proposed to leave out the words "now read the Third time," and to add instead thereof "recommitted in respect of a new clause (Lands and buildings in the parish of Islington to continue liable to rates)." He said that the clause which he had been requested to move by the Vestry of Islington was one to enable the local authorities to require the payment of rates from the railway company from taking possession and during the process of pulling down and the construction of the works. The matter affected the constituency which he represented, but since he had put down the Motion he had received representations from other local authorities that they might have similar privileges to those which had been given to the Corporation of the City. He had no objection to the clause when framed being made general. He admitted that it was a late stage at which to make this proposal. By an oversight, which was capable of an explanation, and due to the General Election of 1895, the Vestry authorities had failed to obtain, like the City of London, which had its Remembrancer, a clause in the Bill for their protection. Power had been obtained to make the railway to certain southern suburbs, and it was proposed to make an extension north as far as Islington. Owing to the General Election, the fact that the Bill simply stood over was overlooked by the local authorities, and he regretted that they were not communicated with. The result was that the City Corporation obtained their clause, but the Vestry did not. This was a principle and a precedent. He now asked that the same clause should be introduced on behalf of the other parishes. What would be the effect of the omission? While the city would gain, the parish of Islington would lose, several hundreds a year. Moreover, the Railway Consolidation Act provided for payment of the Poor Rate. So that, again, they had the admission of the principle that rates ought to be paid. But the Sewerage and Lighting Rate would not come under the Act. The company now came to the House for an extension of time to do these works, and so far what was really a re-enactment of their original Acts, and it should be required to do justice to the other ratepayers of the parish. He maintained that equality was equity and equity consisted in giving these parishes, which were comparatively poor, the same as the City of London. He moved to re-commit the Bill that an act of justice might be done the local authorities.

hoped the House would not agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Islington. In the first place it was very unusual for an hon. Member to ask the House to insert a clause in a Bill without giving the promoters of the Measure and the opponents of the clause any opportunity whatever of being heard. In the second place, the question had already been before the Court of Referees on locus standi, and the locus of the clients of the hon. Member for Islington was disallowed.

said he did not seek to reverse the locus standi Court, he only asked the House to prevent an injustice to the ratepayers clue to an accidental omission of the local authority.

pointed out that whatever the intentions of the hon. Member might be, the effect of the acceptance of his Motion by the House would be to reverse the decision of the Court, which would be a most unusual course, unless some very good ground could be shown. He believed that no ground had been shown for such a course.

was sorry to ask the House to differ from the Chairman of the Committees, but as the representative of the adjacent borough and parish of St. Luke, he rose to support the hon. Member for Islington. There would be no injustice done to the promoters if the Instruction of his hon. Friend were carried, because if the Bill were re-committed both parties would be heard before the Committee. The Chairman of Committees had pointed out that the parish of Islington were not heard before the Court of Referees on the ground that the Court held they were not before them. No one could deny what his hon. Friend had said, namely, that the City and South London Rail way Bill was hung up during the Dissolution of Parliament, and that the local authorities were unaware of the fact that the Bill was being proceeded with this Session. The act of justice done the city of London should be done the other local authorities.

could not help thinking the Amendment was a very unusual one. The City and South London Railway was to a certain extent a pioneer railway. It was almost the first railway constructed in London upon the purely electric system, and it was impossible, under those circumstances, that it could be completed in the time originally stipulated. An extension of time was therefore asked for. The Bill seeking extension was carefully considered in Committee, and was now sent to the House for Third Reading. The hon. Member for Islington now asked, on what he thought very insufficient grounds, to send the Bill back to a Committee in order that an entirely new system of taxation might take place in regard to that railway. In rejecting the Motion of the hon. Member the House would simply confirm the ruling the Speaker gave the other day. He sincerely trusted that in simple justice the House would support the decision of the Committee.

thought the adoption of the Amendment would establish a very valuable precedent. There were important railways piercing the very heart of London, and it was only right the companies constructing those railways should be liable to assessment during the period of construction. For these reasons he, as a Metropolitan Member, hoped the House would consent to the Motion.

asserted in the name of Islington that Islington did not want anything that was unfair. The Amendment would give Islington a particular advantage. The railway went through several parishes, and therefore it seemed to him that all the parishes ought to have some advantage or else none at all.

said he had stated he was prepared to see that was done.

said that as the clause was drawn it would simply give Islington an advantage, and he was opposed to the system of catching votes by advocating the claims of a particular constituency. He should vote with the Chairman of Committees against the clause.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty—(1) whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction has been recently occasioned in the Naval ports among petty officers by the issuing of an order to the effect that any petty officer or man seen on shore wearing plain clothes will be taken before the captain; and (2) in view of the fact that the privilege of wearing mufti on shore has been allowed without challenge by the Admiralty since 1876, when the Admiralty directed that plain clothes were not to be worn when on leave without special permission, and that in consequence of the agitation occasioned by the order it was cancelled before it had been in force three months, whether he will consider the advisability of withdrawing the present rule?

My answer to the first question is "No"; in the second question both preambles are erroneous. There has been no change in the orders of 1876.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the grounds can be stated or, which the General Officer Commanding North British District ruled that Private William Bain Greig, who offered himself for enlistment on the 12th May 1896 in the 2nd Gordon Highlanders at Maryhill Barracks at Glasgow, be held to serve, in view of the fact that Private Greig's birth certificate, testifying to his not being 18 years of age until the 18th March 1897, was in the possession of the Military authorities?

Under the Queen's Regulations power is vested in a General Officer Commanding to hold a recruit to his engagement if he has falsely declared himself to be over 18 years of age, provided he is physically equivalent to that age, and provided his age is actually over 17 years; Private William Bain Greig fulfilled these conditions; and the General Officer Commanding decided to hold him to serve. I should like to add, in order to remove what appears to be a very prevalent but erroneous impression, that there is nothing illegal in the enlistment of a recruit who is under 18 years of age.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether negotiations with France are continuing as respects Madagascar, or whether Her Majesty's Government are now in a position to state the view taken by Her Majesty's Government, and by the Government of the United States, of the Bill for the nominal annexation of the island by the bare use of the term "colony"?

I am sorry to be unable to give the hon. Baronet more precise information. The matter is still under discussion, and being one of great importance, cannot be hurriedly decided.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that at the election of an engineer to the Mallow Union, held on the 5th instant, Mr. Brooke Brasier, J.P., and Mr. Godfrey Levinge, J.P., voted as ex-officio guardians without possessing the requisite legal qualifications; and, if he will cause inquiry to be made into this allegation?

It appears to be a fact that the gentlemen named in the Question voted as ex-officio guardians at the election of an engineer to the Mallow Union, but I am informed that they did possess the requisite legal qualification. The successful candidate for whom these gentlemen voted received a majority of seven votes.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Mary Muldoon, who was employed for 15 years and three months as laundress in the Castlebar District Lunatic Asylum was compelled to resign on 9th July 1895, owing to ill health, and that the Board of Control refused to sanction her superannuation, which was recommended by the Governors of the Asylum, on the grounds that she could not procure a certificate of ill-health from the Resident Medical Officer, notwithstanding the fact that she produced two such certificates from other medical men, one of whom is the visiting physician to the Asylum; and, whether he will use his influence with the Board of Control in order to procure for this woman the superannuation to which she is entitled after her long period of service?

The facts are substantially as stated. In June 1895, the Resident Medical Superintendent was obliged to suspend the woman because of her refusal to perform her duties, and following this she sent in her resignation. The certificates produced by her were not in accordance with the terms of the Statute, and even if they had been the pension could not be granted without the certificate of the Resident Medical Superintendent. The Board of Control, under the circumstances, are unable to give their statutory approval of the pension.

On behalf of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. HEALY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with regard to the declaration as to the Roxborough (Limerick) Schools scheme, recently made by the Privy Council in Ireland that, having carefully considered the question, they decide that the scheme be remitted to the Commissioners with a declaration that they are unable to approve of the Rev. Mr. Gregg being entitled to any compensation or credit in respect thereof, and will so report in their recommendation to the Lord Lieutenant, will he explain why His Excellency has not confirmed the scheme as amended by Resolution of this House; whether several of the Judges at the Privy Council hold that Canon Gregg's tenancy was illegally created by the Commissioners of Education; and, do the Government intend to address any communication thereon to those Commissioners?

