12

  8

  3⅜

  37,697

  10

  2

  3½

  457,503

  4

  4

  3¾

  1,328,581

  3

  11

  4

  51,796

  16

  3

  4¼

  165,237

  18

  8

  £2,601,737

  5

  11

  The rate of interest on each loan was one of the conditions on which the loan was made, and it would be contrary to the public interest to allow the terms of such bargains to be set aside.

  Amounts and Rates of Interest of Sums issued under the Glebe Loans Act, 1870.
  MR. O'MARA: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the total amount issued under The Glebe Loans Act, 1870, by the Commissioners of Public Works, the average rate of interest charged, the principal repaid, and the principal now outstanding; and whether it is proposed to issue further sums under this Act.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.)—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total amount issued to 31st March 1906

  647,574

  8

  0

  Rate of interest charged, 3½ per cent, per annum.

  Principal repaid

  352,947

  2

  11

  Principal outstanding

  294,627

  5

  1

  Loans are still being made under the Act which is renewed annually by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.

  Erection of National Schools in Ireland
  MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state whether any progress has yet been made in providing for extended building expenditure under Plan VI. for the erection of national schools in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna) No settlement has yet been reached, I am sorry to say, the Commissioners of National Education having objected to the new plans prepared by the Board of Works at the instance of the Treasury. The Commissioners have now been asked to submit for the consideration of the Irish Government and the Treasury, their own suggestions for plans for schools to be built in future years.

  Pensions for Foremen in the Naval Ordnance Department
  MR. J. WILLIAMS BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will take steps so that the scheme whereby 85 per cent, of the foremen of the Army Ordnance Department are placed on the pensionable establishment (70 General, No. 762, dated War Office June 1902) may be extended to the foremen of the Naval Ordnance Department, or that similar privileges may be extended as regards establishment, as are enjoyed by all other departments of the Admiralty; and also whether he is aware that the pay and increments of these foremen, are not equal to those enjoyed by men of similar rank at Woolwich and at certain Foreign depôts.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson) As regards Woolwich, it has been approved to follow War Department lines for labour staff, and steps are now being taken to establish the principal foreman and 85 per cent, of the assistant principal foremen and foremen. The case of the other Naval Ordnance Depots is not yet settled, but it is expected a decision will be arrived at shortly.

  Paying out of Guarantee Deposits under the Ashbourne Act
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether any modification of the rules for the paying out of guarantee deposits in the case of the sale of estates under the Ashbourne Act, have been made; and, if
  26
  so, when these modifications came into force, or were they altered under the subsequent rules.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry) The release of guarantee deposits retained in the case of sales under the Purchase Acts, 1885 and 1888, is now governed by the 68th Section of The Irish Land Act, 1903, which repeals Sub-section 3 of Section 29 of the Act of 1896, and enables, the Irish Land Commission to pay out to the person entitled the whole, or part of any guarantee deposit so retained under these Acts, in the same manner as if they had been retained under The Purchase of Land Act, 1891. Order XV. of the Rules of the Land Commission of 4th December, 1903, merely rescinds the previous rule in reference to such guarantee deposits having regard to the change in the law. This is the only modification of which I am aware.

  Alien Pilotage Certificates
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the rush which is now being made by Foreign masters and mates for pilotage certificates before the Merchant Shipping Act comes into force; and whether he will insert in the Bill a provision, that no alien pilotage certificate will be renewed which has been taken out after the date of the introduction of his Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) My attention was called to the point when the Bill was before the Standing Committee on Trade. I met it by moving an Amendment to the effect that the only pilotage certificates to aliens which should be renewable, were those which were granted before the 1st day of June 1906. This has now been inserted in the Bill.

  Amersham Water Company and Private Fire Hydrants
  MR. GROVE (Northamptonshire, S.): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Amersham Water Company have declared their intention to discourage fire hydrants to private houses, and have refused to allow consumers to put in the same at their own expense, except under conditions to be decided by the company; and whether, seeing that such a policy subjects

  27
  life and property in the country to risk, in the interests of a private company, he proposes to take steps to remove this public danger.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have no information as to the declaration referred to. The matter to which it relates is not one with respect to which I have any control over the water company, but I will communicate with them on the subject.

  Fishery Laws in the Lough Erne District.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH (Fermanagh, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Royal Irish Constabulary have taken any steps, since the Report of the Fishery Commission presided over by Lord Chancellor Walker, to enforce the fishery laws in the Lough Erne District; whether they have instituted any, and, if so, how many prosecutions for illegal fishing and destruction of spawning fish in Lough Erne and its tributaries, and, if any, how many convictions, resulted from their prosecutions; has it been left to the Conservators of Fisheries to preserve Lough Erne, which is vested in the Crown; and is any contribution on behalf of the Crown paid to the Conservators' funds.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that since the year 1901 the police have reported to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction 17 cases of offences against the fishery laws in the Ballyshannon Fishery District, in which Lough Erne is situated. Prosecutions were instituted in all the cases, and fines were imposed in 13 of them. The duty of protecting the fisheries of Lough Erne rests primarily with the Board of Conservators, but the Commissioner of Woods informs me that he is willing to consider any practical suggestion as to how he can co-operate with the Conservators. No contribution is paid on behalf of the Crown to the funds of the Conservators.

  Promotion in Irish Government Departments
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state why promotion in the Irish Government Boards is not -carried out under the seniority system;
  28
  and whether he can explain what is the meaning attached to the word merit which ensures promotions in certain casts in Ireland, and overrides the seniority rule which generally prevails in Government appointments.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of appointing an impartial committee of inquiry into the methods of appointments and the rules governing promotions in Irish Government Departments.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that promotion by selection in the Irish Government Departments has given rise to discontent and consequent injury to the public service; and, seeing that promotion under this system lends itself least to favouritism, whether he will issue instructions to the heads of those departments to the effect that all promotions shall in future be made according to seniority and equality of efficiency.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Orders in Council applying to both the first and second divisions of the Civil Service of the United Kingdom generally provide that promotions shall be according to merit, not seniority. This rule was, I understand, established many years ago as the result of recommendations of commissions of inquiry into the Civil Service. I am not aware of any necessity for appointing a committee to inquire into the operation of the rule in Departments under the Irish Government, nor am I aware that any discontent in the matter exists in any of these Departments. I have no power, nor do I think it would be desirable, to issue instructions that promotions should be made according to seniority, without taking merit into account.

  Duties and Pay of Attendants in the National Library of Ireland.
  MR. HAZLETON (Galway, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the National Library of Ireland the work of entering up the library ledgers, classifying books, corresponding with donors, listing parliamentary papers,

  29
  and other clerical and technical work, formerly done by the assistant librarians, now forms part of the daily duties of some of the attendants; and whether he will take steps to secure that if men classed and paid as messengers are called upon to perform such duties they will be given opportunities of promotion and extra remuneration, as is the case in the library of the British Museum.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The entering of registers, which are described as ledgers, and the filling up of printed forms and copying, have for many years been recognised duties of library attendants. It would be going too far to say that the attendants classify books, though they assist in the work. Regard was had to these duties when the remuneration for attendants was being fixed.

  Irish Agricultural Interests and Army Meat Contracts.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH (Sligo, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a Resolution, adopted by the Sligo Rural District Council at its meeting on May 30th ultimo, expressing alarm at the action of the War Office in altering the tenders of the supply of meat to the Army, and declaring such action to be seriously injurious to agricultural interests in Ireland; and what action, if any, does he propose to take in regard to this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction are in communication with the Army Council in reference to this matter. I am not at present able to make a further statement on the subject.

  Sale of the O'Grady Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of the sale of the O'Grady estate at Cam, county Longford, the agreements for sale have yet been lodged with the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, will an inspection be made.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that agreements for the purchase of holdings on the estate
  30
  mentioned have not yet been lodged with them.

  Erection of Pier at Bonmahon, County Waterford.
  MR. POWER (Waterford, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the claim of Bonmahon, county Waterford, to have a pier erected so as to enable the copper ore, to raise which two limited companies have been formed, to be transported direct by sea to South Wales, and so as to revive the fishing industry which was formerly of an important character.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that when the mines at Bonmahon were worked in former days a pile jetty, the remains of which recently existed, was built by the mining company. The bay in which the jetty was situated is exposed, and, in the opinion of the Department of Agriculture, no harbour works that would give protection to fishing boats, except such as could be hauled up, could be erected without enormous cost. In the year 1902 the county council offered to contribute £1,000 towards the cost of a fishery pier, provided £2,000 were forthcoming from Government funds. The Department, however, were of opinion that no work which did not involve an expenditure of much more than £3,000 would provide accommodation for both the mining and fishing industries. Only three or four row boats fish out of Bonmahon.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Laurence M'Evoy.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application for reinstatement has been made to the Estates Commissioners on behalf of the representative of the late Laurence M'Evoy, who was evicted from his farm at Johnsgrove, Mountmellick, Queen's County, in 1882, for non-payment of one-and-a-half year's rent, the yearly rent being £232; and whether, seeing that the farm has been since let for £110 a year, and that the present occupier, Mrs. Neale, is willing to surrender the holding under conditions, the Estates Commissioners will open negotiations with Mrs. Neale with the object of

  31
  restoring the evicted tenant's representative to the holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have referred the application in question to their inspector for inquiry, and until his report has been received they are unable to say what action they may take in the case.

  Construction of a Causeway Dungarvan
  MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.)To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received copies of Resolutions passed by the Waterford County Council, the Dungarvan Urban Council, and the Dungarvan Rural Council, with reference to the construction of a causeway from Dungarvan across the narrow and shallow channel which separates it from the promontory called the Cunnigar; whether he is aware that by the construction of this causeway, about one-fourth of a mile in length, over 8,000 acres of rich slob lands, usually covered with water from one to two feet in depth, can be reclaimed for the public benefit; whether he will refer to the memorial laid before the Secretary of State for India, when Chief Secretary for Ireland, on this subject; and whether he will take an early opportunity of visiting the district, and meanwhile obtain a report as to the feasibility of this work, which would greatly benefit the fisheries of the poorest district on the South coast of Ireland, namely Ballinagoul.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have received the Resolutions referred to, and have called for reports on the subject, though I am afraid that funds are not at present available for any works of the kind. I have seen the memorial which was presented in 1894 to the then Chief Secretary. Should I at any time find myself in the neighbourhood of Dungarvan, I will endeavour to make an opportunity of visiting the Cunnigar.

  Inland Drainage System in Ireland
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY (Cavan, W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a Resolution from the Greilly and Castlesaunderson districts of county Cavan pointing out the urgent necessity
  32
  for a thorough inland drainage system in the country; and will the matter have his immediate attention.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have received the Resolution in question, which urges the necessity of a system of inland drainage in the county, and suggests that it should be entrusted to county and district councils. The consideration of this matter must await the Report of the Arterial Drainage Commission at present sitting.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Officers' Eyesight.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board are aware that failure of eyesight does take place in some cases, after the first test of officers at the age of about thirteen years; and whether in view of the increasing speed of ships and the fact that gun fire may be opened in action at such long ranges as 10,000 yards,, the Board are prepared to test the eyesight of all officers filling responsible positions in charge of His Majesty's ships or their armaments.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): Failure of eyesight does take place in some cases after the first test of vision at the age of about thirteen. Officers are from time to time invalided from the Service on account of this during their subsequent careers when the defect is brought to notice, and is considered sufficiently serious to render them unfit for their special work. The proposal, contained in the second part of the Question is considered unnecessary, it being every captain's duty, in furnishing confidential reports on his officers, to specify any physical defects that may impair an officer's fitness for the duties assigned to him.
    MR. BELLAIRS: May I ask who is to make these reports when the captain himself is short-sighted? I can give the hon. Gentleman specific cases in the Royal Navy.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Admiralty Glass Contracts
    MR. STAVELEY HILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why the usual custom of inviting tenders from British glass manufacturers, for the supplies of glass ware to the Admiralty, has this year been departed from.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Revised patterns of table glass—to which it is understood the Question refers—were instituted this year. The firm from whom they were obtained went to a great deal of trouble to assist the Admiralty in the matter, and, in accordance with the usual custom in such cases, the first order was placed with them, their quotation being very reasonable. In future orders the contract will be open to competition.

    History of the South African War.
    MR. H. E. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a chapter or chapters will be found in the official History of the South African War on the transactions in war stores and the revelations concerning the management of these commissariat services, including a summary of the Butler Report and the forthcoming Report of the War Stores Commission.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): There is no intention of reproducing in the official History of the War in South Africa the matter which will be published with the Report of the War Stores Commission.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S): When is this famous work coming out? We are all anxious to see it.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Army Meat Contracts.
    MR. O'DOWD (Sligo, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a feeling of alarm has been created amongst agriculturists in Ireland owing to the action of the War Office in altering the tenders for the supply of meat to the Army; whether he is aware that many meetings of public bodies have been held throughout the country, at which Resolutions have been passed declaring that such
    34
    action on the part of the War Office will be detrimental to the best interests of the farming classes in Ireland; and whether, in view of such facts, he is prepared to take any action in the matter.
    MR. HALDANE: Representations on this subject have reached the War Office, but I see no reason to reverse the decision of the War Office in regard to the tenders for the supply of meat to the troops.
    LORD TURNOUR: Has the right hon. Gentleman also received representations from any bodies of English agriculturists?
    MR. HALDANE: I am not sure; I think it is very likely I have.

    Despatches to the Commonwealth Government.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the dissatisfaction expressed at the marking of despatches to the Commonwealth Government as "Confidential," he can promise that all despatches on public affairs may be published if so desired by the Commonwealth Government for the information of the public in Australia.
    THE UNDER-SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N. W.): The Secretary of State has received no such request as that contained in my hon. friend's Question from the Commonwealth Government; and it is clear that such a rule as he is seeking to establish would prove absolutely fatal to the freedom of official correspondence in all matters, most of all in those which relate to negotiations with foreign governments.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statements of the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth and also of the late Mr. Seddon complaining that despatches which they deemed to be of interest to the Australian public are marked "Confidential?"
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have. I can assure the hon. Member that the Secretary of State will do everything in his power to meet the wishes of the Colonial Prime Minister in this matter.

    Transvaal Tariff.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the new tariff' proposed for the Transvaal will be introduced before responsible Government is granted; if so, whether it can be laid upon the Table of the House, together with the present tariff, before it is so introduced into the Transvaal Legislative Assembly; and whether this contemplated tariff provides for preferential treatment of Cape Dop brandy.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The increased duties under the new tariff came into effect from May 25th. It was laid upon the Table last month. The hon. Member will find it in Cd.2977 and the previous tariff of 1903 in Cd. 1599. Preferential treatment of spirits manufactured within territories forming the Union is secured by a Customs. Duty and Excise not exceeding 2s. per I Imperial Proof Gallon, whilst imported spirits are subject to a duty per proof gallon of not less than 19s.

    Mission Services in Malta.
    MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Malta in a letter, dated the 6th ultimo, to the Governor, stated that the conducting of a Protestant mission in the Theatre Royal would constitute a violation of the pledges made by His Majesty's Government, he can state what these alleged promises were.
    MR. SILCOCK: May I also ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House what are the pledges to which the Archbishop of Malta refers in his recently published letters to the Governor as having been made by the British Government to the Roman Catholic Church in Malta; are they such j as to interfere with the liberty of British subjects in the Island who are not members of that Church; and is the holding of religious meetings in the theatre a breach of the promises made by the British Government.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is not aware to what pledges the Archbishop of Malta referred. The only
    36
    promise made at the time when Malta passed under British control was that the King would protect the churches and religion of the Maltese: and the only restriction to which other religious bodies than Roman Catholics are now subject is that processions and other ceremonies are not allowed to take place in public. It will be seen from the correspondence about to be laid before. Parliament that the Governor refused to admit the Archbishop's contention that the holding of a religious meeting in the Theatre Royal was a departure made from any promises made by His Majesty's Government.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)asked whether the Under-Secretary was aware that the Rev. John McNeill had been prevented from holding services in Malta. Mr. McNeill was a highly respected and distinguished Member of the Presbyterian Church, who had never been known to use language of an insulting or irritating character towards Members of the Roman Catholic communion.
    MR. CHURCHILL: That is a very valuable tribute from which I should not desire in any degree to detract.

    Opium Trade in India.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the unanimous approval of the Opium Resolution by this House, † he can state what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN ELLIS,): In speaking on the Resolution referred to, the Secretary of State said His Majesty's Minister it Peking would very shortly be in this country, and we should then be able to learn from him exactly how the proposals and disposition of the Chinese Government stand.‡ The Minister is not yet in this country.
    MR. SLOAN: Will the result of the-investigation, when made, be at once made known to the House?
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I cannot make any statement of that kind.
    † See (4) Debates, clviii., 516.
    ‡ See (4) Debates, clviii., 514.

    Governorship of Harrar
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state who has been appointed to succeed Ras Makunan, as Governor of Harrar.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): No successor has yet been announced. As soon as one is appointed, we shall be informed by His Majesty's Representative in Abyssinia.

    Trading Stamps.
    MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the Bill recently introduced in the Jersey States Assembly, prohibiting under severe penalties the use of trading stamps as an unfair means of trading; and whether, in view of the danger of intimidation of small traders arising from the use of trading stamps in this country, he will consider the advisability of introducing similar legislation for the United Kingdom.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): I regret that I do not see my way to introduce legislation of the nature suggested by the hon. Member. The Régiement passed by the States of Jersey in February last did not become law, and the question is still under their consideration.
    MR. J. WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the States Assembly in Jersey has introduced still more stringent legislation on this subject?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware. I have no information as to that.
    MR. J. WARD: I will send some to the right hon. Gentleman.

    The Wreck of the "Courier."
    SIR W. J. COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the shipwreck of the "Courier" off Guernsey, on April 30th
    38
    last, and to the evidence taken at the inquest held on one of the seven persons who were drowned; whether, in view of the evidence given, and of the fact that the law relating to navigation in the Channel Islands differs from the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act, he will direct that a public inquiry be held into all the circumstances connected with this disaster.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. A full public inquiry has already been held at the inquest, which took place before the Royal Court presided over by the Bailiff, Sir Henry Giffard. K. C., and as the result proceedings have been taken against Captain Whales and his pilot's licence has been forfeited. As advised, I have no power to order any further public inquiry, but I am of opinion that the law in Guernsey ought to provide as effectually as English law for the safety of passengers and I propose to communicate with the Insular authorities on the subject.

    Transit of Agricultural Produce.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a claim made by the Irish Co-operative Agency Society, Limited, Limerick, against the Great Western Railway Company of England and the London and South Western Railway Company over the smashing of boxes of butter, consigned to Haselmere Dairy, Haselmere, Surrey, in June, 1905; has any satisfactory settlement of the claim been made by the railway companies concerned; and, if not, will the Board of Trade take any action to compel those companies to fulfil their public obligations.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): My attention had not been previously drawn to the claim to which the hon. Member refers, but I have forwarded a copy of his Question to the two railway companies mentioned, and have received their replies of which I am sending copies to the hon. Member. The case seems to be one in which the aggrieved party has an adequate legal remedy, and not one in which the Board of Trade can take action.

    Post-Office Contracts with the Westminster Construction Company.
    MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can give the following particulars with reference to the wages paid by the Westminster Construction Company when engaged on Post office work in London and district, navvies and labourers per hour, ditto duct layers, timbermen, socket jointers, and gangers, with extra pay, if any, for overtime worked; also the average time worked per man winter and summer.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The Company have furnished me with the following information. Their rates of pay to men employed on Post Office contract work in the London districts are: navvies per hour 7d. and 7½d.; labourers per hour 7d. and 7½d.; duct layers per hour 7½d.; timbermen per hour 7½d.; socket jointers per hour 7½d.; gangers per hour 8d. For overtime the system of the Company is to pay at the rate of a quarter of a day for two hours work, i.e., approximately time and a quarter. The normal day's work is ten hours. The average time worked by each man could not be ascertained without much trouble and expense.
    MR. J. WARD: The wages paid to the duct layers and timbermen are not Trades Union rates. Will the right hon. Gentleman approach the firm on that points?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will look into that matter.

    Glasgow Post Office Medical Officer.
    MR. CLELAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, when the vacancy at present existing in the post of medical officer to the post office at Glasgow will be filled.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N. W.): May I also ask the Postmaster General, what steps he proposes to take to fill the vacancy for the office of post office medical officer for Glasgow?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The district hitherto assigned to the medical officer at Glasgow has been too large for administrative convenience. Now that an opportunity of a e-arrangement has arrived, I propose to divide
    40
    the district into several separate sections; and until a scheme has been decided upon I am unable to make any appointment.

    Exemption from Rating for Schools.
    MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will make provision in the present Education Bill now before Parliament for exempting council schools from rating, as is the case at present with non-provided schools.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): As the whole question of rating is now under consideration and will doubtless have to be reviewed very thoroughly, it is not proposed to make any further extensions of the principle of exemption from rates in the present Bill.

    Higher Education.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will introduce a measure for the co-ordination of the powers to aid higher education at present vested in the Board of Education, the Board of Agriculture, and the Treasury, with a view to removing the administrative difficulties arising under the present Law.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave yesterday to a similar Question on this subject beyond reminding the hon. Member that Section 2 (2) of the Board of Education Act, 1889, makes any such legislation as he suggests unnecessary so far as the Board of Agriculture is concerned, even if difficulties needing drastic remedies existed, which I do not think is the case. Nor am I aware of any administrative difficulties with the Treasury for which legislation is in any way required.