The Committee of the Privy Council recommended that the scheme in question be remitted to the Commissioners with a declaration that they are unable to approve of the Rev. Mr. Gregg as being entitled to any compensation or credit in respect thereof. The scheme was remitted accordingly by the Lord Lieutenant in Council and an amended scheme framed in harmony with this declaration was submitted by the Commissioners for the approval of the Lord Lieutenant in Council on May 12th. His Excellency is proceeding, and must proceed, under the provisions of the 24th and subsequent sections of the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Act, 1885, and the scheme cannot be finally approved by the Lord Lieutenant in Council until the requirements of the Act have been fulfilled. From the verbatim report of the proceedings of the Committee it does not appear that any of the Judges held that Canon Gregg's tenancy was illegally created by the Commissioners of Education, and the Government have no intention of addressing any communication on this subject to the Commissioners of Education.

On behalf of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. HEALY), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether the Dublin Police authorities are now willing that certain cycle competitions should again be allowed in Phœnix Park; (2) whether the Board of Works were aware, when they forbade cycle races in the park, of the powers given to the police as to the park roads by the 28th Section of the Dublin Carriage Act; and (3) what is the present attitude of the Board of Works in the matter.

I recently arranged that the Irish Board of Works should confer with the Chief Commissioner of Police on this subject, and I have just heard that they have arranged the conditions under which the Irish Cyclists' Association may be allowed to hold the Senior and Junior Inter-Club races and the 50 miles championship. The answer to the second paragraph is Yes. The suggestion that the grant of permission to hold the races should be discontinued came from the Commissioner of Police two years ago. The Board at the time called his attention to the Act, but I have no information as to the reasons why he then refused to exercise his powers under it. If he had not so refused, the question might have been settled a couple of years ago.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether the parish council of any parish has power to clean out or enlarge the public pond in the village, in order to obtain a better supply of water for the parish, and whether the parish rates can be applied for this purpose; and, if the parish council has not the power to do this, what authority has that power?

A parish council has power to utilise any well, spring, or stream within the parish and to provide facilities for obtaining water there from if they do not interfere with the rights of any corporation or person, but whether this power would enable them to execute works of the kind referred to in the question must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. [Laughter.] A rural district council has full power to do any necessary acts to provide a supply of water proper and sufficient for public and private purposes, and in order to obtain a better supply of water for a parish in their district they might clean out and enlarge a public pond if they did not interfere with the rights of others. [Laughter.]

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, (1) whether, inasmuch as it is now admitted that no warrant existed for the eviction of the miner and his family from the dwelling house tenanted and occupied by him at Langmuir Rows, near Kirkin-tilloch, on the 29th ultimo, he intends to take any criminal proceedings against the parties concerned in carrying out the eviction; (2) Whether the presence of the police on the occasion referred to was the result of any request or communication from the evictors in anticipation of a probable or possible resistance; (3) whether, under the rules which presently regulate the police in Scotland, it is the duty of the police, when their presence is required or deemed expedient, to satisfy themselves that a legal warrant exists for the eviction; if not, whether the Secretary for Scotland will issue such rules or instructions for the guidance of the police in future; (4) whether the tenant and his friends on the occasion referred to being legally entitled to use physical force in resisting the eviction, the presence of the police on the occasion was intended to overawe and did overawe and overpower the tenant and his friends in their lawful resistance; (5) and, whether a special Inquiry will be made into the circumstances of the eviction and the action of the police?

As at present advised I see nothing calling for any action by the criminal authorities in this case. The presence of the police was the result of a communication from the evictors stating that the eviction was to take place; but the police were specially instructed in no way to interfere, excepting to preserve the peace. There is no rule requiring the police in cases of eviction to satisfy themselves that a warrant exists, and the Secretary for Scotland does not at present see any necessity for altering the existing rules. I am not prepared to admit the accuracy of the hon. Member's opinion as to the legality of using physical force. There was, however, I am informed no intention of overawing or overpowering the tenant, who denies that he was overawed. I do not propose to order any special inquiry into the matter, as the facts appear to be now fully elicited. In reply to the supplementary question of which the hon. Member has given me private notice, I have to inform him that the notice to remove I referred to in a previous answer, was given on 21st March to remove at 28th May by a Sheriff's Officer, on the printed form used in such cases, and that all the houses in Langmuir Rows are held on weekly (not yearly) tenancies. The notice to remove was therefore ample. I desire to take this opportunity of correcting my previous statement that McDowall had not worked in the colliery for nine months prior to eviction. It now appears that he was very irregular in his work, and had only worked for about nine months out of the eighteen preceding the eviction. He had, however, worked for about five weeks prior to the 25th May, during which time his rent was as usual deducted. A small sum is still owing by him for rent.

gave notice that he would call attention to this matter on the vote for Law and Justice.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware some thousands of copies of a circular, namely, a renewal notice, issued by the Mortgage Insurance Corporation, were recently subjected to the letter post rate, on the ground that a date had been inserted in the first paragraph; whether no objection was taken to a date inserted in a subsequent paragraph; whether the regulations regarding statements of account expressly authorise the insertion of dates without restriction; and, whether he will direct that the fines in the case referred to shall be remitted?

The Postmaster General is aware that a number of copies of the document referred to were charged with letter-postage. The document consisted of a circular as well as a statement of account or renewal notice, and while (the book post regulations allow any written dates to be inserted in the latter, the only date which can be inserted in a circular is the date of dispatch. The fact of a sender combining in one document a renewal notice and a circular letter containing other information cannot exempt the document from the regulations applicable to a circular. As therefore in this case the book-post regulations were infringed, the Postmaster General is unable to remit the charge.

asked whether, as it was admitted that the regulations were complicated, he would have them re-cast in a clear and intelligible form.

said he did not think the regulations were at present complicated.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the advisability of laying out in flower-beds and walks the northern corner of Hyde Park near the Marble Arch, in order to do away with the performances which take place there every Sunday?

In reply to my hon. Friend I have to say that the Question of doing away with the performances in Hyde Park of which he complains has been carefully considered, and new rules have been drafted, of which statutory notice will be given in the Gazette to-morrow, and the effect of which will be to stop these performances in future. [Cheers.] These rules will, in accordance with the statute, have to be laid upon the Table of this House, after which they will become effective. I anticipate that they will meet my hon. Friend's point and render unnecessary the suggestion contained in his Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what steps, beyond the purchase of the site, have been taken towards the erection of the new Custom House at Cardiff; and when it is expected to be completed; whether the temporary offices at Bute Docks have been made use of to the extent anticipated by the Cardiff Chamber of Commerce in their representations to the Department; if he can state the amount of expenditure in connection with these temporary offices up to the present time and the estimated further expenditure during the erection of the new Custom House, and whether any provision has been or is intended to be made by the Treasury to meet it, or whether it is proposed that these public offices shall be maintained by private subscriptions; and, whether there is any precedent for such a proposal?

The plans for the new buildings have been completed and are now in course of final settlement. There has been some delay owing to questions arising as to windows overlooking the site, but these are now practically settled, and I hope the new buildings may be completed in about a year's time. The Board of Customs believe that the temporary offices at the docks have been largely used. The arrangement is not merely proposed, but was actually settled last year in concert with the hon. Member for Cardiff at the request of the local merchants and shipowners, and has been in force some months. Under that arrangement the locality pays the £85 per annum rent and cost of heating and lighting the temporary offices, while the Government bears the cost of cleaning and of establishing messenger and telephonic communication with the Custom House proper. I do not see how the question of precedent comes in. The matter is a simple bargain, and as I have already informed the hon. Member it would be obviously unfair to charge the taxpayer with the cost of two custom houses.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will inform the House as to the reasons for the continued detention in St. Helena of the Zulu chiefs Dinuzulu, Ndabuko, and Tshingana the remainder of whose sentences of imprisonment was cancelled early in 1895, and who were then instructed as to the positions they were to hold on their promised restoration to Zululand; and, whether the obstacles to the carrying out of the arrangements then made have been or can be now removed?

It is my intention to make arrangements at the earliest practicable opportunity for the repatriation of the Zulu chiefs, but, unfortunately, the circumstances of the year in Zululand and the general aspect of native affairs preclude my taking immediate action in that direction.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will state if it is his intention to appoint a Departmental or other Committee to inquire into the Irish workhouse system; and, if so, whether this Inquiry will extend to the treatment of pauper lunatics in workhouses and their admission to workhouses from properly equipped asylums; and, whether he will give the names of the gentlemen who are to constitute this Committee?

In the event of the passage of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill, inquiry would have to be held into the question of the best means of grouping unions for purposes of amalgamation, but I do not consider it necessary to appoint a Departmental or other Committee to inquire into the whole workhouse system or to extend the inquiry to the treatment of insane in workhouses, and their admission to workhouses from asylums.

asked whether any inquiry the right hon. Gentleman constituted would cover the question of classification?

No, Sir; the Inquiry which I have in contemplation will not cover that point. I think we have sufficient information relating to it already.

Will it cover the question of consolidation?

My idea is that the Committee or Commission appointed should inquire as to what unions it would be best to amalgamate.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can now state if any and, if so, what improvements have been made by way of additional sirens or other warnings to mariners on Mew Island, at the entrance to Belfast Lough?

I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the second siren, which has been sanctioned by the Board of Trade for this station, will be completed and in working order about the 25th instant.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, how far it is proposed to carry the telephone trunk line in Scotland; and, whether he can state approximately when the trunk line will be open to Inverness?

The Postmaster General has proposed to the Treasury to carry the telephone trunk line as far north as Inverness. It is not at present possible to state even approximately when the line will be open, but no time will be lost in commencing the work when the necessary funds have been provided by Parliament.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received a memorial from the Central Association of Irish Schoolmistresses, and from the Ulster Schoolmistresses' Association, on the subject of the proposed withdrawal of £15,000 from the funds of Irish Intermediate Education for the purpose of founding a Veterinary College in Dublin; whether it is owing to accidental circumstances that any accumulation of money remains in the hands of the Board; and, whether, as all the funds of the Board are urgently needed for the educational work at present being accomplished, he will, in the event of the Veterinary College being proceeded with, provide the funds from some other source?

Communications have been made to me on the subject mentioned in the first paragraph. With regard to the remainder of the Question, I still hope to be able during the present Session to introduce the Bill dealing with this matter, and pending its introduction, I do not think it desirable to indicate the source from which it may be proposed to obtain the grant in aid.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the sum of £500,000 advanced by the Caisse de la Dette for the Soudan Expedition has been already spent; and, in that case, from what source the current expense of that expedition is being drawn?

No Returns have been received of the amounts so far expended in the Egyptain Expedition. But it is not believed that liabilities so large as £500,000 will, for some time to come, have been incurred.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will cause orders to be given for the suspension of the Military censorship of telegrams from the Soudan, so far as to permit inquiry to be made and answers to be freely sent as to the accuracy or otherwise of the statements of the Standard's war correspondent in regard to the looting of the property of the Dervishes defeated at the battle of Firket, and the triumphant appropriation of women by the black troops forming part of Major Burn-Murdoch's force?

No, Sir. I see no necessity for the suspension of the military censorship, which is exercised at the discretion of the Sirdar; and I may add that I do not think that the words which have been quoted demand the construction which appears to have suggested itself in some quarters.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether intimation has been made by the War Office that the 2nd Battalion Cameron Highlanders (Inverness-shire Militia) are this year to undergo annual training at Barry, Forfarshire; whether there is any precedent for training a purely Highland battalion in a lowland county; whether the officers of the battalion were consulted before the order was issued; and, whether the change is permanent?

The battalion of Militia referred to is to train this year at Barry Links because of an outbreak of measles at Fort George, where it otherwise would have trained. The change has been made on medical grounds, and it was not necessary to consult the officers. The present decision has reference only to this year.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate why, an appointment having been made a considerable time ago to the office of Sheriff Clerk of Sutherland and Clerk to the Justices of the Peace of that county, the duties continue to be discharged by the interim clerk; and, whether the terms of appointment confine the holder to the discharge of his official duties and debar him from private practice, as in the case of his predecessor?

I have to inform the hon. Member that the Sheriff Clerk of Sutherlandshire has now assumed office and taken up his duties. The terms of his appointment debar him from private practice.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has been moved to reduce the minimum service of uncovenanted officers for voluntary retirement on pension from 30 years to 25, in accordance with the evidence of the Financial Representative of the India Office before the Select Committee of the House, and in accordance with the observations of the Chairman of that Committee, then Under Secretary of State for India?

The Secretary of State has made no such suggestion to the Government of India. I may add that I have not been able to trace the statements to which my hon. Friend refers in support of the change which he apparently advocates.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the fact that, in consequence of the decrease of crime in Ireland, 23 county prisons are at present closed up and unoccupied, will he state what was the average cost of the erection of these prisons and what is it now proposed to do with them; and, has the county gaol at Longford been sold as contractor's material; if so, to what fund will the money so obtained be devoted?

Eleven, not twenty-three, of the county prisons in Ireland have been closed, and are now unoccupied as prisons. The General Prisons Board do not know what was the average cost of erection of these prisons. Two of them have been converted into schools, one is utilised as a military barrack, another as a police barrack, and another is used by the Militia Authorities. The remaining six have been handed back to the Grand Juries of the respective counties and have passed beyond the control of the Prisons Board. The county prison at Longford was handed over to the Grand Jury in 1894, and the Prisons Board have no official knowledge as to what has since become of the building.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the statement by the Women Inspectors (in the recent Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops) that they criticise most unfavourably the sanitary accommodation provided in Lancashire and Yorkshire in many mills, and complain that the inspectors have no power to enforce a standard of decency as well as of cleanliness, sanitary arrangements being often without regard to privacy or propriety; (2) whether he is aware that England is the only great industrial country in Europe which has no clause in its factory legislation requiring general propriety as well as health in these arrangements; and, (3) if he will undertake that in any future factory legislation, to be undertaken by the present Government, special regard shall be paid to this point?

I have seen the statements referred to in the Question, but, at the same time, the inspectors report that in many cases on the defects being pointed out improvements have been effected. With regard to the second and third paragraphs of the Question, the hon. Member appears to have overlooked the provision made by Section 35 of the Act of last year that factories and workshops shall be provided with suitable as well as sufficient accommodation. It is too soon at present to judge of the effects of that section, which came into force only at the beginning of this year; but it appears to me to be entirely adequate for the purpose, and in view of it I cannot agree that England is behind other countries in its legislation in these matters.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Congress of the United States has passed, and the President approved, a Bill for reducing risk of collisions at sea, embodying new regulations for fog signals at sea; and, if so, whether these new regulations are those recommended by the Washington Maritime Conference, or those suggested by the British Board of Trade after consultation with the shipping interests; and, whether there remain any Foreign Powers which have not, as yet, given in their adhesion to the new regulations which have now been adopted by the United States?

I am not yet in possession of information as to the action of the United States Government.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he is aware that the discount paid by the borrowers of the Castleblayney Loan Fund in 1895 amounted to £422 4s. 4d., and that the fines of this office for same year amounted to £212 5s. 1d., or more than half the discount paid; (2) if he is aware that the clerk or clerks of said office received as salary in 1895 £160 for one day in each week during the year; that the total expenses of management of the office, including, salary, rent, &c., amounted to £290 12s.; that the Clerk of the Castleblayney office is also Clerk of three other offices in county Monaghan, the combined salaries for the four offices amounting to £500 annually; and that the expenses of management of the four offices, including salaries, rent, &c., amounted in 1895 to £750 12s. 6d.; (3) if he will bring this expenditure under the notice of the Loan Fund Board, with a view of reducing the salaries and rents of the Loan Funds in county Monaghan, and thus reduce the rate of discount and fines; and (4), if he will state the amount of net profit of the four Loan Funds in county Monaghan since their establishment some years ago, after one-tenth had been set apart for the security of debenture holders; where is the reserve net profit invested; in whose name; and for whose benefit?