    St Joseph's School, Handsworth.
    MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in a communication from the Board of Education, dated February 28th, 1905, to the manager of St. Joseph's School, Hands-worth, Sheffield, it was stated that it was for the Board to decide whether a school is efficiently maintained, and to take such steps as may appear necessary if they are

    41
    not satisfied that the local education authority are properly carrying out their duties in this respect; can he state whether the local education authority is now maintaining that school efficiently; and, if not, what steps does he intend to take to compel it to do so.
    MR. BIRRELL: So far as the board are aware the school is being efficiently maintained, and they do not know of any grounds for action being taken of the nature indicated by the hon. Member.
    MR. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case the local education authority, instead of giving the headmaster a salary of £140, is only giving him £90? Is that to be considered maintaining the school efficiently?
    MR. BIRRELL: All we have to do is to get a report whether the school is or is not efficiently managed. We are told it is. I will, however, look into the matter.

    Charity Commission Fund Investment
    MR. H. R. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division, as a Parliamentary Charity Commissioner, if he can state the amount of capital invested by the Charity Commissioners in foreign securities and the amount of agricultural land sold by the Charity Commissioners during the last ten years.
    MR. TREVELYAN: The investments of capital directed by the Commissioners are limited to securities authorised for trust funds by the rules of Court, and are not made accordingly in foreign securities. The amounts so invested by founders or trustees which have been transferred to, and are now held by, the official trustees are as follows—

    £

    Foreign Government Funds

    11,600

    Other Foreign Securities

    56,500

    Statistics of the amount of land sold with consent of the Commissioners have been recorded only for the last four years, in accordance with the promise made by them on July 29th, 1901, at request of the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire, distinguishing, however, merely between land in urban and rural districts. The amount sold in the four years in rural districts was 5,727
    42
    acres, of which the bulk was probably agricultural land.

    Sutherland Deer Forest.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that within the last twelve months three homesteads have been broken up near Kinbrace, Sutherland, comprising over 1,000 acres, the houses on two of them blown up by dynamite, and the farms, nearly one-third of which was arable land, turned into a deer forest; and whether the Government intend to take steps to prevent such clearances in future.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): As I have no information as to the facts alleged, I can make no statement of policy.
    MR. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
    MR. SINCLAIR: Yes, Sir.

    Irish Magistracy—Appointment Fees.
    MR. CONDON (Tipperary, E.): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the fees payable on the appointment of a county justice of the peace in England and Wales amount to £2 altogether, and only to 5s. if the commission is conferred by reason of the holding of an office such as the chairmanship of the county council; what are the fees payable in Ireland in these cases, respectively; and whether he will take steps to give Ireland equality of treatment in this matter.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The statement in the Question of the amount of fees payable on the appointment of county magistrates in England and Wales is not quite accurate, as can be seen by reference to the Parliamentary Return ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on April 20th, 1894. (Parliamentary Paper No. 82.) No fees of any kind are now payable on the appointment, or swearing in, of ex-officio justices, such as chairmen of councils under the Local Government Act. Such justices can be sworn in without the payment of any fee before resident magistrates sitting at petty sessions. The

    43
    Commission of the Peace issued to ordinary magistrates must, under the Rules of Court made pursuant to the Judicature Act of 1877, bear judicature stamps denoting the payment of £6. This fee is collected in the Crown and Hanaper Office, and transmitted through the Inland Revenue to the receipts of the Public Exchequer. No other fees of any kind are payable in respect of the appointment or swearing in of a magistrate in Ireland.
    MR. CONDON: What are the fees payable in England?
    MR. CHERRY: I believe they vary in different counties. The hon. Member can see by referring to the Parliamentary Paper I have quoted.

    Mallow Rent Appeals.
    MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of Mr. J. G. Kelly, Assistant Land Commissioner, in raising the rent of James O'Flynn, of Cecilstown, Castlemagner, Mallow, from £94 7s. to £9G 13s. 6d.; is he aware that Coroner Byrne, a land valuer of experience, valued the holding at £73 6s., and that the original rent of £94 7s. was fixed by the landlord, the late Sir Henry Beecher, twenty-five years ago; and will he say what qualifications and experience-in valuing land does Mr. Kelly possess; and whether instructions to have due regard to Section 8, Sub-section (9), of of the Act of 1881, are issued to the Sub-Commissioners.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed as to the facts of this case. According to the information supplied to me by the Land Commission, Mr. O'Flynn is the tenant of three holdings, the rents of which were judicially fixed by the Sub-Commission last month. The sum of the rents which have now been judicially fixed for a first statutory term, is £96 13s. 6d.; but the sum of the former rents was £132 10s., and not £94 7s. as stated. I have no information as to Mr. Byrne's valuation of the holdings. Mr. Kelly's qualifications and experience are stated in Parliamentary Paper No. 151 of 1902. The Land Com-
    44
    mission do not issue instructions to Sub-Commission Courts as to the performance of their judicial functions.

    Caldbeck Estate, Queen's County.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the proposed sale of the Caldbeck Estate, Ballacolla, Queen's County, one-half of which is untenanted, the landlord has parcelled out the greater portion of the latter amongst the eleven months' graziers for the purpose of the sale; and, seeing that part of the estate is congested and the small tenants and labourers have applied for a division of the untenanted land, whether he can say what course the Estates Commissioners propose taking in the case.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer to my reply to the hon. Member's Question on this subject on Thursday last. † As I then stated, the Estates Commissioners themselves propose to make an offer for the purchase of this estate.

    Irish Teachers.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether teachers completing their course of training in the year 1900, when new rules were issued, have since got special consideration given to their cases; whether such teachers being induced to join the service by the belief that the rules and salaries existing at the time of their entry would be continued have not been misled and injured by the changes made in the year 1900, and which, if issued earlier, would have kept many of them out of the service; whether, seeing that those men feel that there has been a breach of contract with them, steps will be taken to have the cases of all men who completed a two years' course of training in the year 1900 fully inquired into; whether he is aware that W. J. Murphy, of Coolmountain National School, Dunmanway, is one of those teachers, and that on appointment to principalship this man lost the bonus which he would get as assistant after five years' service, and has had no other increase to his salary;
    † See (4) Debates, clviii., 1155.

    45
    and, seeing that this is a type of the favourable consideration which the Commissioners give to those teachers induced to join the profession under false pretences, he will say what action he proposes to take.
    MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. They tell me that since the foundation of the system they have made many changes in the mode of promoting teachers and of remunerating them, that all teachers entering the service know that the rules of the service are subject to change from time to time, that the teachers have not been misled or injured by the new rules, and, indeed, that most of the changes made in 1900 had been agitated for by the teachers themselves for years before. This was the case especially with regard to the abolition of the results payment system and of the system of promotion by examination: the introduction of the consolidated salary with periodic increments; and the freedom of instruction in the schools. The new regulations would, in the Commissioners' opinion, have been subjected to precisely the same criticisms if issued earlier as they were when issued in 1900. There has, the Commissioners inform me, been no breach of contract with the teachers either generally or individually. The vested rights of all teachers in the service prior to 1900 were conserved, so far as it was possible to do so, by regulations made for the purpose, and all exceptional cases were specially considered. I am forwarding to the hon. Member full particulars of the case of Mr. Murphy. His present income as principal teacher is higher than it would have been if he had remained an assistant teacher, and he is eligible for promotion to the first grade, whereas if he had remained an assistant he could not have proceeded beyond the third grade. These matters are within the control of the Commissioners and do not call for action on the part of the Irish government.

    Irish Fisheries.
    MR. POWER (Waterford, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that since the introduction of steam trawling upon
    46
    the south coast of Ireland the supply of trawl fish has greatly diminished, and the price of same largely increased and the number of fishermen employed in fishing has largely decreased; is he aware that the inspectors of fisheries have the power to make bye-laws prohibiting steam trawling in areas outside the three-mile limit; did those who signed the memorial recently addressed to the inspectors of fisheries from Dunmore East, county Waterford, ask the inspectors to exercise those powers; and, if so, could he state on what ground that application was refused.
    MR. BRYCE: A proposed extension of the area off the coasts of the counties of Cork, Waterford, and Wexford, in which steam trawling is at present prohibited, formed the subject of an exhaustive inquiry held by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction at Dunmore East on May 3rd and 4th, 1906. The Department did not consider that the circumstances of the case were such as would warrant them in submitting for the approval of the Lord-Lieutenant in Council any bye-law increasing the area in which steam trawling is prohibited. The prohibited area already extends to places at a greater distance than three miles from the shore. In reply to a further Question, Mr. Bryce said there were differences of opinion as to whether trawling did diminish the supply of fish.
    MR. JOYCE: It affects the fishermen.

    Housing of the Working Classes in Irish Towns.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the need for better housing of the artisans and labourers in the towns of Ireland, he can promise that the matter will engage the attention of the Government at an early date.
    MR. BRYCE: I am aware of the need mentioned in the Question and of the importance of the subject generally, and I hope that it may be possible to find time before long to consider what should be done to amend the law bearing on it. So many other urgent questions are before the Irish Government at this moment that

    47
    I cannot at present make any more definite statement.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor in office (the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover) promised to introduce legislation on this matter, and in considering this question will he also bear in mind the Report of the Conference on the Housing of the Working Classes recently held in Dublin.
    MR. BEYCE: I was not aware of the promise. I will bear in mind the Report referred to.

    Irish Lunacy Grant.
    MR. COGAN (Wicklow, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will cause steps to be taken to recoup the county and borough councils from the local taxation account their rateable share of the sum of £37,030, which was voted to that account in the year 1900, as capitation grant for the maintenance of lunatics for the period of three months, from January 1st to April 1st, 1898.
    MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No recoupment to county and borough councils is called for by the circumstances. In no year have the councils received less than a full twelve months' grant. The necessity for taking the Supplementary Vote of the year 1900 arose from a change in the financial year of local authorities, and the object of the Vote was merely to adjust accounts between the Parliamentary Vote and the local taxation account, as the hon. Member will see by referring to Parliamentary Paper No. 280 of July 17th, 1900.
    MR. COGANasked whether the county and borough councils were not compelled to strike a rate for fifteen months in consequence of the change.
    MR. BRYCE: That may be so, but the fact remains that all they can receive for public funds they have got.

    Sheep Dipping in Ireland.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any representations have
    48
    been made by the Irish Agricultural Department to the Irish Government, in reference to the utilisation of the services of the Royal Irish Constabulary in connection with compulsory sheep dipping in Ireland; and, if so, with what result; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House copies of any correspondence that may have taken place on the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: Representations to the effect stated have been made by the Department of Agriculture, and the Inspector-General offers no objection to the proposal that the police should give such assistance to local authorities in the matter as they may be qualified to give,, and as their primary duties may permit. The extent to which this may be possible is under consideration. It would be contrary to practice to lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence which passes between Departments of the Government.

    Reenard Pier.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that he has recently held a personal inspection of the pier accommodation at Reenard, near Cahirciveen, he is now in a position to state what steps will be taken to construct a suitable pier at this point under the provisions of the Marine Works Act.
    MR. BRYCE: Since my inspection of the pier accommodation at Reenard, I have asked the Board of Works to report upon the best method of effecting improvements, in the event of its being found possible to provide funds for the purpose. It will, I imagine, take the Board some little time to make the necessary investigation.

    Kerry Evicted Tenant.
    MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.): I beg to. ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Earl of Kenmare, when approached by the Estates Commissioners as to the reinstatement of Mr. Daniel Shea, an evicted tenant in county Kerry, made a claim for £500 or thereabouts as a condition of reinstatement; will he say whether the Commissioners were aware of the full counter-claim of the evicted tenant against this sum claimed by Lord Kenmare; and

    49
    whether the Commissioners will further negotiate with Lord Kenmare, and represent to him the claims of the evicted tenant, with the view of effecting Mr. Shea's reinstatement in his farm, as it is at present unoccupied.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that in pursuance of the fourth regulation of those dated February 13th, 1906, they approached Lord Kenmare's agent on March 22nd last, with the object of endeavouring to effect a settlement of the case of Daniel Shea. In reply they were informed that the owner would reinstate Shea in the holding from which his mother was evicted upon his paying a sum of £504, the amount of rent and costs due at the date of the eviction. The Commissioners are not aware of the particulars of any counterclaim which the evicted tenant may have against the sum mentioned; and in any event they have no power to enforce the reinstatement of this tenant against the will of the landlord.
    MR. MURPHYasked if the right hon. Gentleman would represent to the Estates Commissioners the desirability of greater activity in dealing with these cases.
    MR. BRYCE: I understand that the Commissioners have done all they can in the matter. Their powers are limited, but if the hon. Member will address to me any communication containing additional information I will forward it on to them.
    MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)suggested that where the police were engaged in protecting land grabbers on these farms they should be withdrawn.
    MR. BRYCE: That raises a question of an entirely different nature.
    MR. FLAVIN: It would, at any rate, very soon bring the landlords to their senses.

    Sale of Leitrim Bogs.
    MR. T. SMYTH (Leitrim, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state who divided the bogs on the estate of the Due de Stackpool at Cloontabrit, in the county of Leitrim, which has been sold to
    50
    the tenants recently; if he is aware that some of the tenants, including Mrs. Mary Donnelly, James Cassells, Patrick Reynolds, and William Cox, were allotted portions of the bog which are worthless; and if he can state for what reason those particular tenants got such lots, while other tenants got the best portions of the bog.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the purchase of the estate in question have been instituted before them, and they have no knowledge of the matters referred to.

    Leitrim Evicted Tenant.
    MR. T. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from an evicted tenant named Francis McHugh, who formerly lived at Drumallow, Cloone, county Leitrim, on the Madden estate; and, as this estate has been sold a short time ago to the tenants, if he can state will McHugh be reinstated on his former holding, or will the Estates Commissioners provide him with another holding on the estate.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners have received from Francis McHugh an application for reinstatement, and will have the case inquired into by the inspector when he visits the estate.

    Irish Mackerel Exports to Chicago.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement, on page 25 of the latest Consular Report from Chicago, to the effect that, as a result of a visit of an official of the Irish Congested Districts Board, the importation of Irish mackerel into Chicago has increased from £550 in 1902 to £8,197 in 1905; and whether, with a view to the further development of the export of Irish mackerel to America, he will take steps to have this information circulated in the fishing districts of the West Coast, and to secure the adoption of a brand for Irish cared fish, with a view to maintaining the position now held by it in the American market.
    MR. BRYCE: The official in question was sent in the year 1901 by the Department of Agriculture to visit and report on those American markets in which Irish cured mackerel and herrings are sold. As a result, the Department have been able to bring Irish curers and American buyers into touch with each other. Irish curers generally are well aware of the market for their fish which exists in Chicago. The official above referred to also reported that a Government brand for Irish mackerel consigned to America would possess no value. The principal curers in Ireland, who were consulted, were not in favour of such a brand.

    Town Tenants Bill.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY (Cavan, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Cavan Urban District Council urging the necessity of passing the Town Tenants Bill; and, in view of the situation at present existing in Mr. Mulligan's case at Arva, county Cavan, will he state the Government's intentions on this measure?
    MR. BRYCE: The resolution referred to has been received. I have communicated with the Prime Minister regarding the Town Tenants Bill, and he authorises me to say that the Government are willing to facilitate the reference of this Bill to one of the Standing Committees of the House, and to give a reasonable amount of time—I trust that only a very short time will be needed—to the Motion to that effect now standing on the Order Book. This arrangement is made on the understanding that the parts of the Bib which might give rise to lengthened discussion will be dropped in Committee so as to facilitate the passage of the measure.

    Irish. Poor Law Commission.
    MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now name a date for presenting the Report of the Poor Law Commission, Ireland; what has been the cause of the dates previously indicated being so much exceeded; and whether he is aware that local authorities, pending receipt of the Report, have preferred to delay incurring large outlays for improvements on their
    52
    buildings, but are now being pressed by the Local Government Board.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Chairman of the Poor Law Reform Commission that the Commissioners have not yet agreed upon quite all the questions that must be dealt with in their Report. An agreement has, however, been arrived at between the Commissioners upon nearly all the points involved in the reference and dealt with in their draft Report, which has been in print for some time. The Commissioners, while expecting to report without much further delay, cannot fix a date for the presentation of their Report. The Local Government Board are aware that some local authorities are delaying the carrying out of improvements on their buildings pending the receipt of the Report, and, except in cases in which the work is of an urgent character, no pressure is being put upon these authorities by the Board.
    MR. BARRIE: But on May 10th last the right hon. Gentleman told me that the Report as then in the hands of the printers.† Why this long delay?
    MR. BRYCE: Alterations are often made in Reports after they are in proof. It seems that the anticipation of an early complete agreement among the Commission then entertained has not been realised.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): Has not the delay been in part caused by the chairman of the Commission being engaged on another inquiry?
    MR. BRYCE: I have no reason to think that.
    MR. BARRIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman address a remonstrance to the Commission and press on them the urgency of sending in the Report.
    MR. BRYCE: I will convey to the Commission the information that the Report is anxiously awaited, although I think they know that already.

    Macroom Gam Licence Prosecution.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
    † See (4) Debates, clvi., 1491.

    53
    Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Patrick J. Long, of Rylane sub-district, Macroom, recently applied for a Peace Preservation Act licence for keeping a gun, and that his application was refused without any cause whatever being assigned; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: The power of issuing licences under the Peace Preservation Act is vested in the resident magistrate of the district. I am imformed that in the present case the resident magistrate, in the exercise of the discretion vested in him, declined to issue a licence. It would be contrary to practice to state in this House the grounds upon which a licence is refused.

    Cavan Evicted Tenant.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from one John Reilly, Killeshandra, who was evicted from his holding in Crenagh Glebe in March, 1883; has the landlord, M. E. Moore, been approached; and, if not, are any steps being taken in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners have received the application in question, and have referred it to one of their inspectors for inquiry with a view to effecting a settlement.

    Instruction in the Irish Language.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, under the new scheme for the teaching of Irish, the services of a large number of extern teachers, teaching a much larger number of schools, have been put an end to and rejected by the new scheme and nothing is done to supply their place; and that as regards the teaching of Irish on the bilingual system, the Irish public are still in the dark as to what is proposed; and whether he proposes to secure the alteration of the scheme in the manner requested by the Gaelic League.
    MR. BRYCE: The question whether it may be necessary or desirable to
    54
    permit the employment of extern teachers under the new scheme for the teaching of Irish is under consideration, and so is the scheme for bilingual instruction. I am not at present in a position to make a statement upon these matters.

    The Gaelic League and the Teaching of Irish.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the official statement made by the executive committee of the Gaelic League with reference to the revised scheme for the teaching of Irish in the national schools; whether he is aware that objection is taken by the Gaelic League on the grounds, amongst others, that infants and the first class have been excluded, that the proposed foes are so small as to be quite nugatory, and that the total expenditure in remuneration of the teaching of Irish has been reduced from about £12,000 to under £6,000, and perhaps to a much smaller amount; and can he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter with a view to giving effect to the changes requested by the Gaelic League.
    MR. BRYCE: The abolition of the former scheme for the teaching of Irish was decided upon before His Majesty's present Government came into office, and they found that no provision was being made for giving further aid in the matter. The present provision is a new one, and is in addition to the £12,000 which was diverted by the late Government from the teaching of Irish to the payment of additional assistant mistresses. It is not the case that the total expenditure upon the teaching of Irish has been reduced to below £6,000. I do not quite know what changes the Gaelic League desire to be made. Everyone interested in the teaching of Irish has had full opportunity of stating views and offering suggestions. I have myself frequently invited suggestions, but though I have received objections and remarks on the general question, I have had hardly any positive suggestions for the improvement of this particular plan. Though the amount to be expended is smaller than under the former plan, there is every ground for expecting the educational results to be much better than were previously

    55
    attained. It is the wish of the Irish Government to give every proper help to the teaching of Irish, subject to the condition that other essential subjects are not interfered with; and I believe the new scheme will have that effect. It is, however, a provisional scheme only, and I shall be happy during the next few months to reconsider the whole question, duly weighing any suggestions regarding the teaching of Irish which may be sent to me.

    Irish Board of Works—Pensioned Officials.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the following men got pensions from the Irish Board of Works: T. P. L. Crosthwaite, engineer; James Gulley, lock keeper; Daniel Morgan, lock keeper and collector; Cornelius Hogan, lock keeper and collector; and Mr. Bushel, also a lock keeper; and will he say what was the yearly pension in each case; and whether, taking all the circumstances into account, the claim of Robert M'Conkey, who was overseer of 210 miles of the Shannon for a long term of years, will be considered with a view to granting him a pension.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouth, N.): The pensions referred to are as follow:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Mr. T. P. S. Crosthwaite, M.I.C.E., inspector

    125

    0

    0

    M. J. Gulley, lock-keeper

    24

    6

    8

    D. Morgan, Collector and lock keeper

    56

    0

    0

    C. Hogan, collector and lock-keeper

    33

    6

    8

    P. Bushell, lock-keeper

    13

    10

    0

    (Bushell's pension has been suspended, as he has regained his health and has been re-employed at his own request.)
    The largest gratuity which the rules permit has been granted to M'Conkey, and I am not prepared to make an exception in his case to the unbroken practice of treating overseers on the Shannon Navigation as not entitled to pension.