I am informed that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The salary paid to the Castleblayney Clerk in 1895 amounted to £160. In addition to an attendance of one day each week at the office of the society, he is also required to attend at the Petty Sessions whenever borrowers and their sureties are proceeded against. The total expenses of management of the society for 1895 are correctly stated as £290 12s. 0d. The Clerk of Castleblayney is also Clerk of Carrickmacross and Ballybay Loan Funds, and the aggregate of his salaries as Clerk of these three societies is £300 per annum. The combined expenses of management of these three societies amounted to £623 9s. 1d. in 1895, inclusive of salaries, rent, &c. As to the third paragraph, the rates of discount are regulated by the Loan Fund Act of 1843, and the fines are regulated by the rules certified under that statute. Of course borrowers can avoid the payment of fines by paying the instalments of their loans punctually. The net profits of the four loan funds in county Monaghan from their formation to the 31st December 1895, amounted to £1,158 8s. The net profits are utilised as portion of the working capital of these loan fund societies.

As it appears from the Question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fermanagh that four loan funds exist in county Monaghan, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the names of the towns at which the loan funds exist?

I am afraid I have not got that on the Paper, but I will make inquiries if the hon. Member desires.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the postal administration of the South African Republic has recently raised the rate of postage for newspapers sent to Great Britain and Ireland from 1d. per 4 ozs. to 1d. per 2 oz.; whether a like increase is charged on newspapers going from Great Britain and Ireland into the South African Republic; and, whether he intends to make any representations to the postal authorities of the South African Republic on the matter, with a view of having this charge reduced?

I replied to a similar question on the 24th of April last. It is the fact, as I then stated, that the Post Office of the Transvaal has raised from 1d. per 4 oz. to 1d. per 2 oz., the postage on new papers posted in that country not only for the United Kingdom but for all other countries outside South Africa. No increase has taken place in the postage on newspapers from this country for the South African Republic. It is not proposed to make any representation to the Transvaal Post Office on the subject, as that office has acted within its rights in raising the postage, and has duly notified the change in its Postal Guide for January.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he could state to the House what is the quota of the free force police to which county Clare is entitled; and what was the number of free force police in Clare on 1st June instant?

The county Clare is entitled to a free force of 344 men. The entire police establishment of the county, inclusive of the extra force, consists of 484 men and of this number there were, on the 1st of June, 482 men serving in the county and two recruits training at the depôt.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he can state when the Jhalawar Deposition Papers will be laid upon the Table of the House; whether he can inform the House as to what arrangements have been made for the Maharaja's future and allowances; and whether the son of the deposed Maharaja will be treated as the future ruler of the State of Jhalawar?

The Papers to be presented are in type, and will be laid on the Table as soon as the Printers can finish the work. The question of succession, which involves some difficult issues, and the final arrangements for the late Maharaj Ranas residence and allowances, are engaging the attention of the Government of India.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether Her Majesty's Government have granted a concession of exclusive rights to minerals and guano over an area around Cape Adare, in South Victoria Land, within the Antarctic Circle; and whether he can state approximately the area in that region proclaimed to be under the British flag and the date of such proclamation?

A licence has recently been granted to Mr. T. G. Bowick to occupy so much as lies within 10 miles in any direction of Cape Adare with the exclusive right of removing guano and other fertilising substances for three years, but there is nothing in the licence as to minerals. Sir J. Ross, in January 1841, took possession of South Victoria Land in the name of Her Majesty, but as to its area I have no definite information.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he has caused inquiry to be made into the question of extending the 4s. grant per week for lunatics, now given to lunatic asylums, to workhouses; and, if so, whether he is prepared to recommend that that grant should be paid for lunatics in workhouses who have been treated in asylums and discharged to workhouses as incurable?

I have received a large number of communications on this subject, and have given careful consideration to it. Nothing, however, could be done in the matter without an alteration of the Law, and I am not in a position to propose legislation with regard to it at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Governor of Norfolk Island recently dismissed summarily by telegram the Rev. T. P. Thorman, Chaplain of the Island for the last ten years, while on a visit to this country, and without any reason assigned; what compensation, if any, has been offered him for the loss of his office, and for the money which he has spent in the improvement of the house, the property of the Government, which was assigned to him as a residence; and, whether, as the laws of the island prescribe that the Chaplain should preside at the election of the Chief Magistrate, it is proposed to appoint a successor to him?

I have learned from the rev. gentleman that he has received a letter from the Governor of New South Wales, informing him that in view of the administrative changes contemplated in Norfolk Island he is obliged to terminate his appointment, and that in consideration of any expenses he may have been put to the Governor is willing to make him a grant of six months' salary. I expect shortly to receive further information from the Governor respecting Mr. Thorman's position; but, in the meantime, I am unable to state what further arrangements are proposed as regards the office of Chaplain. Owing to representations received from the Governor as to the existing state of affairs, he has been authorised to take special steps for the temporary appointment of a Magistrate, which he has power to do under the Order in Council of 24th June 1856.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1), when he proposes to introduce the Bill for the Amalgamation of Unions in Ireland; (2) does he propose to take the Bill during the ordinary business hours of the House or after 12 o'clock at night; and (3), would the clauses of the Superannuation of Poor Law Officers Bill, if applied to Ireland, be made dependent upon or independent of the passing of the Amalgamation of Unions Bill?

As to the first and second paragraphs, I have nothing to add to the reply given by me on Tuesday last to the question of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division, Dublin—namely, that the Bill is nearly ready, but that, in view of the condition of the business in the House, unless I am allowed to introduce the Measure after 12 o'clock, it probably could not be introduced this Session. The Bill would appear to be one proper for discussion in the Grand Committee on Law. As to the third paragraph, the Union Officers Act of 1885 deals with the superannuation of Poor Law officers on abolition of office by amalgamation of unions. The Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Bill now before Parliament if made applicable to Ireland, would not be affected in any way by the passage into law of the Poor Relief Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received a memorial from the tenantry upon the Ely estate, county Fermanagh, praying that provision may be made in the Irish Land Bill for sale to tenants of Irish encumbered estates at present under the control of the English Court of Chancery; and, whether he proposes dealing with the subject?

I have received the memorial referred to, and will look into the question, though at present I do not think it possible to include in the Land Bill a provision of the nature suggested.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether, inasmuch as the India Medal was given for the 1863 Waziri Expedition, and also for the 1895 expedition against the same tribe, when the only fight (viz., at Wano) was previous to the expedition being sent, and out of which it arose, he will consider the question with a view to granting the Indian Medal to those who took part in the 1881 expedition in which there was a fight?

I can only refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my predecessor to a somewhat similar question on the 23rd July 1894, nor could I re-open the question by reconsidering the request to grant a medal for an expedition which took place 15 years ago.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the demand for the addition to the post office at Castleknock, county Dublin, of a money order and savings bank department; and, whether the Postmaster General will inquire into that demand, with a view to giving it his favourable consideration?

Attention has been called to the matter, and the Postmaster General will communicate the result of the inquiry which is now being made as soon as he is in a position to do so.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether it is the case that private soldiers on the married list receive in London only 4d. a day lodging allowance when married quarters cannot be supplied in barracks; and, whether it is the case that, in view of the fact that temporary lodgers are generally discouraged, respectable lodgings outside within reasonable distance of barracks cannot be obtained by married soldiers under 6d. a day?

The lodging allowance for married soldiers at all home stations is 4d. a day. This allowance, is in the Secretary of State's opinion, inadequate, and the question of increasing it is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state if the attention of the Congested Districts Board has been directed to the necessity of having the Esslin river and its tributaries sunk and cleaned up in the Breandrum Division in South Leitrim, one of the scheduled districts under that Board; and, whether, as many of the people in that locality are in urgent need of employment, having at present to pay a heavy poor rate of 2s. 10d. in the pound, as well as a high county cess and a special levy for the Cavan and Leitrim Light Railway, he will direct that the Congested Districts Board take steps to have these useful works carried out without delay?

The Congested Districts Board agreed to defray one-half of the expenditure in respect of the drainage works referred to, provided that their contribution does not exceed £200, and the works are carried out by a Drainage Board, with whom the matter now rests.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether he is aware that the Sheriff of Inverness, Moray and Nairn has for a considerable period refused to sign the necessary papers entitling the Sheriff Clerk of Inverness-shire to draw his emoluments; and, whether the learned Sheriff has stated any reason for his refusal to do so?

The matter referred to by the hon. Member has now been adjusted, and the decision of the Secretary for Scotland has been communicated to the parties concerned. Under the decision the Sheriff Clerk of Inverness-shire is entitled to draw his salary for the year 1895.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, when he intends to take the Second Reading of the Public Health (Scotland) Bill?

I am afraid I cannot give a promise on the subject. If I had an assurance that the Bill would be passed the Second Reading and referred to a Grand Committee without any length of time being taken in discussion at the end of an evening, I would consider the matter.

asked what kind of a Committee the right hon. Gentleman referred to?

The Standing Grand Committee.

asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether it was a fact, as stated in the evening journals, that bluejackets had been landed in Crete for the protection of Christians, and if he could answer affirmatively whether this referred to Christians generally or only to such as were British subjects?

I have not seen the statement in the evening newspapers, but I may say we have as yet received no official confirmation of it.

I wish to ask the Leader of the House a question of which I have given him private notice—whether he has any statement to make as to the future progress and arrangement of the business of the House; and, further, whether the Government have in view any alteration or modification of the provisions of the Education Bill?

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say with regard to the Education Bill that I have no general statement to make. As to the future course of business we shall, with the exception of Fridays, devote this week and next to the Education Bill in Committee. The Fridays will continue to be devoted to Supply. Further than that I should not like to make a definite statement. But the Government have a certain number of Measures they must pass before the House rises, about the middle of October—[loud laughter and cries of "Oh!" and "No!"]—I mean the middle of August—[cheers]—and I shall have to break off proceedings on the Education Bill to give, as far as possible, time for those Measures to pass. It is rather early in the Session to make a more definite statement than that. Perhaps what I have said will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.

asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the unsatisfactory position of Public Business"; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified,

called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, whereupon nearly all the Members on the Opposition side rose in their places.

said there were many precedents for the course he was taking. On previous occasions it was difficult, if not impossible, to accurately estimate the prospect of business for the remainder of the Session, because it had always been in the power of the Leader of the House to extend the facilities necessary to carry through the business he considered necessary. On the present occasion circumstances were different. The Leader of the House, on behalf of the Government, had abrogated and given away his right to extend the present Session. The right hon. Gentleman, early in the Session, gave a pledge that the House should rise on or about August 12th. So it was fitting that the House should see where it stood and ask the Government for some indication of their plans for the remainder of the Session. Including to-day there were, up to August 12th, 42 working days. They had had 13 days in Committee of Supply, and seven more of the 20 days the Leader of the House had set apart for Supply were to come. But the right hon. Gentleman seemed to recognise that it would be necessary to extend the 20 to 23, because there were still the Army, Navy, Education, Foreign Office, Colonial Office, Board of Trade, and Home Office Votes to pass, to say nothing of the Chief Secretary for Ireland's Vote, the Scotch Vote, the Woods and Forests, Board of Agriculture, and other Administrative Votes. So that unless scores of Votes were passed without a word of discussion, it would be necessary to extend the days to be devoted to Supply from 20 to 23. Deducting 10 from 42, left 32 days at the disposal of the Government. How were they to be occupied? Four days would be necessary for the Report and Third Reading stages of the Agricultural Rating Bill and the consideration of Amendments made in the House of Lords. Four days would similarly have to be set aside for the Irish Land Bill. Then the Finance Bill would need careful consideration, for though the Government had an unprecedented surplus, they had made no great popular proposal. Considerable Debate would take place on the alteration of the Land Tax. Then there was the proposal as to the Death Duties; £200,000 was to be given back to the landlords which was taken from them by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. Two or three days should be set aside for the discussion of these items in the Finance Bill. There were many Amendments on the Paper from the Ministerial as well as from the Opposition side. A Bill providing for an equivalent grant to Ireland and Scotland under the Rating Bill should be passed, or the finances of the country would get into a muddle. He set aside a day for discussing the sending of Indian troops to Egypt, a day for the discussion of affairs in Uganda, and three days for the Public Health (Scotland) Bill, which had been introduced into the Lords. He allowed one day for the Indian Budget, and three days for the Appropriation Bill, on which many topics must inevitably be discussed. He set aside a day for the Diseases (Animals) Bill, and one for the Light Railways Bill; and having done this, he left no time for a list of 35 Bills, some that were mentioned in the Queen's Speech and others that were not. In addition to all these for which he left no time, there was a Bill called the Education Bill. [A laugh.] How were they to get these Bills through the House and rise by August 12th? What was going to be done? Who was responsible for the position of business? It could not be suggested that there had been anything approaching to obstruction. If the Government had meant business—if they had meant to give subsidies to landlords and to uproot the education system of the country—they ought to have summoned Parliament earlier. In this Parliament we were to have had short sessions and long recesses; but it would appear that it was going to be the reverse. If the Diseases (Animals) Bill was passed it would not alter the law; all it would do was to make an Administrative Order permanent, and the only reason for passing the Bill was the fear that a Liberal Government would not adhere to the policy of the present Government. Time had been wasted by such incidents as that of Thursday night, when the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Education Bill resisted an Amendment, and the Leader of the House soon afterwards threw him over. Then, on Friday, the Leader of the House put down a Motion for the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule; but when the time came he said that, on account of certain facts which had come to his knowledge, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing. [Ministerial cheers.] No doubt the right hon. Gentleman was well advised, but the Amendment showed that the fullest care was not taken beforehand to ascertain what the opinion of the House really was. It could not be contemplated that the Government would abandon any of their Measures, because, speaking at Birmingham on May 1st, the Colonial Secretary said:—

"The late Government were in the position of an unskilful conjuror who tries to keep a dozen plates up in the air at the same time, but finds they all come down upon him in a mass. As I have said, we will not follow an evil example; we will not ask Parliament to do what we know Parliament cannot do. To each Session its appointed work will be set aside."

[Opposition laughter and cheers.] In ordinary circumstances he should expect to hear that certain Bills were not to be proceeded with, but in the face of that declaration from the Colonial Secretary, who occupied such a unique position, he refused to contemplate the possibility of the Leader of the House throwing him over. [A laugh.] They wanted to know what were the intentions of the Government with regard to Public Business, and he felt sure the Leader of the House would avail himself of the opportunity afforded by the Motion for making a statement on that subject. [Opposition cheers.]

said he thought they ought to have a reply from the Government. He supported the Motion because an unanswerable case had been made out for an explanation at least.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman who moved the adjournment of the House that I did not abstain from rising because I desire to keep silence. But I thought it probable the Leader of the Opposition would desire to make some observations, and that it would be convenient that I should be in a position to reply to them, which I shall not be in as the matter now stands. I must therefore confine myself to what has been said by the mover of the Motion. He has gone through an elaborate citation, some part of which seemed not unreasonable and some part of which seemed to me very unreasonable, with regard to the time that ought to be taken by certain Bills. I do not think it would be desirable that I should follow the hon. Gentleman step by step and discuss whether such time ought to be taken with the Rating Bill, the Irish Land Bill, the Budget Bill, the Scotch and Irish Equivalent Grant Bills, the Uganda Railway Bill, and so forth, but I do entirely recognise that it is not very reasonable to expect that by the 14th of August we should get the Bills mentioned, and also get through the remaining stages of the Education Bill. The hon. Gentleman thereupon says, "How very foolish to get business into such an impasse," and he proceeded to give various reasons why this result had occurred, among which reasons I did not notice either the eloquence of himself or his friends, though, personally, I should have thought he had a right to claim no insignificant share in the production of the result which he so eloquently deplores. [Laughter and cheers.] He dares me to say there has been obstruction. It is not my business on the present occasion to discuss whether there has been obstruction or not. But there has been very full Debate—[laughter]—and when there is very full Debate in a very eloquent Parliament the result is that the business does not march with the rapidity which every Government in turn desires, and which many Governments preceding ours have been fortunate enough to obtain. However, I am not going to discuss the shortcomings of the hon. Gentleman. I am not going to say whether in my judgment he has exceeded or fallen short of his duty as a Member of Parliament. But I may in self defence say that the principal accusations he has levelled against me appear to be very shadowy and to be entirely destitute of any reasonable foundation. The hon. Member says, "All would have been different if you had not allowed the Cattle Diseases Bill to go forward."

That was only an instance.