    Ancient National Monuments in Ireland.
    MR. HAZELTON (Galway, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland will he state what is the annual sum allocated to the preservation of ancient and national monuments in Ireland and administered by the Commissioners of Public Works; from what source this sum is derived; and whether he will issue a detailed statement showing the manner in which this annual sum is expended.
    MR. MCKENNA: The sum necessary for the preservation of ancient monuments is voted by Parliament and varies according to the estimated requirements of the year. For 1906–7 the sum inserted in the Estimate for Public Works, etc., Ireland is £351. The sum applicable to national monuments consists of the income derived from dividends on Consolidated Stock held by the Board of Works. For each of the two years to 31st March 1906 the amount of this income was £8739s. 4d. In 1904–5—the last year for which I have information—the expenditure on ancient monuments was £516 6s 2d., and on national monuments £870 12s. 0d. I will furnish the hon. Member privately with statements of the detailed allocation of these sums, which are too long to be given in an Answer.

    Irish Signatures on Post Office Orders.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the postmaster of Skibbereen on 18th May refused to cash a post office order signed by Aine Ui Aunrachain, because she signed her name in Irish; whether steps will be taken to compel such men to accept signatures in Irish; and whether in future appointments of postmasters, especially in Irish-speaking districts, a knowledge of Irish will be an essential qualification.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I regret to find that a clerk at the Skibbereen Post Office refused to pay the order in question under a misapprehension as to the rules on the subject which permit payment where there is no difficulty in identification of the payee. The order was presented, again on the 7th June and duly paid; and an apology was subsequently tendered, to the payee for the mistake.

    Mr. Justice Grantham
    LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)asked the Prime Minister whether he proposed to give a day for the discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for South Donegal, relating to the conduct of the hearing of the Yarmouth election petition by Mr. Justice Grantham.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): Perhaps I may be allowed, injustice to the Prime Minister, to say that when I presented the memorial to him some three weeks ago, he most kindly acceded to the request for a day, but, of course, I did not press for any particular day.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): It is very difficult to find a day for a stray subject such as this, at this period of the session, but we think of devoting Friday fortnight to the Motion. The delay that has already occurred has been necessary because it is essential that the House should be in possession of the printed notes of what took place at the trial.
    LORD R. CECIL: Do the Government contemplate interrupting the proceedings on the Committee stage of the Education Bill in order to take this Motion about the conduct of Mr. Justice Grantham?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Education Bill is not put down for Friday.
    LORD R. CECIL: Is it not intended to take that Bill on any Friday?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can give no pledge as to that. At present it is not put down for any Friday.
    MR. LEA (St. Pancras, E.)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would also cause the official notes of the Bodmin election petition to be circulated.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Circulate a copy of Mr. Justice Grantham's speech?
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: With the tears thrown in.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Speaker has not yet received the Report in that case.

    The Unemployed Bill.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Can the Prime Minister now say when the Unemployed Bill will be introduced.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am afraid I cannot say anything definite. I have said a good deal that is indefinite already. The subject is not being lost sight of, and I fully expect ere long to be able to move in the matter.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Before this section of the session ends?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Oh, I think so.

    Errors in Voting.
    MR. MURPHYexplained that during the late sitting that morning he had voted in the "No" lobby under the impression that a division was being taken on the closure. After he had passed the tellers he discovered that the Committee were voting on an Amendment relating to Part IV. of the Education Bill. He thought then that it would be possible for him to vote in the "Aye" lobby and get the clerk to strike out his name from the list of "Noes." He therefore went through the "Aye" lobby and came back immediately and informed the clerk, who told him—as he might have known he would—that he could do nothing. He therefore took the first opportunity to inform the Speaker. He regretted extremely that he should have committed this error, and his only explanation was that in the desire to do right he did wrong. He would be obliged if the Speaker would strike his name out of the "No" list and add it to the "Ayes."
    MR. SPEAKER: The division list will be altered in accordance with the desire of the hon. Member.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I desire to say that I also voted in both lobbies about half-past two o'clock, and the only explanation I can offer is that I did it by inadvertence.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid that if the hon. Member would inform the clerks what the particular division was it would facilitate the correction of the lists.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported 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 Dogs Bill: Mr. Weir; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Leicester Harmsworth.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following fifteen Members, in respect of the Labourers (Ireland) Bill: Mr. Bryce, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Hugh Barrie, Mr. Long, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Clancy, Mr. O'Shee, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Kendal O'Brien, Captain Donelan, and Mr. Halpin.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following fifteen Members, in respect of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Bill: Mr. Younger, Mr. Mitchell-Thomson, Mr. Gulland, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Smeaton, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Morton, Mr. Menzies, Mr. Murray, Mr. Findlay, Mr. Laidlaw, Major Anstruther-Gray, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. M'Kinnon Wood, and Mr. Halley Stewart.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Bill: Mr. Bryce, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Barrie, Mr. Walter Long, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Clancy, Mr. O'Shee,
    60
    Mr. Patrick McHugh, Mr. Kendal O'Brien, Captain Donelan, and Mr. Halpin.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee, That they had discharged the following. Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Labourers (Ireland) Bill:—The Lord-Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland; and, had appointed in substitution: Mr. McKenna and Mr. Lundon.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Bill Mr. Secretary Gladstone; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Craig.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following Member: Mr. Fotherstonhaugh.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in. respect of the Prevention of Corruption Bill [Lords]; Mr. Higham; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Pollard.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  INFECTIOUS DISEASE (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To extend The Infectious Disease (Notification) Act, 1889, to districts in Ireland in which it has not been adopted," presented by Mr. Bryce; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 259.]

  DUBLIN POLICE BILL.
  "To amend the Dublin Police Acts, 1837 and 1859," presented by Mr. Bryce;

  61
  to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 260.]

  LUNACY (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To correct a verbal error in Section 6 of The Lunacy (Ireland) Act, 1901," presented by Mr. Bryce; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 261.]
  POLICE (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  Lords' Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  BANKERS (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL.
  "To repeal an Act passed in Ireland in 1759 relating to bankers," presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 262.]
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Judicature (Ireland) Acts, 1877 to 1897, and Section 6 of the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the Law relating to bankrupts and to the constitution of certain election courts in Ireland," presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 263.]
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Ordered, That Mr. Arkwright, Mr. Sydney Buxton, and Mr. G-. Greenwood be Members of the Select Committee on the Post Office Sites Bill.—(Mr. Whiteley.)

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 2:—
  LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)moved to insert the word "educational" before the word "trust" in Sub-section (b). He said he hoped the Government would see its way to accept the Amendment which was of some importance. Trusts which affected a school were of two kinds.
  62
  There were trusts which were educational; and trusts which were not educational but charitable, and these latter were generally connected with some religious body. What he wished to submit was that if it were true that schools could be carried on as public elementary schools with trusts which were other than educational in their character, then those trusts should be preserved at all costs. The point he ventured to make was really an important one; it was whether they were right to over-ride, for the purposes of the Bill, trusts which were strictly religious or charitable in character. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education would see that quite different considerations applied to such trusts.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.)replied that under the general scheme of the Bill the acquisition of school houses by local authorities was limited to the purposes of public elementary schools. Whilst the local authority was in possession of the school for the purpose of carrying out the work of a public elementary school it would not be hampered by any trust whatever. It would be dangerous to strike a distinction in the way indicated by the noble Lord between one trust and another. The only usage the public authority would have of the premises would be that of a public elementary school, and no trust of a religious character would in any way be affected, because the use of the premises for-the purpose of such trust would be altogether outside the purposes for which the local education authority would require them.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but he did not think he had really met his point, because the framing of the clause was such as to leave it entirely in the discretion of the local authority. Let them take the case of a school used as a chapel on Sunday, and assume a hostile local authority or a local authority of a red tape description which came into the school and saw certain fittings and arrangements. He had in his mind a particular school in Sussex which was used for the purposes of a chapel, and he

  63
  did not see anything to prevent their saying that that was inconsistent with their conception of what a school ought to be for the purposes of education, and they would be entitled to take away all the fittings which were necessary as a chapel in order to fit it for educational purposes. As long as they only took away things which had to do with education then, from the standpoint of this clause, he did not object at all; but he wished very much—and he attached great importance to the point—to limit the discretion of the local authority to the particular class of business with which they ought to interfere. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman did not object to the insertion of the word "educational," except that he distrusted the legal profession and was not quite sure what interpretation might be given
  to an innocent word by an unduly ingenious lawyer. He therefore asked him if he could not accept the word. He could not believe that anybody had any objection to it in principle, and he believed it would save the consciences of a considerable number of people.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said that the previous clause gave absolute unchecked power to the local authority to deal with any fittings or make any alterations they deemed necessary for the school, and he did not think the Amendment would effect the noble Lord's point.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 95; Noes, 357. (Division List No. 135.)

  AYES.

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Nield, Herbert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Percy, Earl

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Powell. Sir Francis Sharp

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Remnant, James Farquaharson

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Ropner, Col. Sir Robert

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hills, J. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert. Patterson

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

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Liddell, Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

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

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

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

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Cross, Alexander

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Doughty, Sir George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Robert Cecil and Mr. Ashley.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Acland Francis Dyke

  Armitage, R.

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight.)

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Barker, John

  Agnew, George William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barlow, JohnEmmott (Somerset

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Alden, Percy

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Barnes. G. N.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Dully, William J.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Beale, W. P.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Kitson, Sir James

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Erskine, David C.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Belloe, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lambert, George

  Benn, John Williams (Devonport

  Essex, R. W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Bennett, E. N.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Bertram, Julius

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (StPancras, E.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Field, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Blake, Edward

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Boland, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brace, William

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lough, Thomas

  Branch, James

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lundon, W.

  Brigg, John

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Bright, J. A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Brunner, Sir John T. (Chesnire)

  Ginnell, L.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Macdonald, J. M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

  Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Glover, Thomas

  Maclean, Donald

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gooch, George Peabody

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Grant, Corrie

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S

  Byles, William Pollard

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Cameron, Robert

  Grove, Archibald

  M'Crae, George

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Cawley, Frederick

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Killop, W.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

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

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Halpin, J.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hammond, John

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Massie, J.

  Clough, W.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Meagher, Michael

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.

  Harwood, George

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Menzies, Walter

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Mond, A.

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Montagu, E. S.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Corbett, CH. (Sussex E. Grinst'd)

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Morrell, Philip

  Cory, Clifford John

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morse, L. L.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Murnaghan, George

  Crombie, John William

  Hogan, Michael

  Murphy, John

  Crooks, William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Murray, James

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Myer, Horatio

  Crossley, William J.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Nicholls, George

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

  Davies, David (MontgomeryCo.

  Hudson, Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Norman, Henry

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Illingworth, Percy, H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Delany, William

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, M d

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jones, David Brymour (Swansea

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Dillon, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  66

  67

  O'Dowd, John

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Thomasson, Franklin

  O'Malley, William

  Rose, Charles Day

  Tomkinson, James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Torrance, A. M.

  Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

  Runciman, Walter

  Toulmin, George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Russell, T. W.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Partington, Oswald

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Verney, F. W.

  Paul, Herbert

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wallace, Robert

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Schwann, Chas E (Manchest'r

  Walsh, Stephen

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Scott, AH (Ashton under Lyne)

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

  Perks, Robert William

  Sears, J. E.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Seddon, J.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wardle, George J.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Shackleton, David James

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Price, Rbt, John (Norfolk, E.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Watt, H. Anderson

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

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Radford, G. H.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Snowden, P.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Reddy, M.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Rees, J. D.

  Stanley. Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Steadman, W. C.

  Williams, L. (Carmarthen)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

  Richards, T. F (Wolverhampt'n

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Richardson, A.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

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

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Summerbell, T.

  Winfrey, R.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Young, Samuel

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Pease.

  Robinson, S.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Question—"That those words be there added"—put, and agreed to.

  MR. ASHLEYmoved to omit the words "or in any way restrict their full control of the schools" at the end of Sub-section (b). The words did not appear to be necessary to strengthen the sub-section, and he thought it lay on those who had framed the Bill to justify their retention. The sub-section was perfectly clear and sufficient without the words. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could trust the local education authority to make a suitable bargain with the owners of a school without pinning them down in this way. Of course, it was perfectly right and proper that a trust should be so far changed and modified that a public elementary school could be carried on, but why put in words which were perfectly superfluous? The local education authority might make such alterations in the internal arrangements of a building as to render it unfit to be used on Saturday or Sunday for parochial or denominational purposes.
  68
  The clause enabled the local authority to put up big divisions in the schoolroom which might make it absolutely unsuitable as a place for holding a public meeting, or any meeting at all.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words 'or in any way restrict their full control of the school.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. DILLONsaid these words ought to be left out, but his reason for saying so was not the same as that given by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. The hon. Member had made the common mistake of confounding the word "school" with the word "schoolhouse." Subsection (a) dealt with the building, and gave the local authority full power to make

  69
  the very alterations the hon. Member was afraid of. Sub-section (b) dealt with the school as an entity apart from the building.
  MR. BIRRELLindicated assent.
  MR. DILLONsaid he saw that the right hon. Gentleman accepted his interpretation. If these words were left in this sub-section he thought a subsequent Amendment of which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice would be out of order. The right hon. Gentleman himself recognised the necessity for some qualification of the clause, and he was going to propose to add: "Nothing in this section shall prevent the granting or requiring of facilities for special religious instruction in accordance with this Act, or prevent a local education authority as a condition of an arrangement made under this section with respect to the use of the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school, from giving an undertaking to give religious instruction which does not conflict with Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, in the school." He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman, if he did not decide to leave out the words to which the Amendment referred, should introduce some saving words so that his subsequent Amendment might be in order.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford University had pointed out to him the other day that the words "full control of the schools," might possibly interfere with the full effect of the facilities under Clause 3. He had at once acceded to the hon. and learned Member's view, whether he was right or wrong. He himself was advised that the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong, but that was a secret. The first part of the Amendment, which appeared on the Paper that day in his name, he thought had got over the difficulty suggested by the hon. Member for East Mayo. He had no objection to the words "save as hereinafter provided" being added in order to make assurance doubly sure. "School" referred to the operation and work of the school, and not to the actual bricks and mortar. It was desirable that the local authorities, when they entered into an agreement,
  70
  should have full control of the work of the school, and that was the reason why these words were put into the clause, and that they should not be allowed to fetter themselves by any restriction which would interfere with their rights to use the school premises of the public elementary schools. He did not think that it would be wise to omit the words altogether. The local education authority should not be allowed to better themselves, but he was quite prepared to accept the words suggested by his hon. friend in order to put it in proper order.
  MR. DILLON: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the words "or in any way which may be hereinafter provided"?
  MR. BIRRELLwas understood to assent.
  LORD BALCARRESasked if the acceptance of the words "hereinafter provided" in any way conflicted with the purpose of delegation suggested by Clause 26.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that his view was that the facilities given under Clauses 3 and 4 might be regarded as inconsistent with the provision that these schools should be treated as provided schools. But he recognised that his difficulty had been met by the right hon. Gentleman. As to the last words of the clause he asked whether it would not be worth while to consider that there were a number of people in the country whom those words concerned, who had extraordinary ingenuity in raising difficulties. He did not aim at limiting the control of the local authorities as long as it extended merely to the time for the use of the school as a public elementary school. But there might also be cases in which something might be done by the local authorities in trenching on the rights of the owners of the schools, who might find their powers as to the use of the schools more limited than was necessary to ensure the rights of the local authority.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid it seemed to him that the I words of the clause as they stood gave to

  71
  the local authority more power over the schools than was really intended. It would remove any ambiguity if these words were left out.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he could not but help thinking with the hon. Member for East Mayo that the effect of the clause as it stood would be to allow the local authorities to do anything they liked with the schoolhouses. Suppose there were pictures in the schoolhouse which the local education authority thought were superstitious, and wanted to remove them. There a difficulty would arise; and he asked the right hon. Gentlemen to consider this question from that point of view.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. RAWLINSONthought that if the Amendment he now proposed to move were accepted it would put an end to all doubts upon the point. He did not wish to repeat what had been said in the previous debate, but he was sure that those who were in charge of the Bill would see the difficulty of using the word "school" in different ways. It was no doubt perfectly right for the President of the Board of Education to say that what he meant was the entity, but there was no such use of the English language in the Bill to indicate that what was meant was the entity. He thought it would be safer therefore to accept the wording of his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 6, at end insert the words 'house during the time during which it is being used by the local education authority.'"
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH, Islington, W.)said it was quite clear that, under the clause as it stood, the local authority could only get control of the schoolhouse during school hours, and under these circumstances the local authority had not and could not, except by going outside the provisions of the Bill, get any control over the schoolhouse except during the time in which it was handed over to
  72
  them. That being so, he thought the acceptance of the Amendment would mean undue complication, and, in his judgment, it was quite unnecessary.
  MR. TALBOTsaid he had on the Paper an Amendment to add the words "as a public elementary school" at the end of the sub-section. He suggested that if the hon. Member for Cambridge University would consent to the insertion of his words at the end of his Amendment, the matter would be made quite clear. He would move the insertion of his words as an Amendment to the Amendment. What he desired was to make it clear that during the school days the local authority should have control, but for the rest of the days which were not school days the owners and managers should have ample and complete use for other purposes.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "At end, to add the words 'as a public elementary school.'"
  Question proposed, "That the words, as amended, be there added."
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said it seemed to him that the hon. Gentlemen who were responsible for the Amendment as it now stood would by endeavouring to meet a nonexistent danger create a real danger. The wording of the sub-section was to the effect that the local education authority should have full control of the school when it was conducted as a public elementary school. The preceding sub-section dealt with school houses as such, but the sub-section they were at present discussing referred to the management of the school. If the Amendment were accepted, it would strike the word "school" out of the section, and in its place insert the word "school-house," which would make the sub-section apply not to the management of the school but to the management of the schoolhouse.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid what they, on the Opposition side of the House, wanted to ensure, was that the local education authority should not be able to

  73
  say that owing to any ambiguity of wording they had some right to use the school otherwise than as a public elementary school.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid the wording of the subsection was not quite clear, owing to the use of the two words "schoolhouse" and "school." If hon. Members would refer to a paper which had been issued last w eek by the County Council of Kent, giving, a description of the schools in that county, they would find that time after time the trusts were constituted in connection with the schoolhouse. Unless, therefore, they got rid of the trusts under this sub-section they had not got rid of them under any sub-section. It was not sufficient to say they were not merely dealing with the entity; they could not leave out of consideration the trusts which affected the schoolhouse itself.
  MR. DILLONthought the introduction of the words which hon. Members desired would injure instead of improving the rights of school owners. The sub-section dealt not with the schoolhouse, but with the use of the school, which was a totally different matter. That was the purpose of the clause, and therefore the only purpose of the sub-section was to deal with the use o f the school-house for the purposes of carrying on a public elementary school. The section was designed to get rid of the right of the owner to break in and hold a bazaar during the school hours. He thought the point was absolutely clear.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he was perfectly satisfied with the clause as it stood, as it seemed to him to be most suitable for the purposes they had in view.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid all he desired was to prevent interference with the schoolhouse out of school hours. The words of the sub-section were very wide, and needed restricting.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Government had been more careful to provide for the absolute supremacy of the local education authority during school hours than to protect the owners out of school hours. If the Government would put in words to redress
  74
  the balance, he thought it would probably satisfy his hon. friends.
  DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N)pointed out that the wording of sub-section (1) clearly indicated that the local education authority was to have full control of the school only for the purposes of a public elementary school.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he had no objection whatever to the insertion of the words "as a public elementary school." They were all over the clause already. One thing was made perfectly plain, and that was that the only purpose of this clause was to put the local education authority in possession of the schoolhouse for a limited time for a limited purpose. But to oblige the hon. Member for Oxford University—a thing he was always very anxious to do—he would consent to the addition of those words.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 6, at end, to add the words 'as a public elementary school.'"—(Mr. Talbot.)
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid the Amendment he desired to move ran as follows —
  "And save so far as any stipulation which may be made for giving in the schools such Christian teaching as may be given in the schools under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870."
  He moved that Amendment because he thought it would very much facilitate the working of the Bill, and in addition allow the owners of the voluntary schools and the local education authorities to embark on special facilities two days a week; it would also permit them to agree as to giving such Christian teaching as was permitted under the Cowper-Temple clause. If the Amendment was accepted by the Government the owners and trustees of voluntary schools would have the power of insisting upon this teaching. If they did not use the power they could not afterwards complain that the schools were irreligious schools seeing that they had not asserted their power to make them religious. But if they did use this