The Cattle Diseases Bill has taken two days, so far as I know, of Parliamentary time, and the loss of two days, though very deplorable, does not as a rule produce a Parliamentary impasse. Then he has told me what has no doubt turned out to be the fact, that the programme of business is too large. But the peculiarity of the House of Commons is that the better it is the less fitted it appears to be to get through its work. And the admirable eloquence which this Opposition has shown has no doubt enriched Hansard with many masterpieces and has given us a very minute knowledge of a very large number of Bills, but certainly it has not helped to pass Bills into law. Then, says the hon. Gentleman—

"In addition to the crime of having spent two days over the Cattle Diseases Bill, the Leader of the House comes down on a Friday with an announcement that he was going to suspend the 12 o'clock rule, and when the time for suspending the 12 o'clock rule came he says he is not going to suspend it."

That may have been a very foolish proceeding, or it may have been a very wise proceeding, it may have been justified or it may not, but how it is spending Parliamentary time, how it is contributing to the present position of business, I confess I wholly fail to see, and the hon. Gentleman with all his ingenuity wholly failed to explain. [Cheers.] But he says—

"That is not all. We have been discussing the Education Hill for one night in Committee; and what does the Leader of the House do? He came down and accepted an Amendment which had been supported from both sides of the House."

Again, it might or might not have been wise for the Leader of the House to have accepted an Amendment that was so supported, but it is the first time I have ever yet heard from the Opposition that it was a crime in the managers of a Government Bill to accept Amendments pressed upon them from the Opposition side of the House—[cheers]—or that such a course was likely to conduce to the delay of public business. May I remind the House that when the Rating Bill was under discussion we were told every two hours that if the Government would only accept Amendments, and show some disposition by accepting Amendments to conciliate the Opposition, then we might have got the Bill without difficulty. Nobody was more forward in making that accusation than the hon. Gentleman himself. So it appears, unfortunate people that we are, that we can never do right. We are wrong when we accept Amendments; we are wrong when we refuse them. I do not know whether it is the destiny of the hon. Member as time rolls on to be placed in the responsible position which I now hold. [Laughter.] I am sure we shall all be very glad if it is so. But if he is placed in that position I hope he will meet with some more candid criticism than he has meted out to me this evening. [Cheers.] What the hon. Gentleman has said about the general course of business is to a large extent true. It is no doubt impossible before the 15th of August, so far as we can see, to pass the stages of the Education Bill, and the other Bills which I think it is desirable to pass. In these circumstances we shall take the Education Bill at a later stage of this Session. [An HON. MEMBER: "This Session!"] Of the present Session. I did not say of the present year, nor do I contemplate that in all probability it will be in the course of the present year that the remainder of the Bill will be discussed. But we shall adopt and improve upon models which have been set us by our predecessors, and we shall, I hope, find ample time after the present part of the Session terminates for discussing what remains to be discussed of the Education Bill on which we are now engaged. I hope I have now treated the House with openness and candour. [Cheers.]

asked what Bills the Government proposed to take before the 15th of August.

An absolute statement upon that point I cannot make, and I think it early in the Session to be asked to make such a statement. A large number of the Bills mentioned by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy are, of course, of a non-controversial character, and if they are not they have no hope or expectation of becoming law during the course either of this part of the Session or of the later part of the Session. But I do hope to be able to pass into law the Finance Bill, of course, the Light Railways Bill, the Cattle Diseases Bill, and the English Rating Bill. I think we ought to pass the Scotch and Irish Rating Bill, and I have every hope of being able to do that. The Uganda Bill ought to pass, and I believe if the House sets itself to the task there might also be time to either wholly pass or very nearly pass the Irish Land Bill. There is a Departmental Bill, the Loans Bill, which ought to pass. I do not think the House would ask me at this period of the Session to make a more detailed statement. [Cheers.]

The right hon. Gentleman expressed surprise that I had not risen before. The real fact is that I think it would have been more convenient if this discussion had taken place to-morrow—which was what I always contemplated—as was done in 1886. At the request of the Government of that day, the Motion for adjournment was postponed until an account of what had taken place—which could give us some information of the intentions of the Government—was made public, and so we were enabled to discuss these intentions. Therefore I did not feel, until I had heard something from the right hon. Gentleman, that I had any such information as would entitle me to enter upon this discussion at all. As regards the details of the business of the Session, I do not propose to enter on that subject now; we shall know more about that later on. But the right hon. Gentleman made a remarkable statement, and one which, I think, is true from his point of view. He said, "The better the House of Commons is the less capable it is of doing business." I am quite certain that from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view a better House of Commons than the present never existed. [Laughter.] We, a House of Commons where the Government, and especially a Tory Government, has a majority of 150, must be the best House of Commons in the best possible of Parliaments. Therefore, he has laid down a proposition, the truth of which he has done a great deal to establish, that the best possible House of Commons is the worst possible for transacting business. [Laughter.] That is unquestionably apparent from the situation in which we are placed. The only point on which I can observe is the indication—for it was an indication rather than a clear statement—of what is going to become of the Measure called the Education Bill. [Laughter.] One of the remarkable points in the transaction of business is, I think, that when Her Majesty's Government undertook in dealing with the Education Bill to depart entirely from the lines which were laid down in the Queen's Speech in regard to the character of that Measure. When that decision was taken none of us knew. It certainly was not taken when the Queen's Speech was delivered, or it was never so described. But by some extraordinary internal commotion I suppose the character of that Bill was changed, as the geological formations of the earth are changed by some eruption within the globe itself, and the whole of the stratification was entirely altered by what is called, I believe, by the geologists a "fault"—[laughter]—and a Bill which was to be a small Bill for aiding Voluntary Schools became a Measure for revolutionising the system of education throughout the country. That, and that alone, is the cause of the present state of public business. If you are to have a revolutionary Bill the sooner you begin the revolution the better, and the more likely you are to bring it to an early conclusion. But this revolutionary Bill has been postponed and postponed until we are just at the commencement of the discussion of the detail of it in the middle of June. That is the real cause of the confusion of public business. This is unquestionably the great Measure of the Session, because, although you may talk about the Rating Bill, the Light Railways Bill, or any other Bill, the Education Bill is the pièce de résistance of the Government, and here we are just beginning its discussion in the middle of June. What are the Government going to do with that Bill? All that we are told is that they are going on with it for a fortnight, and then they are going to suspend it.

I did not say that. I said break off. I said we were going to resume it in the course of the present Session. [Cries of "Next year."]

I am coming to that. I am only at the breaking-off stage. [Laughter.] What a remarkable course to take! I think I am right in saying that I never remember a Bill of this magnitude being broken off at the end of June in order to introduce into the middle of the business of the House a number of minor and secondary Measures, and then at some unnamed date being resumed. All that we are told is that it is not to be resumed in the present year. That is the reason why I desired, in order to make this discussion of any real value, that it should not have been taken to-day, but to-morrow—["Hear, hear!" and laughter]—when we should have been really qualified to discuss it to any effect. Unfortunately, in the situation in which we stand——

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a personal explanation. [Ministerial laughter.] I am entitled to make a personal explanation. ["Oh!" and laughter.] This meeting to-day was of a confidential nature. I do not think we ought to rely in the House of Commons on mere rumours of what took place at the confidential meeting.

Certainly not. I have never known meetings of this kind confidential in the sense that there was not an authorised statement made of what had taken place. [Ministerial cheers.] I feel certain that the right hon. Gentleman has too much respect for the House of Commons and the country not to take the course which has always been taken—[The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"]—not to give details of the discussion, but to give to the public the substance of what has happened. ["Hear, hear!"] That is the course which in my Parliamentary recollection has always been pursued. That was the course pursued in 1886, when, on the appeal of Mr. Gladstone, the discussion was postponed until next day. We are consequently placed in this difficulty—that we have not had from the Government that statement, which we shall, I suppose, have to-morrow, as to the conclusions at which the Government have arrived in respect to the business of the House; but I gather from the indications made that the Education Bill is to be proceeded with for a fortnight. How many clauses does he suppose he will lave got at the end of the fortnight? Why, we all know very well that the pith and substance of the Bill depend upon the third and fourth clauses, upon the powers to be given to the education authority which is constituted in the first clause. Can there be anything more ridiculous as regards the House of Commons and the country than that you should pass the first clause and then leave the country until next year without knowing what are the powers which are to be given to the education authority. [Cheers.] It seems to me that a course more destructive of the progress of public business it is impossible to conceive. ["Hear, hear!"] I should have thought that, having made up their minds to introduce a Bill of this character, they would have thought it their first duty to proceed with that Bill and let the House and the country know what the decision of Parliament was on that Measure. I cannot conceive a more extraordinary state of things. It is a Bill which everybody knows moves the opinion of the country, the sentiment of the country, in one direction or another. There could be nothing more destructive to the peace of education throughout the country. [Cheers.] Conceive the situation of the schoolmaster. What is his position? He is absolutely without knowledge as to what is to be the ultimate authority to which he has to look, what are the powers of that authority, and what is to be the situation of the educational system throughout the country. I cannot conceive a course of conduct more destructive and more injurious to education. If the Government are going to throw before the country this extraordinary torso of a Bill—[Cheers and laughter]—and then to put on its head and arms and legs later on, I cannot conceive a course more injurious in the present to the conduct of public business, and more injurious to the success of their own Measures, and more mischievous to the cause of education. That is all I feel myself in a position to say with reference to the revelations—I must say the rather indistinct and imperfect revelations—as to the future state of the Bill. [Laughter.] It is possible to entertain a rather despondent view, but, of course, the Government are the judges of what is best for their own success and their own reputation; but anything more likely to destroy their Bill, and I should say not finally to improve their reputation, than the course the right hon. Gentleman has indicated to-day, I find it very difficult to conceive. [Cheers.]

who was received with Ministerial cheers: I do not suppose that it would be proper for me to interfere in any way in the discussion which has taken place between the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman who has endeavoured to occupy his place on the present occasion. [Laughter.] But if I may venture to say so respectfully, I confess I am more inclined to agree with the Leader of the Opposition than with the hon. Member. Probably it would have been more convenient for all parties that the House should have waited until it had more information, but at the same time the statement of my right hon. Friend has placed the House in the position of knowing what are the intentions of the Government. It is impossible for the Government at this stage of the Session under existing circumstances to state definite dates and details. That must depend upon the progress that we may yet make when we enter upon the serious discussion of the Bills before the House. The right hon. Gentleman made some humorous remarks, catching up up what was said by my right hon. Friend, to the effect that the better the House the worse it was for the discharge of its business. I quite agree that we are bound to consider that this is one of the best Houses that ever sat, and I suppose what my right hon. Friend meant was, as was evident from the context, that the better equipped any House was for what I may call oratorical display, the worse it was for getting through business. [Laughter.] That is really the statement of a truism, and it is not true of this Government only, but also of their predecessors. It is not for the first time that we are engaged in this discussion. Really, when I listened to the speeches made, I could imagine that I was hearing the faint echo of speeches that I myself and others have made in previous Sessions when we occupied a different position. [Laughter] I make no accusation against any side, but the House and the country have to recognise that so many Members are not only desirous of speaking, but capable of speaking, that if they all indulge this desire at any length, it will not only be impossible to get through a large amount of work, but any work at all. ["Hear, hear!" and an IRISH MEMBER, "Home Rule," and laughter.] Of course, under our present system. [Opposition cheers and laughter.] There are conceivable changes which, no doubt, under another system, would facilitate the progress of business; but very naturally now, finding ourselves in a position which is in no way different from the position of our predecessors in 1893–4, we have looked to them to set us an example which we might follow. What happened then? The Government brought in Bills which the House will admit were of greater importance and of larger character than even the Bills of the present Session, for they had at the same time upon the Paper the Home Rule Bill to alter the whole constitution of the United Kingdom, the Parish Councils Bill, and the Employers' Liability Bill—all Bills exciting immense interest throughout the country. The Government found themselves in the position we are in to-day, and it was necessary for them to discover some means of facilitating business. The means they found was gagging by compartments. [Ministerial cheers.] It would have been perfectly within our power to adopt a similar course. ["Hear, hear!" and an HON. MEMBER: "The Rating Bill."] Surely, that is an irrelevant interruption. [Cheers.] The Rating Bill is not gagged by compartments. [Cries of "Clauses."] That is a totally different thing. ["Hear, hear!"] Closure and gagging by compartments are very different and totally distinct methods, and nobody who knows anything of the procedure of this House would attempt to confuse them. ["Hear, hear!"] But, for reasons which we gave for opposing the proposal of the late Government, we have not found it consistent with the principles we entertain or with the real promotion of public business that we should follow that course. [Cheers.] We then had to seek an alternative, and that we have also found, because they gave us a double example. They not merely got rid of one Bill by Closure by compartments, but they dealt with the two other enormous Bills by a proposal similar to that which is now before the House. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the extraordinary position in which the Education Bill will be left after some fortnight or three weeks' discussion, or whatever time the House may now have to give to it, and before it is taken up again at the continuation of the Session. He says he thinks the position is due to the revolutionary character of the Bill, and that since the Queen's Speech, in which the Bill was described, there must have been an internal eruption which has entirely altered its character. I always thought that one of the signs of an internal eruption was that there was an external display. [Laughter.] Certainly in the present instance nothing of the kind has become apparent; but I deny altogether that this is a revolutionary Bill. I know it is a stock phrase with every opposition; all Bills are revolutionary, and in that sense I am prepared to admit this is. [Ironical cheers.] But after all, by comparison we cannot for a moment hold it to be as revolutionary, as important, as the original Bill, and as the original Bill was carried in less time than we had to give to this Bill, after all it was not so unnatural that we should suppose this Bill might have passed with less opposition than it appears likely to meet with. I admit for myself that I do not anticipate the extent of the opposition which has been directed against this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] The position of the Bill in the country is shown, in my opinion, by the division on the Second Reading. ["Oh, oh," laughter and cheers.] Is this House of Commons representative of the country? ["No, no," and laughter.] What an excellent admission from the followers of Mr. Gladstone, who again and again has told us that there is only one expression of the will of the constituencies and that is by their authorised representatives in this House. [Cheers.] Is it possible that those who followed him a few years ago have forgotten all his speeches? I say that a majority of 267 is a majority absolutely unprecedented in the history of Parliament, or, at all events, it is a sufficient indication of the feeling of the country towards this Bill, and I think it was unreasonable to anticipate, in view of the opinion of the country thus expressed, that there should be an opposition directed against this Bill which threatens to be—I do not say it will be—more prolonged and more pertinacious than the opposition to any Bill before the House of Commons. [Cheers.] I confess that I was astonished at the character of this opposition. In my opinion even now hon. Members have been employed in reading into the Bill the opinion which they had formed of it before they saw it. Before it was produced or printed we had the same declarations of undying hostility to the principles which it was supposed to contain, and when the Bill is produced and those principles are not to be found there we find the same opposition declared against it as had been declared in the earlier stages of the proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that it would be most dangerous for education and for public business that a Bill of this magnitude should remain incomplete for a considerable period. But what happened with regard to the Parish Councils Bill? The Debate on that Bill was broken off early in August, 1892.

It was not read a Second time until November.

The right hon. Gentleman's memory, no doubt, is correct; but the Bill was before the House, and then it was suspended until the Autumn Session.

It was called a non-contentious Bill. [Opposition cheers.]

The right hon. Gentleman says it was called a non-contentious Bill.

The Opposition declared that it was anon-contentious Bill. [Cheers.]

I do not know to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers as representing the Opposition in making a statement of that kind. What was done? The Bill was allowed to pass its Second Reading because the principle was absolutely non-contentious. [Opposition cheers.] Of course it was non-contentious, seeing that the Opposition previously in power had promised a similar Bill. ["No, no," and cheers.] I only quote this to prove that it was so. We did hold that the Bill was most contentious in its details, and many portions of the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, required and received very careful and minute discussion. For my part I might as well say that the Education Bill was not contentious, because the right hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of it on the Second Reading himself declared his assent to what after all is one of the most important principles in the Bill—namely, the grant of additional assistance to Voluntary Schools to which he gives his approval. I admit that the Bill contains other principles besides that—[Opposition cheers]—and the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly consistent in opposing the Second Reading. But it is perfectly ridiculous to charge us with having said that the Parish Councils Bill was not a contentious Bill because we admitted its principle. Is it contended in the same way that the Employers' Liability Bill was not a contentious Bill?

You said so.