  75
  power they would then demonstrate the fact that the objection to the Cowper-Temple teaching was not nearly so deep-seated in the Church of England as it was made to appear by bishops, clergy, and such of the laity as sympathised with them in an extreme form of opposition to the Bill. It might be held by some sections of the House that this was interfering with the absolute discretion of the local education authority. He had every confidence in the local education authority in the matter of religious instruction, and he believed the overwhelming majority of local education authorities would continue to give that kind of religious instruction which was permissible on all days other than those earmarked for special facilities. But he was inclined to think that the local education authorities would be very willing to have the power to make this bargain; that it should no longer be a matter of discretion whether in these schools there should be religious instruction or not, but that if it could be done it should be a definite bargain between these schools and the local authority that for all time, so far as there could be permanency in these matters, simple Christian teaching such as was permitted under the Act of 1870 should be part and parcel of the agreement between them. The power which he desired to give by this Amendment was perfectly clear to the Committee, and therefore he need not labour the point. It did not impose anything in a statutory sense, but left the owners of voluntary schools and the local education authorities free to enter into a bargain one with the other not merely for facilities but for the continuation of simple Christian teaching under the Cowper-Temple clause. He believed those among whom he sat, who represented the large Nonconformist bodies in this country, would agree that those bodies did desire to continue Bible teaching in their schools. If they desired, therefore, to continue it in their present schools they would desire to continue it in the schools taken over by the local education authorities from the churches. The acceptance of the Amendment would strengthen the Bill from a national point of view. He believed the Cowper-Temple teaching in our large towns had been very largely the work of the deno-
  76
  minations themselves. He could speak certainly for Liverpool, where the representatives of the various denominations who fought hard for supremacy on the school board, when they found they could not carry out their own ideas, fell back in despair on their common Christianity with most excellent results. It was in order that there might be a continuation of this excellent policy that he now appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say that an option should be given to the local education authorities and the owners of voluntary schools to enter into this bargain. He moved.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 6, at the end of the second sub-section, to add, 'And save so far as any stipulation which may he made for giving in the Schools such Christian teaching as may be given in the schools under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870.'"
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  LORD R. CECILasked whether this Amendment was in order He pointed out that in the body of the sub section it said—
  "Free from any trusts or conditions which are not consistent with the conduct and management of the school as a public elementary school."
  The Cowper-Temple clause was not inconsistent with the teaching of an elementary school.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid it was for that reason that he ruled this Amendment out of order at the previous point. But the sub-section went on to say, "or in any way restrict the full control of the school." He thought the additional stipulation now proposed might restrict the full control of the school. It was a fine point, but he thought the Amendment was in order.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: Would it not be equally in order for the Minister for Education to move his proviso now?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he could not imagine any managers making that demand, because they did not believe in it. The local authority might make a demand,

  77
  but then they would have denominational teaching side by side with Cowper-Temple teaching, which was a perfectly impossible proposition. The proposal put down by the President of the Board of Education was a much more feasible one, because it did not lay down any compulsion. He thought the Amendment would be entirely unworkable, for they could not have Roman Catholic teaching, for instance, going on side by side with Cowper-Temple teaching.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he hoped the hon. Member for East Toxteth would see his way to withdraw his Amendment, because the Government could not accept it, and his object would be met by the Government proposal.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was in favour of the view expressed by the Minister for Education in his Amendment, which was that there should be freedom on the part of the owners of the schools to make arrangements with regard to religious education. He thought it was just one of those cases in which the phrases "Cowper-Templeism" and "simple Bible teaching" and the rest of it were liable to the greatest misuse and produced the gravest misunderstanding. If he were the owner—as he was not—of a school and if he had to make a bargain with a local authority, he would strive to get teaching consistent with Section 14 of the Act of 1870, but by no means in conformity with that rather jejune instruction which went by the name of Cowper-Templeism. If he were the owner of a voluntary school he should try to get some arrangement which would suit not only Churchmen but all bodies of Christians in the district and not confine it to what was sometimes called Cowper-Templeism, the fatal ambiguity of which phrase was always leading them astray both in this House and outside it. He thought it was most desirable that under such an arrangement full liberty should be given to the voluntary schools.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Chairman called upon Mr. Middlemore.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he desired on a point of order to remind the Chairman that Clauses 3 and 4 would be discussed under great difficulties by this Amendment.
  MR. DILLONasked if he might move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. †
  THE CHAIRMAN: That Amendment is not in order. It deals with the rights of children attending those schools, and therefore it is a matter of attendance and not schoolhouses.
  MR. DILLONsaid they had had a long discussion in which they had all agreed that this particular sub section did not deal with schoolhouses but with the conduct of the school, and in that respect he submitted that the marginal note was wrong, or at any rate open to correction.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Of course I cannot lay much stress upon the marginal note, but I do lay stress upon the general scope of the clause, which has nothing to do with the attendance of children. Although I should be glad to have the point discussed, I really cannot allow it here.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)said this sub-section proposed to invalidate trusts, or at any rate the religious part of them. The particular subsection which he moved to omit invited trustees to take part in invalidating trusts which it was their duty to protect, and therefore it invited them to do an act of great wickedness and treachery. These persons had accepted their trusteeship and had signed a document to say that they would maintain those trusts, and now they were being invited to do something in opposition to their written word. This was adding insult and almost infamy to what was little short of
  † The Amendment referred to was as follows:—"In Clause 2, page 2, line 6, at end, to insert, 'Provided that, after a school has been transferred, the children of parents belonging to a denomination in respect of which a trust existed affecting such school may continue as of right to attend same from any part of an urban or rural area,'"— (Mr. T. M. Healy.)

  79
  robbery. John Stuart Mill laid down the principle that a trust should be maintained as long as the foresight of the person who founded it could be reasonably supposed to extend. Now they were proposing to ask trustees to be parties to this confiscation. He felt very strongly on this point, and he begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 7, to leave out sub-section (2)."—Mr. Middlemore.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that although the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Birmingham had been moved in a spirit of fairness, it was really inconsistent with the observations which had already been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who recognised that it was impossible to carry out the proposals made under the Act of 1902 if there was not a latitude allowed in regard to these trusts, so far as they related to the use which the local education authority might make of the schoolhouse and premises for the purpose of carrying on a public elementary school. If they could not vary these trusts there would be an end of all dealing with trust property for public purposes. The whole history of this country was full of instances in which for the public good Parliament had allowed an interference with trusts affecting particular pieces of property. If they were now to be told that they could not acquire for the purposes of public elementary education any building which had a trust deed attached to it there would be no course open to them but to disregard those buildings and leave the local authority free to build new schools, leaving those trust schools out in the cold altogether. That was not the proposal of the Government. Their proposal was that where an agreement could be come to, the persons should strike a bargain of their own, and he did not see any compulsion in that. He sympathised with hon. Members who felt so keenly on this point, but it was now too late in the day for anyone who supported the Bill of 1902 or the Charitable Trusts Act to say that these
  80
  trusts should not be varied. One hon. Member had assured the Committee that this interference with trusts would interfere in the future with benefactors, and that pious founders would not leave any of their property to trusts. He was afraid that personally he should never be a pious founder, but he could conceive nothing more likely to promote benefactions than the conviction that hundreds of years after the would-be benefactor was dead the public would by law utilise to the utmost the intention he had in his mind. He believed that if these pious founders could ever revisit the country the persons they would admire most would be the Charity Commissioners, because they would see the schools they had founded, instead of being kept going with only two or three boys, revived in consequence of these very breaches of trust and devoted to the main purposes which the pious founders had in view. He knew nothing more likely to encourage public benefactions than the fact that there was power from time to time to see to it that the trusts were not used as an instrument in opposition to the public good, but to divert them into channels of public usefulness. His belief was that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Birmingham was entirely hostile to the general purposes of the Bill and would render this or any other measure dealing with private trusts altogether impossible. Therefore the Government could only offer a determined opposition to the Amendment.
  MR. EVELYN CECILsaid the speech of the Minister for Education was entirely alien to anything he had heard before on this subject, and he could not understand his view. He said it would not damp the ardour of pious founders and benefactors, but he differed from the right hon. Gentleman on that point. Probably in many cases the opinions of pious founders as to what was for the public good might differ very much from the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. The President of the Board of Education had just put before the Committee a very dangerous doctrine. He happened to be the happy possessor of a book written by the right hon. Gentleman upon the liabilities of trusts and trustees

  81
  in which it was laid down that the duty of a trustee was to adhere to the terms of his trust in all things great and small, important and seemingly unimportant—
  "This was his very plainest duty; no trustee would ever deny it, or pretend to be ignorant of it, yet it was his hardest, unless from the very beginning he made up his mind to it, and then it was as easy as eating bread and butter. Non possumus (continued the right hon. Gentleman) was the one and only answer for badgered trustees. They should never argue or reply to arguments, but barricade themselves behind their will or their deed, and whilst profoundly regretting their inability to oblige, refuse to budge a foot."
  This was on pages 22 and 23.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid they were not now dealing with the obligations of trustees, because every trustee left to himself must carry out his trust. They were now considering a great measure of public interest.
  MR. EVELYN CECILsaid there had never before been such a wide departure in so-called deference to the public good. He could not himself see any very great difference between a private trustee and one who was a trustee for the nation.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that during the whole of the discussion upon the Act of 1902 he did not venture to say a word concerning education. He ventured this afternoon to address himself to this particular question of trusts because he did not think it was too late for him to enter his protest against what he believed to be an injustice on the part of the Government in dealing with trusts. The Minister for Education had said that the action of this or any Government which dealt with the alteration of trusts was to prevent abuses, to destroy what might be called the injury of obsoleteness which crept into trusts, and to keep down all that repressed what was for the public good. There was a time when a great many hon. Members opposite did not take the view that trusts were, as they had done their best to represent, oppressive to the public good. The whole body of opinion in this country forty years ago was that these religious and educational trusts were of immense benefit to the community at large. He quoted an extract from a Minute of the
  82
  Committee of the Council on Education o 1844, which stated that the trust deeds of voluntary schools would form a permanent record of the views and intentions of the founders of the schools. The Minute further stated that in the opinion of the Committee no plan of education ought to be encouraged in which intellectual instruction was not subordinated to religious instruction. At that time this country was practically dependent upon the Church of England for the education of its children. The example set by the Church of England in the formation of the National Society was followed by the British and Foreign Society, by the Roman Catholics, and by Nonconformists of every kind. The Church of England gave their support generally and specifically to every effort which was made then to build up the religious foundations which existed to-day. He did not think the Minister for Education had put quite fairly before the Committee and the country the position of the teaching in the voluntary schools as they existed in this country. Were the Government justified in dealing so rigorously with trust deeds at the present time? Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House believed that the treatment was too rigorous. They believed that the Government had taken from the voluntary schools that which was of most good in them, namely, religious instruction, the one thing for which those schools were valued. It was proposed to take away the full teaching which was provided under the old system and to give instead teaching on two days of the week. The instruction issued to the inspectors in former days was that they were to have regard less to the intellectual development of the children than to the foundation of character formed upon religious teching. The inspectors were told that no intellectual development was sound which had not its origin in moral and religious teaching through doctrinal methods. The people of this country had gone a long way since then, but he was not at all certain that they were on the right way. He did not think that those who represented nonconformity at present were really doing justice to themselves and their own history. There was not a single member of the community who had not benefited directly from the teaching given in the voluntary

  83
  schools. In the forties and fifties, when there was no other system of schools, the burden of educating the poor devolved upon the Church of England. The Government then not only encouraged but pressed benevolent people to give land and to give of their riches in order to give to the poor of the country the education which they had not previously. He urged that the trusts should have greater consideration at the hands of the Government. Nonconformity and the Liberal Party were not at present really representing the feelings of the classes from which they had drawn their political force and power. The clauses in the Bill were repressive; they did not give freedom; they did not represent the views of the vast body of the people of the country. The Minister for Education had been more moved by political opportunism than by what he himself honestly believed was for the best good of the country. If the right hon. Gentleman were only to embody in the Bill the statements he had made on public platforms they would have less quarrel with him. The right hon. Gentleman knew that he was not carrying out the policy which he and his leader and the Liberal Party presented to the country at the general election. He hit harder than probably he meant, and by the clause which practically defeated the intention of the founders of the trusts, he was retarding the development of the education of the country. They had come to the day of misappropriations, and these, although called by another name by the Minister for Education, would return upon the Party which they represented and would do it an injury which they did not desire; because he believed they really wished to do their best for the good of the children of the country. What he and those associated with him desired was that a spirit of benevolence and charity in regard to education should be kept alive; that the soul and the mind of the children should be cultivated, and that no education other than that was worthy of the name. They believed that the inculcation of morality was good, but that the upbringing of the children in religion was better. They believed that the same tests in regard to the religious development of the child should be applied as to
  84
  its intellectual development. It was in that regard that he hoped the intentions of the pious founders of trusts for the spiritual welfare of the children of England would be maintained intact.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said that the speeches in support of this Amendment displayed a singular and unfortunate misconception of the nature of trusts. They had been spoken of as if they were self-supporting trusts and as if the Government were interfering with the will of some pious founder who had set apart a sufficient fund for a charitable purpose. There could be no greater misapprehension. The trusts they were dealing with were not self-supporting. They were trusts which came as petitioners to the national exchequer for money. Most of them were built upon the legislative understanding that 50 per cent, of the expenses should be contributed by the denomination, and that it should receive a grant of 50 per cent, from the State. The denominations found themselves unequal to that financial burden, and their friends strove by legislative action to lessen that burden. He did not complain of that, but it was idle for voluntary schools to put themselves into the position of private trusts and to say the State had no right to dictate or suggest terms on which it should give its money. On the one hand, the denominations were appealing to the State for financial aid and on the other hand the State was saying in this Bill on what terms it would give that aid. No parallel could be drawn between that case and the case of private trusts. The denominations complained of the intolerable strain upon them, and that being their position how preposterous it was for them to assail the Government with terms of abuse because in the strict fulfilment of their duty as public trustees they suggested that there were terms which ought to be imposed in common fairness to the community which had to pay.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSONsaid he objected to the language that had been used in respect to trustees and the sanctity of trusts. The President of the Board of Education had adduced the argument that because the Charity Commissioners had

  85
  altered the disposition of certain trusts to the advantage of education, the benefactors who had created those trusts would have been heartily grateful to the Legislature for empowering them to do so. But it should be remembered that in those cases the educational circumstances of the past were adapted to the needs of the present with as little change as possible and the rule of ci-près was observed. The right hon. Gentleman had also quoted the action of the late Government in the Bill of 1902 and had stated that his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had invaded trusts and that, therefore, he was not in a position to criticise any one else who invaded trusts in any other direction. But what did the late Government do? In the first place they altered the schemes of management under the trust deed so as to conform to the provision of the Act; but the whole scheme of management was most carefully worked out to secure that the original intentions of the truster were carried on. He admitted that there was an invasion of the trusts under what was known as the Kenyon-Slaney clause of the Act of 1902. He quite agreed that when the late Government took the control of the religious instruction from the rector or vicar and deposited it in the hands of the managers that was a departure from the terms of the trust. But it was never contemplated to alter the character of the religious instruction given in the schools. Lastly, in regard to the teachers, it was a departure from the terms of the trust which enabled managers to appoint all the teachers, except the headmaster, from any religious denomination whatever. That was the whole case in regard to trusts as against the late Government. But what did the present Bill do? It altered the whole purpose for which the voluntary schools had been built. The Solicitor-General had said that these schools demanded payment from the State. But what were the circumstances of the case? Had not the State been content to use the buildings of the schools? Had not Parliament encouraged the denominations to build these schools, because Parliament did not want to put the expense either on the Exchequer or on the local rates? They were not mendicants for public money.
  86
  They were the inheritors of buildings for purposes which could not be carried out under this Bill. But as the Bill now stood schools might be rejected and put aside and not allowed to be used as public elementary schools unless they submitted to the requirements of the Bill in regard to the trusts. It was not fair to put the case in the way in which the Solicitor-General had done and say that they had clamoured to have their schools confiscated. The purport of the Amendment was that the schools whose managers desired they should remain as public elementary schools should be acquired as such with the least possible departure from their trust deeds. What he meant was that they should if they chose continue their useful mission and should not be thrown aside through the whim of the local authority. He quite admitted that the Amendment was one which the Government could not consistently admit, having regard to the scheme of Clause 2, but for himself, he was, he thought justified in protesting against the treatment to which trusts were subjected throughout the Bill. The language of the Bill indicated that the Government were only too ready to secure, as public property, schools which had been provided for the purposes of the State in order to secure religious education in conjunction with elementary education. Whatever happened under the clause, however, a breach of trust would have to be committed, and against that he entered his hearty protest.
  MR. DILLONsaid the course of the discussion appeared to him to be positively melancholy. They were discussing a provision which was entirely in the interest of the voluntary schools but which it was now proposed to omit. If the Government had proposed the Amendment the hon. Gentlemen who were now supporting it would not have dared to have voted for anything of the kind. The speeches of hon. Members against breaches of trust would come in very well upon Clause 8 and other clauses, but to discuss the question upon this clause was most lamentable, as all that the clause proposed was to put trustees in a position in which they could hand over their schools. The only effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be to play

  87
  directly into the hands of the hon. Members who were the extreme opponents of Clauses 3 and 4, as it would give the local authorities a thoroughly valid excuse for refusing to take over voluntary schools. Such a proposal was not in his view reasonable.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he was not upon this Amendment going to make an appeal to the Government, as he knew that any such appeal in regard to it would be unfair, because he recognised that this clause was an essential part of the scheme of the Bill. He was prepared, however, to vote in favour of the Amendment, not in the hope that the Government would accept it, but because he recognised that it was against the basis of the measure. He believed that that basis was confiscation of trust property, and the object of the Amendment was to protest against that. The Bill was talked about as if it referred only to trusts created hundreds of years ago, but, as a matter of fact, it referred to trusts ten, fifteen, and twenty years old. The trustees under it were invited to disregard equally the wishes of new and of old benefactors. It was quite a mistake to represent trustees coming as mendicants and suppliants. Under Part II. of the Bill the plunder could not be justified by the plea that the man gave his money merely for educational purposes. There had always been enough money from these educational endowments to pay for the denominational instruction in the schools so endowed. The Minister for Education had scoffed at the idea that the policy of the Government would stop benefactions which would go towards the creation of trust funds in future, but in his experience it had had that effect.
  SIR E. CARSONwished to know whether it was proposed to put in the sub-section provisions imposing an obligation on the trustees to carry out the trust. It must be considerd that a trustee was bound to get the best possible terms. If when this Bill had passed the trustee of a voluntary school failed to secure such facilities as it was possible to secure would that trustee be guilty of a breach of trust? As he read the Bill, he did not think he would, but he thought he ought to be. Therefore
  88
  he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would accept an Amendment limiting the breaking of the trust.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid they had assumed that the trustees and owners of voluntary schools would always make it a condition that they should have the most extended facilities that the law under Clause 3 would permit. He could not suppose that they would do otherwise. However that might be, he would when they came to that part of the Bill, endeavour to put that question right. He only rose for the purpose of making an appeal to the Committee. Everybody had admitted that he could not possibly accept the Amendment now before the Committee; that to do so would be an act of cruelty to those trustees who wished to continue, their schools and who wished to have the Prayer Book in the schools twice a week, and a good system of religious education on the other days. This clause was in their favour. However, he did not rise to argue the matter but to ask the Committee, as he could not accept the Amendment, to come to a decision upon it.
  MR. NIELDsaid that they on the Opposition side of the House were being constantly told that the sanctity of trusts had been broken in upon and practically destroyed by the late Government by their Education Act of 1902 and by the Charitable Trusts Act, but that was not an accurate statement. The Act of 1902 had preserved the object which the founder had in view but had altered the number of trustees and given popular representation, while the Charitable Trusts Act had provided means for modernising trusts while keeping as far as possible to the object and scheme of the founder's bounty. The Minister for Education had also referred to the number of schools which had been surrendered or transferred under this Act of 1870. This was a subject upon which he himself had put a specific Question to the right hon. Gentleman. He asked him specifically to state the number of schools taken over since 1870; to give the number of school places affected, and to state how many of the schools taken over were Roman Catholic, how many were Church

  89
  of England, and how many belonged to the various Nonconformist bodies. But in the, Answer he received, with all the knowledge which he had of the English language, he utterly failed to find any information; at all. Throughout the debates upon the Act of 1870 the position of these voluntary schools was clearly defined and not only was their existence recognised but their great work acknowledged. Board schools were to supplement but not supplant them, and upon the faith of this statutory recognition further schools were put up beside them. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University made it abundantly clear that even so far as building grants were given they were given for secular education, and the conditions of those grants had been fulfilled. True, they had to come for larger grants from the Exchequer year by year, and for very good reason, since they were subjected to unfair competition. During the whole of the time that elementary education had been given under the school board system, oppressive and ever increasing rates were levied upon the people for the purpose of providing and equipping in the most complete manner, irrespective of cost, these public elementary and higher grade schools. How could they suppose that voluntary schools could exist side by side with those schools which had the illimitable purse of the ratepayers at their back? It was because of that that the voluntary schools of outlying and rural districts came to the House from time to time to ask for further assistance. It was not only unjust and unfair but departing from the common principles of honesty to say that these great denominations had not a substantial interest in the schools they had built and equipped at such great pecuniary sacrifice, merely because they had received these grants from the Imperial Exchequer, grants given for purposes and under conditions which had been amply, nay generously, fulfilled. If hon. Gentlemen opposite said they had a mandate to deal with any part of the public educational system, it was confined to two points, viz., increasing the number of managers for voluntary schools appointed by the local authority, and the appointment of the head teachers. He denied that they had a mandate to alter trust deeds and put an end to the wishes
  90
  of the pious founders of the last sixty ears, the raison d'être for which was the establishment and maintenance of the religious education to be given in the schools, of the character approved by and in accordance with the teaching of the Church of England. The Committee in his matter were taking a step which hey would soon regret because it would, open the door to interference with trust deeds of all kind.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite; therefore he would suggest that the Committee should bring this discussion to, an end, and that they should divide not on this Amendment but rather on the second Amendment, upon which there were some important Questions to ask.
  MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid before he withdrew his Amendment he would like; to reply to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education that the pious Founders would clap their hands and rejoice at the destruction of these trust deeds. What mysterious power had whispered in the ear of the right hon. Gentleman that he had been enabled to become the Parliamentary representative of the unseen and unknown? All he could say was that the trust deeds were just as much alive now as they were in the time of the pious founders, and he ventured to say that if the pious founders were still alive they would hold the same-views as they held when they entered into these trust deeds. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he desired to move the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for the Oxford University—
  "To insert in line 10, after the word 'section' the words 'as far as possible in accordance with the terms of the trust."
  His hon. friend had put those words on the Paper in order to invite the President of the Board of Education to say whether he could see his way to accept the Amendment not from the point of view of limiting the discretion of the local authority or the constituted rights and duties of trustees, but merely

  91
  to insert in the clause something in the nature of a safeguard.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 10, after the word 'section,' to insert the words 'as far as possible in accordance with the terms of the trust.'"—(Lord Balcarres.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BIRRELLsaid, after all, under this clause the owners were the people who had to carry out the arrangements, and they would make their proposals as far as possible consistent with their trust. But he did not like to accept any words which might prevent the local authority from obtaining control of the schools during the time for which they required them.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid the matter was of considerable importance, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to agree to the Amendment. The object was to prevent negligent trustees or people upon whom pressure might be put from abrogating more than was necessary their functions as trustees of denominational schools. Surely it was only fair that a trustee should be guilty of a breach of trust if he neglected to carry out all the arrangements allowed under the Bill for the purpose of securing special facilities for religious teaching. What was the use of saying that a trustee was to be absolved from a breach of trust if he got rid of a trust altogether? In the vast majority of cases there was no doubt the owner and trustee would make the best bargain they could with the local authority. But the trust might pass into the hands of persons who were absolutely careless in these matters, and care ought to be taken that they were not allowed in such cases to sacrifice what the right hon. Gentleman had given them in the Bill. They should be bound to exercise the ordinary prudence and duties of trustees.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYasked the right hon. Gentleman to give further consideration to this matter. No harm could result from the Amendment, and it would provide that
  92
  the trusts should be varied as little as was consistent with the arrangements in carrying out the other parts of the clause. It was impossible in any way to limit the full effect of the control given by the previous subsection.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid the owners must know their own duties, and they knew perfectly well the limited purpose for which, they were allowed to put their trust on one side. The Amendment would throw doubt upon their action in every possible way. He thought they must leave it to the trustees and the other persons who represented them to look after the matter as far as possible.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had taken the line he had. The words proposed to be inserted in the clause had no other object than to make it quite clear that no unnecessary sacrifice should be made by the trustees. The right hon. Gentleman had not suggested a single inconvenience that would result. He had only suggested some minute difficulty which might arise, but he had not given even an imaginary case. He believed these words would be a valuable guide to the trustees and would help them in any legitimate discussion with the local authority. He did not want to hamper the local authority, and indeed they could not hamper it as the responsible authority in matters of education. If these words were not inserted it would seem to many trustees, as indeed it would seem to many in the Committee, that the Government desired to sweep away the trusts and to treat them as a matter of no moment, and being content that the local authorities should get all that they wanted for their part of the business and leaving the interest of the trust on one side.
  LORD R. CECILvery much hoped the Government would reconsider their decision. The Minister for Education seemed to regard it merely as a matter for the owners. He did not think it was. He thought it was mainly a matter for those who benefited under the trust, and he could see a very substantial reason why some such words as these should be inserted. The clause said that the owners

  93
  should have power to carry out any arrangements under this section. It might well be that two different arrangements might be possible under this section, both for the purpose of carrying on the public elementary school, but one might be more and the other less in accordance with the trust, and it seemed to him clearly desirable that in that case the one more in accordance with the trust should be selected by the trustee. But unless some such words as those of the Amendment were inserted the trustees would have absolute liberty to make the arrangement which was less in accordance with the trust. That was a very serious matter, and he could not help thinking that the Minister for Education had not really considered that aspect of the case. Even if the actual words of the Amendment were not those which the Government could accept he hoped they would insert some words which would make it clear that where it was possible to make an alternative arrangement the trustees should make that arrangement which was the more in accordance with the trust.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid it would be somewhat dangerous to introduce limitations of the power of the trustees to make such arrangements as they thought right with the local authorities. There was no reason to doubt that the trustees would consider themselves in a special sense the guardians of religious education wherever they could fulfil the object of their trusts, but if they were to introduce words of this kind it would certainly cast doubt on the power of trustees to make any arrangements. 'The words which it was proposed to introduce would leave every trustee and every local education authority in doubt as to the validity of the arrangement at which they had arrived, and that was a matter the Government desired to avoid.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTERconfessed he had some difficulty in understanding the reluctance shown by the Government to accept this Amendment in substance. The clause they were dealing with was one which proposed to give to trustees a licence to
  94
  break a trust. He imagined all Members of the Committee would agree that that was a thing which, if it were done at all, ought to be done with the greatest care and circumspection. He should think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the only ground on which it could be suggested that it might be right to entitle trustees to break trusts was that of public interest, and did it not follow that licence to break trusts ought to be restricted so far as the public interest allowed? Was this restriction in any way in derogation of the supposed public interest on which the Government relied? Under the clause as it stood it would be competent for the trustees of a voluntary school to make an agreement which would completely destroy the hitherto existing religious character of the school. It might be that they were in a position, if they bargained with the local authority, to obtain certain terms. Under the clause as it stood they would be under no obligation to attempt to obtain the best terms available, and it would be open to the trustees, even though they could obtain facilities by bargaining, to make an agreement which would involve no facilities at all. But under the clause as proposed to be amended it would not be competent for the trustees of the school to make an agreement without stipulating for religious facilities, assuming such facilities could be obtained. He hoped the Minister for Education would consider whether, possibly by some alteration of the words, he could limit the licence here given to break trusts, so far as might be compatible with the public interest.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLconsidered the proposal of his hon. friend a valuable one. He thought the trustees and owners were entitled to some instruction and guidance in the matter. There was no doubt that the tendency of these clauses was very unfavourable as they now stood to the maintenance of trusts, and if the Bill passed in its present form it would appear as if the intention of Parliament was to break up trusts. Some Amendment of the kind indicated would do something to remove that defect.
  MR. HORRIDGE (Manchester, E.): said it was exceedingly desirable in this matter that the hands of the local authority and of the trustees should be free. Speaking as a lawyer on this occasion it seemed to him if they put in the words of the Amendment they would at once raise the question whether or not the trustees had gone one iota beyond what was necessary for the purposes of the trust. The Amendment would involve the trustees in all sorts of law suits, and in many cases they might even have the authorities themselves brought in. It seemed to him that the people to be trusted were those who had to make the bargain, and the Committee ought not to limit their actions in any way, or to raise any suspicion. He hoped the Minister for Education would not accept any words of this character, because he believed they would create difficulties and be harmful while serving no useful purpose.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that unless these words were inserted there might be the suggestion of a breach of trust if certain matters were not carried out, but
  that was impossible for the reason that the words were "as far as possible in accordance with the terms of the trust." If the local authority said "we will never give you so and so," and the trustee had to accept it, he had done his duty because he had acted as far as possible in accordance with the trust. What they contended was that under the Bill at present the trustee was absolutely absolved, from doing anything to carry out his trust, and they wished to have it clear that it was his duty to carry out his trust as far as possible. Why should it not be put in the Bill? In every case he ought to obtain terms for religious liberty under the Bill, and if he tried to do that he was absolved from any idea of any breach of trust whatsoever, because it was covered by the words "as far as possible." This was the most reasonable Amendment that could possibly be suggested, and he could not conceive why any Government should wish to interfere with solemn and great trusts more than was absolutely necessary in the public interest.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 103; Noes, 414. (Division List No. 136.)

  AYES.

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

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Kenyon-Slaney. Rt. Hn Col. W.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Keswick, William

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

  Arnold-Forster. Rt. HnHughO.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lane-Fox, G. K.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants. Fareham

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Cross, Alexander

  Liddell, Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lyttleton, Rt Hon. Alfred

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  MiddlemoreJohn, Throgmorton

  Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson. Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Bull, Sir William James

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

  Percy, Earl

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Haddock, George R.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield Ecclesall).

  Cave, George

  Hill, Henrv Staveley (Stafl'sh.)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cavendish.Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Hills, J. W.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith,F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone. E.)

  Kennaway,Rt.Hn.Sir John H.

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Younger, George

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Thomson W. Mitchell-(Lanark

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York E.R.

  Salter and Mr. Nield

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Chance, Frederick William

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Agnew, George William

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Alden, Percy

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Gill, A. H.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cleland, J. W.

  Ginnell, L.

  Armitage, R.

  Clough, W.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Clynes, J. R.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Ashton, Thomas Galr

  Coats.Sir T.Glen (Renfrew, W.

  Glover, Thomas

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cogan,Denis J.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Grant, Corrie

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Grove, Archibald

  Barker, John

  Cory, Clifford John

  Gulland, John W.

  Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somers't

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hall, Frederick

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Halpin, J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Crombie, John William

  Hammond, John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Crooks, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Beale, W. P.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Davies, M.Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harvey A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Benn, John Williams(Dev'np't

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hardwood, George

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

  Delany, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Devlin, CharlesRamsay (Galway

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bertram, Julius

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness, S.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Bethell J. H.(Esssex, Romford)

  Dickinson, W. H.(S. Pancras, N

  Hazleton, Richard

  Bethell,T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Blake Edward

  Dillon, John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Boland, John

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Duckworth, James

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

  Brace, William

  Duffy, William J.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Branch, James

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Brigg, John

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hodge, John

  Brocklehurst, W.D.

  Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

  Hogan, Michael

  Brooke, Stopford

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

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

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon John Edward

  Hooper, A. G.

  Bryce,Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

  Erskine, David C.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Som'rs't, N.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Hudson, Walter

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Hyde. Clarendon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Issac, Rufus Daniel

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Field, William

  Jackson, R. S.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Cairns, Thomas

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jenkins, J.

  Cameron, Robert

  Flavin, Micl.ael Joseph

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  98

  99

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Murnaghan, George

  Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Murphy, John

  Scott, A. H. (AshtonunderLyne)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Murray, James

  Sears, J. E.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Myer, Horatio

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Napier, T. B.

  Seddon, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Shackleton, David James

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Nicholls, George

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Nicholson, CharlesN. (Donc' str.)

  Shaw,Rt. Hn. T. (HawickB.)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

  Nuttall, Harry

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mld

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lambert, George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Snowden, P.

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Stanger, H. Y.

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Stanley. Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Lever,A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  O'Dovd, John

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Malley, William

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  O'Mara, James

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Lundon, W.

  Partington, Oswald

  Summerbell, T.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Paul, Herbert

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Macdonald.J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Philipps. Col. Ivor (S'th'mpt'n

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Philipps,J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

  Maclean, Donald

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan. E.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Thorne, William

  MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal E.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Arthur, William

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Torrance, A. M.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Toulmin, George

  M'Crae, George

  Ready, M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Kean, John

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rees, J. D.

  Vivian, Henry

  M'Killop, W.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Walsh, Stephen

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Richards.Thomas (W. Monm'th

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

  Maddison, Frederick

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Richardson, A.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wardle, George J.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wason, Eucene (Clackmannan)

  Marks. G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wason, Jn Cathcart (Orkney)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Massie, J.

  Robertson.Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradford

  Weir, James Galloway

  Meagher, Michael

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Robinson, S.

  White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire)

  Menzies, Walter

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Mond, A.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Money, L. G. Chiozza-

  Rowlands, J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Montagu, E. S.

  Runciman, Walter

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Mooney, J. J.

  Russell, T. W.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  William s, Llewellyn (Carm'rth'n

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  100

  101

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Wilson, W. T.(Westhoughton)

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(H'dd'rs'f

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Winfrey, R.

  Young, Samuel

  Pease.

  LORD R. CECILmoved the omission of the portion of Subsection 2 which provided that the owners of a schoolhouse of any existing voluntary school which was subject to charitable trusts should, when the local education authority had not the use of the schoolhouse, have power to use it for any purpose they thought fit, subject to any statutory provisions under which the use of the schoolhouse or any room therein might be required for public purposes. The words appeared to him to be indefensible. The purpose of the sub-section was to enable the local education authority to come to terms, in spite of the trust, for the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of public elementary education, and if the trustees were to have the power which the clause proposed to confer on them, the trusts must to a certain extent be interfered with. The Government had spoken as if this were a matter of affecting principally the trustees, but that was not so. He took very little interest in the trustees, except in so far as they performed the duties of their trusts. From a Return which had been issued showing the trusts affecting schools in Kent it appeared that under the trusts the schoolhouses could be put to a variety of uses of a parochial character, and, generally speaking, for the good and the convenience of the districts in which they existed. These trusts ought to be care fully preserved, and the only purpose of the words which he proposed should be struck out would be to give the trustees liberty to disregard the trusts. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, lines 10 to 15, to leave out the words, 'and in the time during which the local education authority have not the use of the schoolhouse under any such arrangement, to use the schoolhouses for any purposes they think fit, subject nevertheless to any statutory provisions under which the use of the school- house or any room therein may be required;for public purposes.'"—(Lord R, Cecil.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. BIRRELLadmitted that the words were unnecessarily wide. They
  102
  were inserted in good nature, because the Education Office often received requests from trustees to be allowed to use the schoolrooms for social and public purposes, and the Board thought that the clause afforded a good opportunity for giving a general permission to trustees to use the schools for purposes other than educational. He should be sorry to see the words omitted altogether, but he agreed that they were extraneous to the purpose of the Bill. He did not wish in any way to insist on the words "for any purposes they think fit," and he was prepared to modify them. If hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that the whole of the words should go, he could not insist on them, because they were in no way necessary for his purpose.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he fully understood and appreciated the motive of the right hon. Gentleman in putting in the words. He suggested that in modifying the clause the right hon. Gentleman might insert words authorising the trustees to use the schoolhouses for purposes not inconsistent with the purposes of the trusts.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid there was a difficulty about the use of the words "not inconsistent with." In certain cases it might be argued that the purposes for which trustees desired to use schoolhouses were inconsistent with the purposes of the trusts.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he should prefer the omission of the words. It would not be too much trouble for trustees, desiring to go beyond the trust in the use of the premises, to apply for permission to the Education Office, who could decide each case according to its merits. Though he desired to meet the right hon. Gentleman, he should prefer the words to come out altogether.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he wished to ask whether in the event of the words coming out, it would be possible to limit the use of the schools for public purposes.
  MR. ROGERSsaid he wanted to ask what would be

  103
  done with the money which would be paid for the use of these buildings. He himself had had very frequently to pay his guinea for the use of a school in order to hold a meeting with his constituents; and he understood that these guineas were used for the up-keep of the building. But that would not be necessary now, and the revenue from such sources should be treated as part of the education fund.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that all monies which owners or trustees of schools took as fees for the use of their premises were trust monies; they were bound to be devoted to the purposes of the trust, and the trustees must account for them. The money might be applicable to the maintenance of the furniture of the schools, but the owners or trustees could not apply it for political purposes or put it into their own pockets. He thought it was desirable to have some form of words of a wide character, such as "for any purposes they may think fit," so that the local authorities or the trustees might, without coming to the Board of Education, use the money derived from the letting of the schools for social purposes. He undertook to introduce at a later stage words which, while getting rid of too wide powers, would safeguard some of the objects which had been referred to.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he wished to move the omission of sub-section (3) of Clause 2 in order to ascertain from the Government what their intentions were as to the three different categories of voluntary schools mentioned in the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 16, to leave out Sub-section (3)."—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. LOUGHsaid that this sub-section was absolutely essential in order to make the clause in harmony with Clause 1;
  104
  and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in moving his Amendment.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that what he wished to ascertain was why this, special provision was put in instead of being covered by a general definition clause.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that that would be dealt with under Clause 4.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he would not press his Amedment.
  Leave to withdraw Amendment refused.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that the horn Member's suggestion was that the object to be obtained by this sub-section would be better obtained by a general interpretation clause; but the draftsmen thought otherwise, and they had made it plain in the substance and body of the Bill.
  MR. CAVEthought that this was a question of special importance.
  SIR E. CARSONinquired where the power to enter into the arrangements referred to was given.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he had put down,, in response to a point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford University, an Amendment which read, "Nothing in this section shall prevent the granting or requiring of facilities for special religious instruction in accordance with this Act, or prevent a local education authority, as a condition of an arrangement made under this section with respect to the use of the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school, from giving an undertaking to give religious instruction which does not conflict with section fourteen of The Elementary Education Act, 1870, in the school." He thought that met the point.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to him to be absolutely inconsistent with the previous part of the Bill.
  SIR W. ROBSONargued that there was no inconsistency between the clauses.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he had asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he had put the question of the withdrawal and permission had been refused.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 364; Noes, 77. (Division List, No. 137.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clough, W.

  Gulland, John W.

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Clynes, J. R

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Alden, Percy

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hall, Frederick

  Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Halpin, J.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Hammond, John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis,

  Armitage, R.

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

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r

  Asquith,Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry

  Cory, Clifford John

  Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harwood, George

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cremer, William Randall

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.)

  Crombie, John William

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Crooks, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barker, John

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barlow, John Emmott (Som's't

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion).

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

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Higham, John Sham

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hodge, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Delany, William

  Hogan, Michael

  Beale, W. P.

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras N

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, D)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Benn, John Williams (D'v'np't

  Dillon, John

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Benn, W. (T'w'r H'ml'ts. S. Geo.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Hudson, Walter

  Bennett, E. N.

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Duckworth, James

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Billson, Alfred

  Duffy, William J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jackson, R. S.

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Jenkins, J.

  Blake, Edward

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Boland, John

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Brace, William

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Jowett, F. W.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Branch, James

  Essex, R. W.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Brigg, John

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Brooke, Stopford

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

  Field, William

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness B'ghs)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lamont, Norman

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (S. Pancras, E.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Levy, Maurice

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney. Chas.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gill, A. H.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hn. David

  Cairns, Thomas

  Ginnell, L.

  Lough, Thomas

  Causton. Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lundon, W.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Glover, Thomas

  Lupton, Arnold

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Grant, Corrie

  Lynch, H. B.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pearson, Sir W. D.(Colchester)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sullivan, Donal

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Summerbell, T.

  M'Arthur, William

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sutherland, J. E.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  M'Crae, George

  Radford, G. H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  M'Kean, John

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Reddy, M.

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  M'Killop, W.

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

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

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

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Torrance, A. M.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rees, J. D.

  Toulmin, George

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Verney, F. W.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Richardson, A.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Massie, J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Walters, John Tudor

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Ward, John(Stokeupon Trent)

  Menzies, Walter

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Wardle, George J.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan))

  Mond, A.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

  Montagu, E. S.

  Robinson, S.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Weir, James Galloway

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whitbread, Howard

  Morse, L. L.

  Rowlands, J.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Morton. Alphens Cleophas

  Runciman, Walter

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Murnagban, George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

  Murray, James

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Napier, T. B.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Newnes, F.(Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Nicholls, George

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Nolan Joseph

  Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton and. Lyne)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan;

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sears, J.E.

  Williams, L. (Carmarthen)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Seddon, J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Seely, Major J. B.

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Shipman, Dr. John G

  Winfrey, R.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon-John

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  O'Dowd, John

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

  Young Samuel

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Snowden, P.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Soamea, Arthur Wellesley

  O'Mara, James

  Soares, Ernest J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Paul, Herbert

  Stanley. Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Steadman, W. C.

  NOES.

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Burdett-Ccutts, W.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Courthope, G. Lloyd

  Ashley, W. W.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carson, Rt. Hn Sir Edward H.

  Cross, Alexander

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dairymple, Viscount

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

  Cave, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Faber, George Denison (York);

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  108

  109

  Forster, Henry William

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Turnour, Viscount

  Haddock, George R.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Neild, Herbert

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. E'm'ds

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Percy, Earl

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)

  Younger, George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Liddell, Henry

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

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

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton

  Clement Hill and Mr. Fell.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  LORD R. CECILsaid the Amendment he desired to move was only to carry out what had already been done by the Government in another part of the Bill, in order to guard against the danger alluded to by the hon. Member who moved the last Amendment. He did not know whether the Government had any objection to this Amendment, which was only to make it quite plain that the local authority was not to get any interest in these schools other than for elementary education. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 17, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'in respect only of its conduct as a public elementary school by the local education authority, and to the extent only of such conduct.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BUTCHERsaid there was a section in the Act of 1870—Section 23—which corresponded with this Amendment—
  "Every school so transferred shall, to such extent, and during such times as the school board have any control over the school, be deemed a school of the school board."
  Some such words should be put in here, so that if this Bill was read in conjunction with the Act of 1870 it might not be thought that they had been left out for a particular purpose. He suggested that in order to remove any ambiguity these words should be inserted.
  MR. BIRRELLagreed with the noble Lord that these words had already been accepted in other parts of the Bill, and he had no objection to them except they were tautological. He had been advised
  110
  that there was no danger of in any way creating the impression that the schools were in any sense under the control of the local education authorities except f the purposes of elementary education, and that therefore the words were unnecessary. But he would look into the matter, and if he found his views were in accordance with those of the noble Lord he would insert words to make the matter clear.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RAWLINSONthought there could be no objection to the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for Oxford University. If the words did no good, they could do no harm to the sub-section. They were to insure that a school should be deemed only during school hours to be a school of the local education authority. The Amendment was only for the purpose of clearing up any ambiguity there might be and it could do no possible harm. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 18, after the words 'deemed,' to insert the words 'during school hours.'"— (Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsupported the Amendment. It was desirable that on the face of the clause the interest of the local authority should be restricted to the hours for which, for the purposes of elementary education, it had been given. The Government would agree that that was their policy. If that was so, let the policy be placed in the Bill in such a form that the most stupid or the most

  111
  cantankerous trustee or manager would have the true verities of the case staring him in the face. It would make it clear to the casual and cursory reader, and from a lawyer's point of view it could do no harm. In these circumstances he urged the right hon. Gentleman not to be too hasty in rejecting the Amendment.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he was advised that they had already by the addition of the words "as a public elementary school" at the end of Sub-section 3, made the matter as plain as it could possibly be made. He could not accept the Amendment, but he would look into the matter again, as he had every desire to make every clause of the Bill as plain as possible, and see if he could so arrange words as to make the details and the verities of the Bill perfectly plain.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid it was quite impossible to understand this kind of controversial objection. The right hon. Gentleman had not said one word as to what really was his objection to the Amendment. Did it not carry out the object of the Bill that the school should only be a provided school during school hours? If that was so, why should not these words be put in? The right hon. Gentleman said the words appeared in other parts of the Bill and that those argued together would give the same result, but there was not a word in the Amendment which would not be in accordance with his own Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was true that the right hon. Gentleman had accepted an Amendment that limited the use of a school by the local authority to the purposes of elementary education; but he still contended that the control by that body should be limited to the time necessary for carrying out its duties. The Amendment was that the actual duties were to be limited to the school hours. Therefore he thought that whatever ambiguity existed would, at all events, be removed by the acceptance of the Amendment.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he was afraid the Leader of the Opposition had put the question rather too favourably for the Government. The Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for
  112
  Oxford University and accepted applied to paragraph (b). The operative part of the clause laid down what the general arrangement was to be, and provided for such use of the schoolhouse as was required for the purposes of carrying on a public elementary school. Nothing had been put into the clause to limit that phrase at all, and it might be extended a great deal beyond the use of the schools during school hours. It was a very wide provision, and it appeared to him that it contained nothing which definitely limited the local authority in the extent of the arrangement which they might come to. The matter was a little complicated in the drafting. Although the principle of the Amendment accepted earlier in the afternoon covered this Amendment, the actual enacting words did not do so, and if the Government thought the spirit of that Amendment was to be carried out some such words as those now proposed must be inserted.
  MR. DILLONpointed out that the effect of this Amendment might be to prevent the local authority from making necessary alterations or whitewashing the premises or even cleaning them. Such work could not be done in schools hours. If "school" and not "schoolhouse" was meant then there was no necessity to put in the words as they would be inoperative. In his opinion the Amendment had no effect whatever in one sense, and in the other sense it might be held to be taking away what was given in the earlier sub-section.
  MR. A. J BALFOURsaid that such matters as those raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo would be settled by amicable arrangement. Did the hon. Gentleman desire that the local authority should have the right of entry at all hours? All local authorities and all trustees were not reasonable, and it was necessary that the operations to which the hon. Member had referred should be conducted with some limits. If friction arose it was manifest that these operations outside school hours must be conducted under some kind of regulations, and no regulations appeared to have been provided for. The Minister for Education agreed with the Amendment, but thought it was unnecessary, and for that reason he objected to putting it in the Bill. It was clear to him that there was

  113
  a point of substance here. He wished to know the view of the Government with regard to reciprocal rights between the trustees and the local authorities.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that allusion had been made to the clause dealing with this subject in the Act of 1870. As a member of the National Society he had had a great deal to do with partial transfers of schools where the education authority were in occupation during school hours and the owners during the rest of the time. His experience was that they had to exercise very great care in drafting those transfer deeds, and that great vigilance was necessary in watching their operation. He urged the Government to pay good heed to this matter and to see that these arrangements were so made as not to act prejudicially to the interests of trustees or owners.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that, as the hon. Member for East Mayo had pointed out, it would be impossible to whitewash a school during the hours, say, of religious instruction, or to clean it while the children were undergoing tuition. It would, therefore, be obviously unfair to insert the words "during school hours." They could only lead to a deadlock. He adhered to what he had said, that if he could introduce words which would make the meaning perfectly plain he would do so on Report.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us his view as to the mutual arrangement of hours?
  MR. BIRRELLsaid the right hon. Gentleman must understand that, as a matter of business, schools could not be cleaned or prepared for use while school work was going on. Therefore, an arrangement would have to be made under the agreement whereby the local authority would have access for such purposes. He could not imagine the right hon. Gentleman was serious in putting this as a matter of real difficulty.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONdoubted whether the provision made in the clause clearly confined the use of the schoolhouse to school hours.
  MR. BIRRELL: We have no desire to obtain possession of these school premises otherwise than for the purpose of elementary schools at such times and seasons and those occasional additional periods as are absolutely necessary for us to carry on the work of education.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSasked what authority there was for the explanation that the words "public elementary school" really did confine the use or control of the schoolhouse to the school hours. Where was that definition of "public elementary school" to be found? Was it in the Bill?
  MR. CHEETHAMsaid that in many districts these schoolhouses were the only buildings in which evening continuation classes which gave secondary education could be held, and therefore it was very important that they should be safeguarded under the Bill. He was apprehensive of the effect of the Ministerial statement on the evening continuation classes.
  MR. LOUGHsuggested that the Amendment might now be dropped and the pledge of the Minister in charge of the Bill accepted. The point put by the hon. Member for Westminster really arose upon the schedule to the Bill. The question dealt with by the hon. Member for Stalybridge could not be dealt with in this clause, and it was provided for in Part III of the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member for Stalybridge need be under no apprehension that anything in the Bill would take away the privileges given by the Act of 1902, as affecting continuation schools. The Minister for Education had not completely cleared up the more substantial point put to him, but he did not wish to press the matter further.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. LOUGH,for Mr. BIRRELL, moved the following new sub-section:—"(5) Nothing in this section shall prevent the granting or requiring of facilities for special religious instruction in accordance with this Act, or prevent a local education authority, as a condition of an arrangement made under this section with respect

  115
  to the use of the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school, from giving an undertaking to give religious instruction, which does not conflict with Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, in the school." The object of this sub-section was, he said, to fulfil the pledge given at an earlier stage to the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool, and the right hon. Member for Oxford University.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 23, at end, to add the words '(5) Nothing in this section shall prevent the granting or requiring of facilities for special religious instruction in accordance with this Act, or prevent a local education authority, as a condition of an arrangement made under this section with respect to the use of the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school, from giving an undertaking to give religious instruction which does not conflict with Section 14, of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, in the school.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there added."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONacknowledged that the new sub-section in substance carried out the intention of the Amendment which formerly stood in the name of his right hon. friend the Member for Dublin University; but in order to make it clearer, he moved to amend it so that it should refer not to "special religious instruction under this Act," but to "religious instruction under Sections 3 and 4 of this Act." He begged to move the omission of the word "special."
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, to leave out the word 'special.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
  Question proposed "That the word 'special' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid this subsection was a valuable concession and had been so received; but he pointed out that the word "special," which would be omitted by the Amendment, was the technical word which described the religious instruction for which facilities were given under Clauses 3 and 4; and that the numbering of the clauses might be altered hereafter and make the Amendment nonsense. It would be
  116
  better to accept the concession in the words proposed. He thought the words were better as they stood, because Sections 3 and 4 might deal with something else entirely. He suggested to the hon. Member that the best thing he could do was to leave the words as they stood, and accept from the Government the valuable concession made in the words proposed.
  LORD E. CECILsaid he could not see why the words of the Amendment should be hostile to the intention of the clause. The objection of the hon. Member for North Camberwell was not serious, because the numbers of clauses might be corrected on report. The same class of argument might be used with much more effect against such an expression as "special" which was not yet defined. He had great doubt whether it was the proper word to use. He had felt all along that the expression "special religious instruction" was really one of a very unfortunate character, to say the least of it. Moreover it was not the language used in a later part of the Bill, and that, from the legal point of view, was a matter of some importance. The expression in a later part of the Bill was "religious instruction of a special character." "Special religious instruction" was a very vague phrase, and there was no definition of it in any part of the Bill. The words of the Amendment were very much superior to those proposed by the Government.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he would not have obtruded himself on the attention of the Committee had it not been for some remarks which were made by the Solicitor-General in his speech. The hon. and learned Gentleman had described the voluntary schools as being in the position of mendicants, losing any rights they might have had for respect for their, trusts.

  117
  Was that the case with regard to these voluntary schools? At the behest of the State and in accordance with the requirements and conditions of former codes they had carried on the education of the country, and for many years religious education was an indispensable condition of receiving State grants. The Solicitor-General said they had not carried out their part of the stipulation. What was the stipulation which they had failed to carry out? There was, the Solicitor-General said, an understood condition that 50 per cent, of the expenses should be met from voluntary contributions. Did the hon. Member for North Camberwell assent to that description of the bargain between the voluntary schools and the State? The understanding which existed was not that 50 per cent, should be met by voluntary contributions, but that 50 per cent, should be met from "local sources," which included the fees paid by the parents and other sources of income. Of this portion of the local resources which was furnished by school fees, voluntary schools were deprived by the action of the State, while they were brought into competition with schools having far larger resources, and in many respects the standard of educational requirements was raised.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANcalled the hon. Gentleman to order as travelling beyond the Motion before the Committee.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he wished to follow the ruling of the Deputy-Chairman, and he would have made his remarks very much shorter but for the criticism of the Solicitor-General, who he thought was unfair in regard to voluntary schools. He felt bound to vindicate the lights of the voluntary schools, and to point out the heavy debt which the nation owed to the managers of these voluntary schools. It was incumbent on the State to deal with them and with their obligations under their trusts and to their consciences in a considerate, just, and generous manner. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education had told them that no one would be more pleased at the action of the Charity Commissioners than the pious donors of the past. But many of these pious donors still survived and continued
  118
  to take an interest in the schools which they had founded; and he did not know that there was any change in their views. If pious founders felt that sincere gratitude for the complete alteration of their deeds which the right hon. Gentleman ascribed to them, nothing would have been easier than for them to make the terms of their wills so elastic as to permit of easy change. But they all knew that this was very rarely done. The-right hon. the President of the Board of Education had made a distinction between public and private trust. It was quite true that such a distinction might be made, but was there not a public morality as well as a private morality in dealing with trusts? Was it likely to have a good impression on the nation if Parliament was found to be treating carelessly, lightly, and without due consideration, the wishes of the trustees? Under the compact entered into in 1870, new schools, even down to the most recent years, had been established. They were now going to sweep away those schools, and the trusts connected with them, and flaunt this before the nation as the idea which Parliament entertained of its moral obligation to those with whom it had entered into a solemn compact. It was because he believed that this clause embodied an unjust and unnecessary interference with existing rights, and with a system of education which was in accordance with the wishes of the parents, and also because the word and the honour of Parliament was pledged to the managers of those schools, and to those who had carried on at a great sacrifice the education of the children of the country, that he looked upon the provisions of this clause as pernicious to education and injurious to the rights both of private individuals, and of corporate communities.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid that they on his side of the House had been listening with a great deal of amazement to the extraordinary lugubrious statement of the hon. Gentlemen above the gangway. He was bound to say that he could follow neither their reasoning nor their morals. It was difficult to find in the clause any justification for their allegations of confiscation, robbery, and similar expressions. As a matter of fact, the clause

  119
  was over-generous to the trustees of voluntary schools, because it provided that public money was to be spent for the improvement of private property. It was an undoubted fact that some of the voluntary schools were bad, some were indifferent, some were good, but some were altogether below the standard of educational efficiency, as had been pointed out in the report of the London County Council. What was going to happen now? The public were to put these schools into good order, and to take them over, and all that they got in return was the use of them during the hours required for elementary education. The point he wished to emphasise was that the Government had been over-generous in the bargain which they proposed to make in regard to the voluntary schools. He felt quite certain it would be a source of great gratification to educationists, both in the House and out of it, if the Government could give some assurance that on the report stage the clause would be supplemented by some sort of provision which would enable secondary education authorities to come compulsorily to an arrangement with the owners of these schools that had been kept in an efficient educational state at the public expense.
  MR. BUTCHERremarked that the local authority was left almost entire discretion on the great issues which came up under this Bill, and that it was given powers great almost beyond precedent and powers which were really also a menace to the religious liberty of large sections of the community. Clause 1 was mandatory, but Clause 2 laid down the principle of local option which was almost the basis of the remainder of the Bill. Yet the principle of compulsion was by no means absent from it. That principle was admitted in a very capricious and harsh way, and in a way which seriously imperilled the whole teaching of religion in the country. The compulsions and the options, the "mays" and the "musts" taken together in their relation one to another, and their various reappearances through the Bill, threw a strange light on the minds of the authors of the Bill. According to the Bill it was plain that, in their eyes, it was a matter of purely local concern whether any religious teaching, even undenominational teach-
  120
  ing, should be given in any school. On the other hand, it was a matter of national concern and a thing to be laid down by Parliament that all religious teaching should be prohibited within school hours, and that denominational teaching should be given by others than the members of the school staff. The hon. Member was proceeding to discuss the optional and compulsory provisions of other clauses of the Bill and the peculiarity of the local option given, when,
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member must confine himself to the discussion of Clause 2 and not discuss other clauses of the Bill.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid that Clause 2 gave this keynote:—it made optional things which ought to be compulsory, and made compulsory things which ought to be optional. The Minister for Education had said he desired that there should be free bargaining, and no sort of compulsion on the owners of voluntary schools. But it was, surely, virtual compulsion of the cruellest kind under the guise of freedom to say, "Unless you accept these conditions you cease to exist; unless you accept conditions which you came into existence to avoid, you are extinguished as State schools." The right hon. Gentleman had said that what he meant was "business freedom." What they meant was religious freedom. It was there they misunderstood one another; they were talking about things which had no common term. They were not contending, mainly at least, for rent and cleaning, lighting and upkeep of fabrics. They were not so much concerned with the maintenance of the material structure. What they did want to maintain was the spiritual fabric, by which he meant the teaching given in the building, the teachers who gave it, the children who received it. In the last resort it was the welfare of the children for which they were driven to negotiate, and he protested against fighting this out over municipal elections. The bargain was not about coal and gas, but about the things by which men live—things which ought to be above all bargaining and bartering, those spiritual truths which it should be the right of parents to have transmitted to their children.
  LORD MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)said he had voted for the first clause of the Bill because he believed that so far as secular education was concerned it left the settlement of 1902 where it was. Under the settlement of 1902 there was complete control over provided schools. So far as the authority of the Council went with regard to secular education, staffing, building, attendance and teachers, the local authority had absolute control. They had absolute power over the managers, and the foundation managers existed simply and solely for the purpose of safeguarding the religious teaching in the school. Therefore he maintained that under the Bill, so far as secular education was concerned, the settlement of the Act of 1902 was left almost as it was. So far as the secular side of education was concerned it might be said that rather more generous terms had been given by the present Bill than by the Act of 1902. He was putting aside for the moment the consideration of religious education. What was the difference between the arrangements proposed by this Bill and the Bill of 1902? Under the Act of 1902 the local authority was able to call upon the voluntary owners to enlarge their schools, or to carry out necessary repairs, and to make such alterations as they, the local authority, desired. Moreover, they had the use of the school for all school purposes gratuitously; they were under no obligation to pay rent; they had the free and absolute use of the schools for all purposes of daily school teaching without payment of any rent or charge for upkeep or repairs, which was put upon the local managers. Under this Bill the local education authorities would have to pay rent for the schools, although it was true that more than the rent would be found, in all probability, by means of grants from the central government. In addition to that they would have to pay for such alterations as they demanded as being necessary and for the repairs. Therefore, looking at them from the financial point of view the terms offered by the right hon. Gentleman were not ungenerous, he might even say they were handsome. The local authority was in the future to pay rent for the school during the school hours, and the buildings for parochial and other purposes were to be in the hands of the trustees and managers. From the financial point of view the
  122
  terms were perhaps too generous. They were so generous that he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman hoped by this generosity in money to ease the difficulty and to conceal the injustice he was doing in [other directions. The trustees, the men who built these schools, built them not in order to make rent; they were not companies. If they had been companies and this a winding up of the company it would be a satisfactory end for the shareholders. But the Party opposite knew very well that these men were not only unable to look at this question from that point of view, but that that, indeed, was the last consideration that affected their minds, and it was for that reason they opposed this clause. It was because when they came to Clauses 3 and 4 they found that the reasons for which these schools were built and maintained for more than a generation were violated, they were compelled to oppose this Bill, although they recognised that so far as the secular instruction was concerned, the conditions were generous. One consideration must not be lost sight of, and that was that these schools were built and maintained' to safeguard religious education. It was often asserted not with justice or complete truth that these schools were built to keep out the school board rates. That might have been a contributory reason in some cases, but it did not cover the whole field. The men who parted with these schools might have parted with them not with a light heart, but with some satisfaction if they felt that by that sacrifice they could secure teaching in accordance with the desires of the founders, not only in these schools, but in every school in the country. The whole basis of the Bill for the granting of religious education only in the transferred schools was wholly illogicial. Why should the parent who desired definite religious teaching for his child be debarred from that definite religious teaching because he lived in a parish where there was only a local education authority's school, while a parent who lived in the next parish where there was a transferred school could demand definite religious teaching. Many Members on the Opposition side of the House would have willingly acquiesced in the transfer of these schools, and would have even readily supported the Bill if in making that sacrifice and transferring those schools they could have obtained

  123
  these rights for the parents not only in the voluntary school districts, but throughout the whole of the schools of the country. But that settlement had been denied them by the Government. For his own part, desiring as he did that there should be a settlement of this question, that some final solution of it should be arrived at, that the constant quarrelling, more bitter in this House than in the country, but which raged throughout the parishes of the country, which was used for political purposes, should cease and that the whole controversy should be put an end to, he ventured to say that the only way in which it could be ended was by so legislating that no injustice should remain on the shoulders of any religious body or on any Party. His great regret was that the authors of this Bill, which did in a way provide a natural solution, had not had the courage to go still further and produce a final settlement. He was sure that there were many who desired to see the cause of education advanced. Men working in the country on local Boards of Education would have been ready to support the right hon. Gentleman if he had elected to take that course. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt despised the support of any one outside his big battalions, but he was mistaken in so doing, because it was only by means of that kind, it was only by satisfying all religious bodies, by satisfying not only one Church, but all the Churches, that he could hope to carry a Bill which would result in a permanent settlement. It was because Clause 2 did not carry out a broad and permanent policy, as it might have done if the right hon. Gentleman had only faced this question with a little more courage, that he was compelled to vote against it although he voted for Clause 1.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid every Member of the Committee would admit that the speech to which they had just listened was closely reasoned and able, but gave ground for the sad reflection that such a speech could be delivered and produce no effective result on those who sat opposite. The present misconception which underlay the debate was based on the fact that hon. Members opposite seemed to think that voluntary schools existed on air; that they could live without means, and that
  124
  they were now paying for a special indulgence which this House ought not to recognise at all. Two remarkable speeches had been delivered this evening —that by the hon. Member for Leicester, and that by the hon. Member for the Cambridge University. The first speaker, whose sincerity was apparent, held that in this Bill the Government, in Clause 1, exhibited undue generosity to all the voluntary schools. The hon. Member for Leicester was followed by the hon. Member for the Cambridge University, who pleaded that money did not enter into his mind in his consideration of the question. The hon. Member struck a spiritual note which found an echo in many of the hearts of those who listened to him. Hon. Members who listened to those two speeches must have felt that a chasm divided them. They had to bridge that chasm. The hon. Member for Leicester had argued that the Government had been too generous, because public money was to be spent on the improvement of private property. That was what nine out of ten of those who opposed the Opposition in this matter believed. They had got it into their heads that the public was giving its money for the purpose of benefiting private property. He would crave the indulgence of the Committee whilst he looked a little more closely into that phrase "private property." In what sense were the voluntary schools private property? What emolument was drawn from them? That was very important. When it was said that they were spending money on private property the suggestion was certainly conveyed that private individuals were profiting at the expense of taxpayers. Then it did not mean private property in that sense. How could it? These denominational schools placed themselves under public control rent free. The Act of 1902 handed them over to the county or town councils free of rent; all that was reserved was the control of the religious education and the appointment of one teacher, subject to the veto on educational grounds of the local authority. Thus private property was acquired for a public purpose for nothing. He would not charge the hon. Member for North Camber-well and those who agreed with him with deliberately wishing that the children in denominational schools should have a worse education and less sanitary surroundings than the children in board

  125
  schools. Would it be fair to charge them with wishing to squeeze out the denominational schools? They wanted to come to an understanding as to the point of view from which they should look at this matter. These schools were not private property in the sense that any individual derived profit from them, or in the sense that they did not subserve a public object. They subserved that object at a less cost than by any other means. Then it was said that public money was used for the improvement of these schools. Why were they improved? In order that the public object might be carried out at less cost than would otherwise be the case. If, as had been done in the first clause, they wiped these schools clean off, they were told it must not be called "confiscation." He would call it "commandeering." When they commandeered a man's horse for the public object of waging war they fed the horse, and when the war was over they gave the owner some small fee for its use; they did not contend that they had conferred an immense favour upon the owner by taking his horse to use it for a purpose which he never contemplated. That really again illustrated the impossibility of bridging the chasm between those who held the views so eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Cambridge University and the hon. Member for Leicester, representing those who wished for religious instruction and those who desired merely secular. Clause 2 was to bridge the chasm dividing those who in their heart of hearts were in favour of secular education and those who in their hearts, souls, and consciences, believed that the children should have the kind of religious instruction which their parents desired, but a more futile bridge could not be designed for the purpose. The Government built their bridge by interfering with trusts and abolishing Church of England denominational teaching. Was the object adequate? He would look at the matter from the point of view of those who said that perhaps special arrangements ought to be made for the Roman Catholics, but that if the Church of England were not satisfied with Cowper-Temple instruction they ought to be. That was a view very widely held on the other side of the House. From that point of view was there any adequate reason for interfering in this drastic fashion with trusts? They would
  126
  get rid of the catechism for one half-hour a week in Church of England schools. Was it really worth while undertaking this drastic and wholesale interference with trusts, and to spend £ 1,000,000, and perhaps £ 3,000,000 a year in order to put an affront upon the Church and the religious convictions of millions of people to get rid of this half-hour? They had tried to carry the clause first by concession. Well, the concessions in substance were always carried over to a future date, and he did not attach much importance to concessions until he had heard them read from the Table. But the concessions amounted to very little indeed. Let them take the concession made to-night. What was asked for was that schools which had been dedicated to religious purposes should be free to have religious instruction given on any day in the week. What they had got was the liberty to bargain between the two Parties. The hon. Member for Leicester had attacked not only their reasons but their morals. It might seem wrong that any Member of this House should speak when their proceedings must come to an end at half, past ten o'clock; but they represented people in the country, and it was their duty to protest against that which they thought unjust and inexpedient, and would only lead to years of barren controversy. This clause was the proper occasion on which to protest against the whole framework and structure of the Bill. The Government seemed to regard denominational education as a foible to be at best tolerated, but to be made expensive—a thing which the rich man might pay for, but which was denied to the poor. Whatever might be the money balance shown in this or any other Bill, the parent who desired denominational instruction had as much right to have what he desired as had the parent who desired undenominational instruction. Their opponents ignored the essential fact that Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Jews all paid rates and taxes towards the education of which they did not approve. Until it was allowed that these different classes ought to stand upon an equality and that they all paid alike, they would never agree.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had to offer a few words in reply to the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman who had

  127
  just sat down. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the Act of 1902 had handed over every denominational schools to full public control.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Subject to the two reservations which I mentioned.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the Act of 1902 undoubtedly put the denominational schools upon the rates and taxes. He made no complaint of that. But it violated the common agreement of 1870. Up to that time the denominational schools had been maintained by grants and voluntary contributions, and in that year it was laid down that by way of supplementing that system there should be a new class of school receiving rates and taxes. Everybody agreed. The late Mr. W. H. Smith was one of those who agreed that the moment they touched the public rates the school must be under full public control and if they gave any religious instruction at all it must not have any formulary distinctive of any particular religious denomination-That was why they were now bringing in a Bill to amend the Act of 1902. The right hon. Gentleman said the Act of 1902 put these schools under full public control free of rent. It gave six managers to each, the public having the appointment of two. Those managers appointed the teacher, and the authority that appointed the teacher controlled the school. Then the Act of 1902 gave the local authority the right to use the schools free of rental on five days a week and three nights a week, but the denominational managers had the right to use them two days and four nights a week for any purpose, and the public had to make good the wear and tear. This was full popular control and the free use of the schools! As for the sanctity of trust deeds, all the speeches on that subject were curiously belated. They ought to have been made four years ago. The model trust deed of the Church of England schools laid it down that the principal officiating minister of the parish for the time being should have the supervision of the religious and moral teaching, but the Leader of the Opposition gave this over to a Committee of six. Could there be a greater violation of the trust deeds? The model trust deed placed the appointment and the dismissal of teachers in the hands of a
  128
  committee, including a minister and his licensed curate. The Act of 1902 took it out of their hands. The model trust deed said there might be associated with the management of the school other persons who must subscribe 20s. a year, and be communicants of the Church of England. He wondered how many of the present managers subscribed 20s. a year. He would be very much surprised if they could find one. If they did not subscribe 20s., at any rate they must be communicants of the Church of England; the whole thing was perfectly grotesque. It was too late in the day to talk about the sanctity of trust deeds. The present Leader of the Opposition abrogated the trust deeds entirely by the Kenyon-Slaney Clause, and he hoped they would hear no more in this discussion about the sanctity of trust deeds.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the hon. Member's speech made him feel four years younger—a happy and unusual effect of oratory. He really imagined, as he listened to the impassioned eloquence of the hon. Gentleman, that the House was still in the middle of the long-drawn debates of 1902, when unfortunately the Government of the day were innocent of the developments to which the closure had since been carried. He asserted that under the Act of 1902 popular control was conceded, except in those particulars that were necessary to preserve the denominational religious, character of schools established by voluntary action. It was true that the majority of the managers in the case of a voluntary school had to belong to the denomination of the school, but these managers had no control over the curriculum of the school, except with regard to religious education. Everything connected with secular education was handed over by the Act of 1902 to the local education authority. The only conceivable exception was that the initiative in the appointment of teachers lay in the managers. But the local authority had an absolute veto on any teacher who was not competent in their opinion to deal with secular education. How then could it be contended that popular control was not recognised by the Act of 1902? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech at Northampton the other day had declared that the Act of 1902 destroyed popular con-

  129
  trol. That was a profound error. In every particular in which the Act of 1902 modified the Act of 1870 the modification was in the direction of popular control. [An HON. MEMBER: What about the abolition of the school boards?] He had yet to learn that the handing over of education to the county councils in any sense militated against the true doctrine of popular control It was a gross misstatement to assert that the Act of 1902 diminished popular control. It increased it enormously. What was the second point of the hon. Gentleman? It was that the Opposition were debarred from even mentioning the words trust deed, because the trust deeds wore modified under the Act of 1902. Nobody denied it. But because of that were they not to be allowed to deal with the subject now? It was true that in view of the modified circumstances with which they had to deal trust deeds made in different circumstances had to be changed. Some of the supporters of the Government of that day viewed these provisions with regard to trust deeds with great distress and some dismay. He held now the view he then entertained that the best way in which to maintain the spirit of trust deeds was to adapt them to the changed circumstances of the time, with a view to the maintenance of the voluntary school. But there was a great difference between making modifications in order to carry out the original purposes of the trust compared with a change which was made in order to squeeze into the rigid formula of this Bill institutions which it was the main object of the Bill to destroy. They destroyed not only the external form of the trust, but its spirit as well. The Party to which he belonged had been charged all over the country with being too favourable to the voluntary schools. It was said also that they had done an injury to those who established the voluntary schools, because they modified the trust deeds so as to put them under the policy by which the voluntary schools were preserved. But anybody who could look behind the mere letter to the spirit would see that the manner in which the late Government dealt with trustees was profoundly different from that which had guided the policy of the present Government. So much for a subject which was in some respects belated. He certainly never contem-
  130
  plated when he came down to listen to this part of the debate that he should have to deal with these ancient controversies. Now he desired to say a few words by way of assisting rather than embarrassing the Government. There were two gaps in the Bill as compared with the plan announced by the Government. The first was that all the right hon. Gentleman's pledges to give facilities compulsorily must break down if the local authority was allowed to decide as to whether they should take over a school or not. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that gap, and he was going to try to remedy it. The second was that if they compelled a local authority to take over a school there was nothing in the Bill at present to compel it to take that school over on conditions that would ensure denominational facilities in the schools as promised. The right hon. Gentleman had promised an Amendment which would compel a local authority when it had taken over a school to give in that school, as promised, denominational facilities. Of course, he was not in a position to argue on an Amendment which was not before them, but he was bound to say something about the clause in which that Amendment was ultimately to appear. He thought it was due to the right hon. Gentleman to toll him quite fairly at this stage of the proceedings that in his judgment the right lion. Gentleman would be breaking a Parliamentary engagement if he brought forward the proposed Amendment to Clause 2 in the form he had adumbrated. Than the right hon. Gentleman there was not a more honourable Member in the House, but he had through inadvertence or forgetfulness allowed himself to slip into a Parliamentary position from which he would find it very difficult to extricate himself, his Government, or his Party with full credit if he intended to insist on bringing forward his Amendment to the clause named in the shape in which he had promised. In the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill, as well as in those of other loading members of the Government, there would be found stated beyond possibility of doubt two propositions. The first was that facilities were to be compulsory; the second that there was to be no interference with private owners of voluntary schools. He wished to know how the Government could possibly

  131
  now come down and make it a condition of granting the first of their promises that they should break the second. Yet the Minister for Education, with those pledges fresh in mind, had on more than one occasion argued that he was perfectly willing to carry out the first of these pledges provided gentlemen on the Opposition side would absolve him from carrying out the second. He thought it only fair, before the Amendment was placed on the Paper and before the Government were finally pledged to any course, to give them fair warning. He asserted that the announced policy of the Government was a clear breach of Parliamentary pledges—of the expectations held out by responsible Ministers. He begged the right hon. Gentleman to look back on his speeches and those of his colleagues, and see whether he had in any way perverted or exaggerated the statements that had been made. If the right hon. Gentleman found that he had not exaggerated those statements, he hoped that for the sake of his own credit and that of his Party he would not ask the House to accept from him the fulfilment of one thing he had promised at the price of something else which he had also promised. If he did not listen to these words of warning—he did not wish to use language too solemn for the occasion —if he refused to accept the suggestion he made in all sincerity, he would do himself the utmost injury. The right hon. Gentleman was a man in whom they were all disposed to place the utmost reliance, they knew how high was his sense of honour, how clear his head, how careful were his statements. If he deserved those eulogies, as he did, could he really come down to the House and throw over all that he and his colleagues had said, and, presenting a pistol at the head of the Committee, demand their acceptance of an arrangement which was wholly inconsistent with everything that had been said before? He would not press the matter further now, but he rejoiced that the opportunities of the debate had enabled him seriously to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a matter which deserved his most careful attention.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he did not rise to prolong the discussion which in some respects he regretted. Being himself not a closure man at all, he was very
  132
  anxious that they should have full time for the consideration of the important clauses that lay immediately ahead of them; and he could not help thinking that if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had seen their way to finish this clause at nine o'clock, they might have spent two more hours on Clause 3, and thereby obviated some of the hardship of which the Opposition so loudly complained the other night; he did not know that they would have lost anything. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh."] He was sure the Leader of the Opposition was the last man to quarrel with the suggestion that even the time occupied by one of his speeches might not possibly have been better spent. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was obliged to him for his solemn and reiterated warning, and he appreciated the spirit in which it was given. The right hon. Gentleman evidently thought that he had, perhaps inadvertently and from inexperience, placed himself in a somewhat awkward position, that his honour was somewhat involved, and that unless he walked very warily he should find himself in an awkward Parliamentary predicament. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he meant to be faithful to all his pledges and promises as they had been made, and that if he found himself in a position which prevented him from carrying them out he should immediately place himself in a position of perfect freedom and less responsibility. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his warning. He made no claim to much Parliamentary experience, he found himself in a position of great pressure and very considerable difficulty, and he was obliged to anybody who gave him assistance, and he was bound to say their name was legion. It was an honour which he welcomed to find the late Prime Minister amongst their number. He had already recognised that there was a gap in Clause 2. No Bill that a Government proposed or suggested ever took shape in which that gap did not exist. They proceeded on the assumption that the local authority should have control in this matter, that it should lie with them to broach the question as to what schools they should take over. They assumed, and he thought their clauses were so framed as to make that assumption natural, that in the great

  133
  number of cases the owners and trustees of voluntary schools would make the arrangement contemplated under Clause 2. If they did, the Government said and meant that the facilities contemplated by Clause 3 should be compulsory. The second gap to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded seemed to him to be a somewhat small one. No doubt the Government did assume that they could safely leave it to the owners and trustees of voluntary schools to secure that these facilities should be made part of every bargain that was entered into. When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke of the facilities being compulsory he no doubt felt that he was safe in assuming that the owners and trustees would make them an absolute part of the bargain, and that in every case where the local authority had expressed its desire to take a school compulsory they would be. He himself had studiously avoided using the word except in the sense that he recognised in the Bill as introduced—in every draft that he had seen—that the gap existed. It was quite impossible for him to have used language, except by sheer clumsiness, tending to conceal from the House the fact that it lay with the local authority in the first instance to open negotiations and decide whether or not it would take over the schools. That gap was in all the drafts and in all their minds. He recognised when it was made the subject of argument that it was perhaps a fair matter for Parliamentary comment that the gap existed. Accordingly he felt still desirous of bridging that gap, if it could be done without interfering with the authority and responsibility of the local authority for the efficient and economical management of education within its area. As to Clause 3 he could only repeat that he genuinely regretted that so important a clause should have been curtailed unnecessarily of two hours of Parliamentary time. All the Committee had got for those two hours was the warning addressed to himself, for which in all sincerity he expressed his obligation to the right hon. Gentleman.
  COLONEL WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)said the hon. Member opposite
  134
  had been challenged by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to certain points, and he wanted the Committee to take note of the fact that the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition had not been responded to. For himself he happened to have been in the position of a school manager before 1902 and after 1902, and he knew that now the board of managers could not order a steel pen or a bottle of ink without the consent of the county council. The school managers could not appoint a teacher or a head teacher without the leave of the county council. They had tried it and failed. All the power the managers had was to say that the teacher was able to give the religious instruction they needed. They could select the teacher. They could send his name to the county council with their approval, but if the county council said that the teacher was not fit to give secular teaching, their recommendation went for nothing. This being the state of things, if it did not give absolute control to the county council he did not know what did. The last election was won upon a good many fallacies, and one of the biggest fallacies was that the county councils had not control of the schools. There was full popular control, as he had stated over and over again at his meetings, and as he now stated to the Committee. When they consented to the alteration of their trust deeds in 1902, it was for the purposes of obtaining an advantage for their schools. [Ironical MINISTERIAL cheers.] He was glad that hon. Members agreed with him, but he would point out that now they were being asked to alter their trust deeds for nothing or even less than nothing. The Government were taking away the purposes for which the trusts were established. The ratepayers as much controlled the education rate as they did the money raised for the roads, and no one contended that the roads were not popularly controlled.
  And, it being half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of June 18th, to put forthwith the Question, "That the

  135
  clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided —Ayes, 424; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 138.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Channing, Frances Allston

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Agnew, George William

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Alden, Percy

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Gill, A. H.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Ginnell, L.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gladstone. Rt. Hn HerbertJohn

  Ambrose, Robert

  Clough, W.

  Glendmning, R. G.

  Armitage, R.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Collins, Sir Wm J (S. Pancras, W

  Grant, Corrie

  Astbury, John Meir

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Corbett.CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Hall, Frederick

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Halpin, J.

  Barker, John

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hammond, John.

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Crombie, John William

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Barnard, E. B.

  Crooks, William

  Hardy, George, A. (Suffolk)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B, (Wore'r)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cross, Alexander

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Beale, W. P.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harwood, George

  Beauchamp, E.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Beck, A. Cecil.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bell, Richard

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Delany, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Benn, W.(Tow'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bethell, J. H.(Essex, Romford)

  Dickinson, W. H (St. Pancras, N

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Billson, Alfred

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dillon, John

  Herbert, T. Arnold(Wycombe)

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Blake, Edward

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Boland, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hodge, John

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

  Duckworth, James

  Hogan, Michael

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Duffy, William J.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Brace, William

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Branch, James

  Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Brigg, John

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Bright, J. A.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Hudson, Walter

  Brooke, Stopford

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hyde, Clarendon

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

  Essex, R. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jackson R. S.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Jenkins, J.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones David Brynmor(Swansea

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Field, William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Cairns, Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jowett, F. W.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Joyce, Michael

  Caustou, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Norman, Henry

  Seddon, J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Shackleton, David James

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Nuttall, Harry

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Lambert, George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Snowden, V.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Dowd, John

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  O' Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  OMalley, William

  Steadman, W. C.

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

  O'ara, James

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Levy, Maurice

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Partington, Oswald

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Paul, Herbert

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Lough, Thomas

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Pearce Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Sullivan, Donal;

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Summerbell, T.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Lynch, H. B.

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

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs.

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Mackarnees, Frederic C.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pollard, Dr.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  MacVeagh, Charles (Donegal, E

  Priestly, Arthur (Geantham)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  M'Arthur, William

  Radford, G. H.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  M'Callum. John M.

  Radford, G. H.

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

  M'Crae George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Thorn, William

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Torrance, A. M.

  M'Killop, W.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Toulmin, George

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

  Reddy, M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Verney, F. W.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rees, J. D.

  Vivian, Henry

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rondall, Athelstan

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Walsh, Stephen

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Walters, John Tudor

  Marnham, F. J.

  Richards, T.F.(Wolverhampt'n

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

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Richardson, A.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Massie, J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Masterton, C. F. G.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wardle, George J.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Menzies, Walter

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Mond, A.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Montagu, E. S.

  Robinson, S.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mooney, J. J.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Rose, Charles Day

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Morrell, Philip

  Rowlands, J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Runciman, Walter

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Murnaghan, George

  Russell, T. W.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Murphy, John

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Murray, James

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Myer, Horatio

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Williams, Osmond(Merioneth

  Napier, T. B.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Williams, Llewelyn(C'r'arth'n.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester)

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

  Nicholls, George

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncaster)

  Sears, J. E.

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  138

  139

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. Huddersfi'd

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr

  Winfrey, R.

  Young, Samuel

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Pease.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Faber, George Dension (York)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

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

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Haddock, George R.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hill, Sir Clement(Shrewsbury)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hills, J. W.

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Houston, Robert Patorson

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Starkey, John R.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Keswick, William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Liddell, Henry

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

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

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Younger, George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Viscount Valentia.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for consideration road.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)thought it would be the general opinion of the House that this was a most inconvenient hour to start a discussion on a private Bill. He believed that never in the history of Parliament had it been proposed to commence private Bill business at this hour of the night. A great many hon. Members were at the House at three this morning, and it would be unreasonable to ask them to consider two highly contentious private Bills. So far as this Bill was concerned, if they started upon its discussion they were likely to be here until three o'clock the next day. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEseconded the Motion. It was eminently desirable that the House should come to the consideration of the Bills fresher than most hon. Members were at the present moment, after practically an all-night sitting.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be adjournod." — (Mr. MacVeagh.)
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid no sufficient reason had been given for the postponement of the Bill, which he understood involved an expenditure of a million of money. If the Bill were rejected that money would not be spent, which might or might not be an advantage, but he had not heard any reason for it.
  MR. DALZIELhoped the Government would accept the Motion for the adjournment. The Question for them to consider was not whether a million of money was going to be spent or not as a result of the passing of this Bill, but whether the House ought to discuss it at the present time or consider it on some other more convenient occasion. If the hon. Baronet had been a Member of the House when this measure was considered before, he would have known that there were several matters of considerable importance, and they wore adjourned on the understanding that they would have an opportunity when the Bill came back to the House of considering them, and of hearing what explanations would be given by the representatives of the railway company in the House. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had asked them to consider this Bill to-night, and he welcomed him in his new position of asking them to pass legislation. One of the qualifications of the hon. Baronet was said to be that he could speak at any time, and at any length, upon any subject without any preparation. He hoped the Government would lend the
  142
  weight of their authority in the direction of postponing this Bill. As one who was opposed to the suspension of a rule which the House had solemnly adopted, under which they adjourned at eleven o'clock, he objected to entering upon the consideration of private Bills at this late hour of the night. He hoped the supporters of the Bill would recognise, in the interests of the Bill itself, that it was the obvious desire of the House that the discussion should be adjourned.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURinvited an expression of opinion from the Government on this encroachment upon the rule which made 11 o'clock the natural limit of their proceedings. Rightly or wrongly, the House bad laid down that 11 o'clock was the natural limit of their proceedings, and he saw a certain objection to relegating private business to be considered after that hour. He thought they ought to have a clear statement from the Government as to what line they intended to take in connection with the general Private Bill legislation which still remained to be disposed of.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that by a Resolution passed yesterday the House had deliberately determined that the Private Bills should be taken, and it would lie a bad precedent for a new House, in deference to a feeling of exaggerated uxoriousness, to suspend proceedings before 11 o'clock after passing such a Resolution. Of the merits of the Bill he knew nothing, and probably the discussion would be brief.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYprotested against contentious Private Bills being taken after 11 o'clock. He regretted that he could not on this occasion join in the appeal which had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that this Bill should be proceeded with now.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid that perhaps, as Chairman of Ways and Means, he was responsible for putting those Bills down on the Paper and he ought to say a word upon this question. He did not speak either as a supporter or an opponent of the Bill; therefore, anything he said had no reference to the point of merits. Two reasons for adjournment had been urged. First of all, there had been a general claim made that private business must not be taken after eleven o'clock, and in the second place it had been stated in regard to this particular night that the fact that the House was kept late last night was a reason for adjourning the private business put down. These were two separate and distinct questions. He thought it would be presumptuous for him to attempt to advise the House as to what it should do in regard to the adjournment to-night, but, as Chairman of Ways and Means, he would ask the House not to come to the general conclusion that they would not take Private Bill business after eleven o'clock. The House agreed to a Motion last night which stated that private business was to be taken after eleven o'clock on nights when the Education Bill was under discussion, though opposed, and in these circumstances it would be wrong, if he might be permitted to say so, to enter into an engagement against the taking of private business after eleven o'clock. Let him point out what might take place. Any Member could block any Bill because he disliked one clause, and he thought the result would be to introduce dire confusion into Private Bill legislation. He expressed no opinion on the question whether it would not be a good thing to adjourn the business put down for to-night, but he did beg the House not to come to any general conclusion against discussing these Bills after eleven.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said he desired to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what he thought would be the result of taking the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill at this hour. It was a contested Bill. His hon. friends opposite meant to fight it, and he meant to help them. Hon. Members got home about three o'clock this morning, and some came back early to attend committees upstairs. He hoped the Bill would not be proceeded with now, and he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to prolong this controversy.
  MR. ASQUITHasked which Bill was now being considered.
  MR. SPEAKER: The English Bill.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he understood that only the Irish Bill was opposed.
  MR. MACVEAGHsaid he objected to the principle of taking contested private business after 11 o'clock.
  MR. MORTONsaid that, if the Bill were not opposed, it would not be on the Paper to-night.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid they were sitting on a somewhat exceptional night, and he thought they might assent to the Motion for adjournment, but entirely without prejudice to the general question of private business being taken after 11 o'clock.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.
  Adjourned at a quarter after Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: North East London Railway; Hackney Electricity.
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill: Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7).
And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders
2
(No. 2); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3).; Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Pontefract Corporation Bill. Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Sutton, Southcoates, and Drypool Gas Bill. Reported, with an Amendment.
Ritz Hotel Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Macclesfield and District Tramways Bill. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 10th and 29th May last discharged, and Bill committed.
North East London Railway Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Lancashire Electric Power Bill; St. Pancras Electricity Bill; Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Bill; Metropolitan District Railway Bill; Kettering Water Bill; Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill; North West London Railway Bill; Bristol Corporation Bill. Read 2a.
Derby Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Pontefract Corporation Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Rochester, Chatham, and Strood Gas Bill; Cheltenham Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Edinburgh Corporation Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Metropolitan Railway Bill; South Suburban Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Hackney Electricity Bill. Read 2a.
Corporation of London (Blackfriars and other Bridges) Bill. Standing Order No. 93 considered (according to order), and dispensed with, with respect to a Petition of the Metropolitan Water Board. Leave given to present the said Petition.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Scottish Provident Institution Buildings Bill [H. L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Sea Fisheries Provisional Order Bill; Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill. Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Read 2a (according to order).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Pro-
4
visional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill. Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill. Read 2a (according to order).
Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill. Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill (No. 128); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill (No. 129). Read 1a to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION.
  Petition in favour of denominational religious teaching in schools, of teachers in school at Colne: read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WELLINGTON COLLEGE.
  Report of the governors for the year ended 31st December, 1905; with accounts.
  Forty-eighth Report of the Board of Superintendence of Dublin Hospitals, with Appendices, for the year 1905–1906.

  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY.
  Report of the principal chemist upon the work of the Government Laboratory, for the year ended 31st March, 1906; with Appendices.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Orders made by the following councils, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within their respective city and urban district: 1. Urban District of Stratford; 2. City of Hereford.

  INEBRIATES ACT, 1898.
  Regulations, dated 15th June, 1906, made by the Secretary for Scotland in pursuance of Section 6 as read with Section 25 of the Act, respecting the transfer of inebriates from a State inebriate reformatory in Scotland to a certified inebriate reformatory.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, your Lordships no doubt observed that Lord Kinnaird, who had given notice yesterday to ask His Majesty's Government—

  1. If they can explain to the House the cause of the repeated delays in presenting the Report of the Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline to His Majesty the King, and why it has not been presented before Whitsuntide as promised in March in another place;

  2. Would the Government endeavour to hasten this Report, as it would be of the greatest value during the Education debate.

  3. Does not the prolonged delay involve the Government in considerable additional expense;

  4. Could the Government also further the matter by recommending to the Commission the advisability of getting the volumes of evidence or some of them printed off and bound at once, so that there will be no printing delays after the Commission have made their report—

  was not in his place to put the Questions. I have since received a letter from him stating the cause of his absence, and I think it would be only fair to the noble Lord to read his letter to your Lordships, as some Members of the House, at all events, complained a good deal of his not being in his place. Lord Kinnaird writes—
  "I must apologise for not arriving in time to put my Questions this afternoon. I was unavoidably detained and hurried down to the House, bat found I was just too late. I was taking part in the jubilee meeting of a society of which I am treasurer. I thought I was safe
  6
  if I arrived by ten minutes to five. I also got blocked in Bond Street."
  I understand from the noble Lord that he is going to put his Questions down for Friday next. I am glad that he proposes taking an early opportunity of doing so, as the Questions tend to reflect, I think unreasonably, upon a Royal Commission, and I do not think it is a matter which ought to be delayed.

  COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed and sent to the Commons.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF STAMFORD: My Lords, this is an extremely simple Bill, and it will need only a very few words of explanation. In the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, it is laid down that a person shall be disqualified from being elected and being a municipal councillor if, and while, among other disqualifications, he has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partners, any share or interest in any contract or employment, with, by, or on behalf of the council. Then follows this qualification, that he shall not be so disqualified or be deemed to have any share or interest in such a contract or employment by reason of his having any share or interest in, inter alia—
  "Any railway company, or any company incorporated by Act of Parliament, or Royal Charter, or under the Companies Act of 1862."
  It is proposed to amend this last section by the addition of the words—
  "Or any society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 and 1895."
  As things are at present, if a member of such a society has a seat on a municipal council, and that council enters into a contract with the society of which such person is a member, it is held that he is disqualified for being a councillor. I think your Lordships will acknowledge that this is a matter which should be remedied. It is merely sought to place a

  7
  member of such a society on the same footing as a shareholder in a joint stock company; or, in other words, to place a man who may be described as a small member of a large society on the same footing as a large shareholder of a small company. The question is one of some importance at the present day, although it was a small matter at the time when the Municipal Corporations Act was amended in 1882. The figures in the last report of the Chief Registrar of Industrial and Provident Societies shows that there were, in 1904, 1,485 such societies in England and Wales, with a membership of 1,787,602, and the sales of the societies amounted to £71,153,459. These societies have increased very rapidly of late years, and are conducting important businesses, and I hope your Lordships will agree to the proposal contained in this Bill to remove what is felt to be a great inequality.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Stamford.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, there is no doubt whatever that the law should be made uniform in this respect, and my right hon. friend the President desires me to say that he sees no objection to this Bill, which he looks upon as a very useful and practical measure.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSION BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 31"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  EARL RUSSELL,who had given notice to move to resolve "That in the opinion of this House the proposed inquiry is of too limited a character to serve any useful purpose," said: My Lords, your Lordships will recollect what took place on the Second Reading of this Bill, the print of which only reached the
  8
  House at the moment when the Second Reading was being moved; and the circumstances which compelled me, therefore, to defer my observations upon it until this stage. The objection, to this Bill presents considerable difficulty, because it is impossible to amend the portion to which I invite your Lordships to take exception—that is, the terms of reference to the Royal Commission. These are contained in the recital of the Bill, and it is therefore impossible to put down an Amendment. The terms of reference in the Bill are as follows—
  "To inquire into and report upon the duties of the Metropolitan Police in dealing with cases of drunkenness, disorder, and solicitation in the streets, and the manner in which those duties are discharged, with power to make recommendations thereon."
  From the time that this matter first arose objection has been taken in both Houses to the limited nature of the reference, and I would call your Lordships' attention for one moment to the class of cases which the reference will exclude from the consideration of the Royal Commission.
  One of those cases must be fairly well known to you Lordships. I refer to the case of Police-constable Rolls, who was sentenced to a long term of penal servitude for perjury. There are many people who have taken the view from the beginning that the trial of that police-constable was conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, and that he did not in fact receive justice. In connection with this very Bill I find an article in one of this morning's newspapers dealing with the case of Rolls, in which the following is said—
  "The release of ex-Police-constable Rolls does not signify pardon or legal rehabilitation, but it certainly mitigates what we believe to be a wholly unmerited tragedy. This man has never had a fair trial, nor will the police officials permit the Home Secretary to allow the case to be publicly inquired into."
  Your Lordships may recollect that the accusation against this constable was that he took a prisoner to the station, and in the course of searching the prisoner at the station foisted upon him and professed to have found on his person a hammer and some other instruments intended for housebreaking; the evidence against him was that of the person so arrested, a man of unfixed home, and of a woman of the lowest class, who was not introduced until late in the proceedings, and

  9
  whose evidence has always been regarded by a large number of persons as unsatisfactory and unreliable. The newspaper article proceeds—
  "The way in which this girl was summoned to Scotland Yard and there subjected to solitary cross-examination is not more strange than the determined effort to prevent the case, at all costs, from coming before the Royal Commission, which is thus reduced to a rather palpable farce."
  There are other cases with which your Lordships may not be so familiar, but all of the same character, dealing with arrests by the police and with what is believed to be mistaken, and, in some cases, manufactured, police evidence to justify the police if a mistake had been made.
  There is the case, to which I may have to call your Lordships' attention again later, of a man named Croucher, who was sentenced to imprisonment for theft, a charge of which I believe it is now admitted he was innocent. That man was released, but was not compensated in any way for the injustice done him, and he has been convicted since of an assault upon the police in circumstances which made many people think there was no justification for that conviction. That being an assault on the police, it is doubtful whether it will be covered by the terms of reference to this Royal Commission, because the actual words are "drunkenness, disorder, and solicitation," yet that is one of the cases requiring investigation.
  Then there is the case of a man named Scott. Scott was arrested on a charge of betting and convicted on the evidence of two detectives; she has subsequently done what he could to produce several witnesses—it is true he did not call them at his trial, though of that he gives an intelligible explanation—and to have his case reopened, but he has found that impossible. The magistrate has refused to grant process against the detectives who gave evidence against him, and that refusal on the part of the magistrate has been supported by the High Court on appeal. That is a case in which it is believed that the police have made an entire mistake and have given evidence which is not true. That case also cannot be investigated by the Commission.
  I think it is not too much to say that in the other House there has been a very
  10
  large and general discontent at the limitation of the terms of reference. It is not a real and genuine inquiry which it is proposed to hold by this Commission into the conduct of the police, and I have some apprehension, if further inquiry is necessary, as it most certainly is, that when that inquiry is demanded, we shall be met with the statement that a Royal Commission has been appointed and dealt with it. On the other hand, it is possible that the evidence which is brought before this Commission may be of such a character as to cause the public to demand that another inquiry on a larger scale should take place.
  Is it, or is it not, desired by His Majesty's Government to get at the truth in this matter, and to sift these cases thoroughly? I ask that in view of communications which I have myself had with the Home Office in the course of preparing some evidence for this inquiry. The clerks' notes upon which these prisoners are convicted are in the custody of the magistrates. They are apparently not public documents to which the public is entitled on the payment of the necessary fee; but it is obvious that if any case where it is alleged that there has been miscarriage of justice is to be presented to the Royal Commission, even among the limited number of cases that do come within the terms of reference, it will be necessary for those who present it to see the magistrates' clerks' notes. I applied to the Home Office in the hope that authority would be given for those notes to be supplied, and in reply I received this letter on behalf of the Home Secretary—
  "Whitehall,
  "9th June, 1906.
  "My LORD, —With reference to your application of the 29th ultimo that Mr. Timewell may be furnished with certain papers for use in connection with the preparation of evidence for submission to the Royal Commission on the Metropolitan Police, I have the honour, by direction of the Secretary of State, to say that he cannot direct magistrates to furnish copies of depositions or notes of evidence to Mr. Timewell. If the depositions or notes of the evidence in any case should be required by the Royal Commission the magistrates will no doubt be ready to supply them direct to the Commission.
  "I have the honour, etc.,
  "ERNLEY BLACKWELL."
  No doubt they will, but it is not possible to present a case so well if you are

  11
  furnished with a portion of your evidence in the middle of the inquiry, and when there is a great deal of difficulty and delay in obtaining it. If it is desired that this should be a real inquiry, I submit that no obstacle should be placed in the way of preparing evidence to be laid before it. The impression is gaining ground that this is not intended to be a real inquiry, that it is not intended to be an inquiry as a result of which the police force shall be cleansed of the abuses that exist, but that it is merely an inquiry to whitewash the C. Division as a whole, or the particular constables concerned in one particular case which has been much discussed. In these circumstances it is hardly to be expected that the police witnesses who give evidence before the Commission will be frank or state fully everything that they know and everything that has been brought to their notice as to irregularities in the police force.
  I desire it to be understood that I make no general charge against the police as a whole. Your Lordships, of course, come in contact with the police in a manner in which you find them extremely agreeable and useful servants of the public; but there is a section of the population, the poorest of the poor, whose club is the public-house and whose home is to a large extent the streets, who are practically at the mercy of the police, and who constantly suffer injustice on account of the conduct of certain police constables who have not sufficient regard for the responsibilities which their position casts upon them. Those are cases which, I think, ought to be inquired into, and inquired into fully, and I very much regret that this has been rendered impossible by a Government to whom many of us looked for so much, to whom many of us looked for a reversal of the more official attitude of past years, and who we expected would have gone into these matters without prejudice, and with a free and open mind. I feel bound to make this protest at this stage of the Bill, and to express my regret that the inquiry has been limited in this way.
  Amendment moved—
  "To resolve, 'That, in the opinion of this House, the proposed inquiry is of too limited a character to serve any useful purpose.'"— (Earl Russell.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the answer which I have to give to the noble Earl is probably the one which he anticipates, as it is exactly the same as the one I gave to a Question which he addressed to His Majesty's Government some time ago. I must, however, say that I am quite unable to agree with him that there is any general discontent with the action of His Majesty's Government in this matter. If there had been it would certainly have found expression in the other House, where, as a matter of fact, the Bill setting up the Royal Commission passed through all its stages without a division. The terms of reference, of which the noble Earl complains, are not really before your Lordships' House this afternoon. The Bill is concerned only with the nature of the powers to be conferred upon the Commission.
  With regard to what the noble Earl has said generally on the question, I am sure I shall have the support of your Lordships in saying that the general confidence of the people of London in their police force is very great indeed. The metropolitan police occupies a position almost unique in that respect among the police forces of the various capitals of the world. But however great public confidence may be, agitations are bound to arise at times in certain quarters which tend to create a feeling of uneasiness. That, I think, has happened on the present occasion, and people have taken, as is not unusual, certain test cases. It is, therefore, thought desirable by His Majesty's Government that the particular cases which have attracted public attention should be referred for inquiry to as strong and impartial a body as it is possible for them to constitute. The case of Madame D'Angely and the boat race night incident are the two cases into which the Royal Commission will probably inquire first of all.
  I cannot think with the noble Earl that any very useful purpose would be served by inquiring into the case of ex-Police-Constable Rolls, who, as the noble Earl told us, was released this morning. Rolls was convicted four and a-half years ago, and it is obvious that the memory of those concerned cannot be as fresh as it ought to be if a case of this importance is to be inquired into. I entirely repudiate the suggestion made by the noble Earl that it is the intention of His Majesty's

  13
  Government to whitewash the metropolitan police, and I venture to think that the constitution of the Royal Commission is sufficient to exonerate His Majesty's Government in that matter. Mr. Alfred Lyttelton, Mr. W. H. Dickinson, Mr. Rufus Isaacs, Mr. D. Brynmor Jones, and Mr. C. A. Whitmore are gentlemen who are in no way likely to lend themselves to such a design as that attributed to His Majesty's Government by the noble Earl. I regret that we are unable to accept his Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I share with the noble Earl opposite the general confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the metropolitan police and in the independence of the Commissioners whom His Majesty's Government have appointed to inquire into this matter; but I think the noble Earl who has introduced the subject has reason to complain of the perfunctory nature of the reply given on behalf of His Majesty's Government. The noble Earl said, in the first place, that there had been no objection to the Bill in the other House. This is not the first time we have heard that argument, and on the last occasion that it was used it did not meet with very great success in your Lordships' House. It is particularly unfortunate on this occasion, because I gather from the usual channels of information that the reason no opposition was offered to the Bill was that His Majesty's Government declared that if there were any opposition or any serious attempt to amend the Bill they would not proceed with it at all; so that the House of Commons was, as it were, under a sort of duress to pass the Bill in this form and without discussion. The noble Earl who spoke on behalf of His Majesty's Government said that the terms of reference could not be called into question because they had been agreed to without discussion in the other House. Poor other House! they had no choice in the matter whatever. I venture to assert that for His Majesty's Government to say that the terms of reference are not open to discussion in your Lordships' House is an observation which ought not to be addressed to one of the Houses of Parliament. The terms of reference are included in the Bill, and therefore they are open to discussion by your Lordships. As to whether it would
  14
  be wise or not to extend the scope of the reference, that is a matter upon which I do not pretend to have any strong opinion; but I think we should have been more able to form an opinion if the noble Earl who has just sat down had given us more reasons why it should not be extended. The noble Earl who raised this question gave reasons why the terms of reference should be extended, but the noble Earl who represents the Home Office did not respond in any adequate manner.
  Lastly, the noble Earl opposite asked that those who were interested in the proceedings before this Commission should have an opportunity of seeing certain documents which were necessary for their case. The noble Earl said that he had made application to the Home Office and that the Home Office had refused to exercise their influence on his behalf in order to obtain these documents. The noble Earl who spoke for the Government appeared to think it best to pass over in silence that complaint of the noble Earl. The noble Earl was within his rights in contending that to communicate these documents to the Royal Commission if they asked for them was not the same as communicating them to parties who might be interested in the inquiry. I venture, with very great respect, to say to His Majesty's Government and to the noble Marquess who leads this House that your Lordships are entitled to a fuller reply on a matter of such importance than that which has been given by the noble Earl who has just sat down.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, with regard to the last observations of the noble Marquess, it is true that my noble friend did not say anything with respect to magistrates' clerks' notes to which the noble Earl behind me referred; but surely it is obvious that if the witnesses wish to see those notes in order to place their case fully before the Commission they will submit their desires to the Commissioners. It is not according to usual practice to give notes of that kind to anybody who may ask for them. I have no doubt whatever that the magistrates would communicate the notes to the Royal Commission if the Commission required them. I have also no doubt that the Royal Commission,

  15
  composed of such men as it is, would give ample time to any witness to consider those notes when they had procured them. But I do not think it would be desirable to set the precedent of interfering with the usual practice in a matter of this kind. Great inconvenience might arise from it. The Royal Commission are entitled to have the notes if they want them, and if witnesses require them they can have them.
  I am sorry that the noble Marquess opposite is so displeased because my noble friend who represents the Home Office informed your Lordships that the terms of reference to the Commission were not open to discussion. What my noble friend said was that the terms of reference were not before your Lordships this afternoon. That is perfectly true. I did not understand my noble friend to say that your Lordships were precluded from discussing the terms of reference if you wished to do so, but that the reference did not form part of this Bill. The case is very simple. We all know that this Bill arose almost entirely out of a particular case, or, at all events, out of two cases. One of those cases has disappeared and the urgency of the Bill may therefore be less than it at one time was, but it was brought in as an urgent Bill for the purpose of making special inquiry, by eminently competent men, into two or three special cases.
  It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government that the inquiry shall cover the whole working of the metropolitan police. That is a very large and difficult question, and it is not one which the Government ever intended to submit to this Commission. The purpose of the Commission is limited. The noble Earl who raised this question said that, supposing it should appear from the Report of the Commission that there ought to be a wider inquiry, those who advocated the wider inquiry would be met with the statement that there had been a Commission and there could not be another. If this Commission does establish a case for a larger inquiry of any kind into the general working of the metropolitan police, I have no doubt such an inquiry, in whatever way may be most appropriate, will take place. This Commission will not bar further investigation if it should be necessary, but His Majesty's Government have no ground for thinking
  16
  that wider inquiry is necessary. I desire to associate myself entirely with the words which fell from my noble friend Earl Beauchamp with respect to the metropolitan police. I have the utmost confidence in the metropolitan police, and believe them to be an admirable body of public servants. There may be black sheep among them, as there are in every large institution, but as a body they are entitled to, and I believe they enjoy, the respect, not only of His Majesty's Government, but of the people of London.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Bill read 3a, and passed.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.