Only in the same sense. But from the introduction of the Bill it was most strenuously opposed from beginning to end, and we gave it the best opposition in our power. That Bill, involving as it did large interests, was allowed to be suspended during the interim recess, and it was not finally disposed of until late in March. [Cheers.] I have shown to the House that we have had to choose in a situation which is not unusual and not unprecedented. We have endeavoured to consider the precedents that have been set us; and, finding two set us by the late Government, we have rejected one as being fatal to the dignity and authority of Parliament, and we have accepted the other as the only alternative in the circumstances. [Cheers.]

thought it was doubtful whether the independent Members of the House would concur with the two last speakers in thinking that it would have been better to postpone this Debate. They appeared to think that his hon. Friend was wrong in raising the question, because next day they would see in the newspapers an account of what had passed at a private and confidential meeting that afternoon. No doubt the Government were following previous precedents, but he asked whether the Governments of either Party ought not to place the House in possession of the state of Public Business? But the proceedings of the Unionist Party that afternoon were really an open secret now. The Secretary for the Colonies had rightly gone to the Education Bill as lying at the root of the present position of affairs. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman that though the Second Reading was carried by a large majority, every speaker on the Conservative side who took part in the Debate spoke as much in criticism of the details of the Bill as hon. Members on the Opposition side. [Cheers.] This Motion could not be discussed without some regard to the general position year after year of the Business of the House. Was it not a notorious fact that they were trying to conduct the Business of the House under conditions which were not applicable to the modern situation? [Cheers.] The country did not understand the House meeting so late in the year, and expecting to get through its Business, increased as it was, in a Session of five months. He blamed the Government for calling Parliament together so late in February, and in his view the present state of Public Business was largely owing to this fact. It was an open secret that means were discussed that afternoon as to meeting this difficulty in the future. The fighting efforts of the Government were to be limited by the extent of the Opposition. If in the course of the next two months it was found that the Education Bill had not made considerable progress, then a future step in the present Session, after August 12, was to be taken. But there was not a word in the speech of the Leader of the House as to the portion of the year in which the remainder of the Session was to be held.

I made it quite plain.

understood it would be early next year. Could there be anything more inconvenient than the suspension of this Bill from August to January? The House would then be driven into a corner with the financial business of the year. The Supplementary Estimates of the present year would have to be discussed, and there would be important Debates on the first Votes for the Army and the Navy. This thing had never been done before. What was done before was to go on with the Parish Councils part of the Local Government Bill in November, and even then there was enormous inconvenience. The Session which was expected to terminate before Christmas was prolonged right through January and February, and even then the Bill was only got through by means of a compromise behind the Speaker's Chair. The present situation was even worse, because the Education Bill was, he feared, even more difficult and controversial than was the Parish Councils Bill. And would it not be a miserable thing if such a Bill as the Truck Bill, after it had been carefully considered by a Standing Committee, and after the promises made in regard to it, should be abandoned, not because of any real impossibility of carrying it, but because the Government, instead of sitting on, or instead of meeting in October, desired to postpone the next meeting of Parliament till January, when there would be barely time for a single Bill. There were two Army Bills before the House as to which the Government had declared that it was absolutely necessary they should be passed by the House this year, and they had allotted no time for their consideration. The whole mode of the conduct of business in the House was unfitted to the necessities of the time, and until the House made up its mind to drastic measures, exhibitions of this kind would be repeated year by year.

thought it manifest with the present condition of the Order Paper that the Education Bill could never be got through by the end of next week. It would be a more practical policy to suspend the work on the Education Bill at the end of the present week, so that the Government might really have time to pass the Bills which they hoped to pass before August 14. Speaking on behalf of the Catholics of England, he deeply regretted the position in which the Education Bill was now placed. All that the Voluntary Schools asked for could easily have been comprehended within four or five simple clauses, but owing to the lofty ambition of the Government to draft a Measure of an enormous and far-reaching character, the unfortunate Voluntary Schools were to be put off till next January without any relief whatever, and they knew perfectly well the character of the movement which would be got up against the Education Bill during the autumn. He did not know whether the Government would find it possible to provide any method by which some new clauses could be passed giving the needed relief to the Voluntary Schools. With regard to the Irish Land Bill, he thought that a fair and reasonable discussion, extending over three or four days in Committee, or possibly even less, if they found they could get no more time, would be sufficient for the purposes of the Irish Members, but he strongly desired that the discussion should take place during the hours when the proceedings could be reported in the public Press.

wished the Government would not go for their precedents to the late Government, because, for his own part, he had condemned the conduct of the late Government in the most sweeping manner before the electors—[laughter]—and he could not go back on the language he then used. It was a most intolerable thing that the Education Bill, the leading Measure of the Session, should be suspended over their heads for the rest of the year. In his opinion they ought to go on with it until it was finished, even if they had to sit till Christmas—[Opposition cheers]—and he protested against other Bills, such as the Land Bill, being thrown in the way of the Education Bill.

hoped that no question of amour proper would induce the Government to pursue the course of suspending the Education Bill till January next, leaving, in the meantime, those institutions which stood in need of aid totally unaided. Why should the House go on discussing Clause 1? He denied that the country had asked for or wanted the system of local government laid down in Clause 1. The St. James's Gazette, a faithful Unionist organ, referring to the statement of the Vice President of the Council that the decentralisation clause was the most important clause in the Bill, pointed out that that clause was not in the Queen's Speech, was not before the country last July, was not in a single election address, and was not a distinctively Conservative idea at all. Why could not the Government drop that part of the Bill, and by a short Bill proceed to obtain from Parliament additional aid for the poor Voluntary and Board Schools? Lord Salisbury, in October of last year, had said that the Voluntary Schools stood in great need, and that what was to be done must needs be done quickly. Yet the present plan of the Government was to defer aid till next year, and to leave the poorer schools to starve in the interval. It was impossible to discuss Clause 1 properly unless the policy of the Government in regard to Clause 3 were known. It would be discussing the areas of the authorities without knowing what their powers were to be.

asked whether the hon. Member was in order in discussing in detail the provisions of the Bill.

The hon. Member is going somewhat beyond what is permissible on this question.

, resuming, said that he wished to give the aid to the Voluntary Schools without the long delay which was foreshadowed. The House had been told that, owing to the state of public business, it would be necessary to defer the scheme of teachers' superannuation until after the passing of this Education Bill. In what position, then, would the Superannuation Measure stand. There were two ways of aiding the poor schools—the first was to give larger grants, and the second was to enable the aged and outworn teachers to look to a pittance which would at least save them from going to the workhouse.

said that he should be sorry to think that the only speeches from the Ministerial Benches should be entirely condemnatory of the course of the Government. [Cheers.] But he was expressing the general feeling on the Ministerial side of the House when he said that he thought this Debate was entirely uncalled for. [Cheers.] Several hon. Members had expressed the opinion that it was very unfortunate to postpone the consideration of the clauses of the Education Bill, and that the country should have an opportunity of pronouncing on the various complicated points raised in the Bill. He himself thought it was very desirable indeed that the country during the Recess should have time to consider the Bill. [Loud Opposition cheers.] If that was the view of hon. Members on the other side of the House, why did they object to the Commission proposed by the Government. It must be clear that it was impossible to pass the Measure in the remaining part of this Session; it must be completed either in an autumn Session or in a Session at the beginning of next year. The Leader of the Opposition said that the effect of giving the country time to consider the Measure would be to destroy the Bill entirely. If that were so, the right hon. Gentleman was hardly the person who would complain. ["Hear, hear!"] But if the Measure was good in itself the effect of consideration by the country would strengthen the Bill. He would not deny that there were some parts of the Bill which he thought might be amended without interfering with cardinal principles. As the hon. Member for East Mayo said, the point for which the country was prepared was that additional aid should be given to the Voluntary Schools.

What I was anxious for was immediate relief to the Voluntary Schools, and for the postponement of larger questions.

said that it was only a question of a few months, and it was much more important that the country should consider what it was doing. [Opposition cheers.] The questions raised were very various and far-reaching, and they went to the root of our educational system. [Renewed Opposition cheers.] He wished that great Measures could generally be laid on the Table of the House for a year, so that the country might have time to consider them. But if he made any suggestion to the Government, it would be that the House should not devote too much time at the present moment to the Education Bill—[Opposition cheers]—but that it should rather go on with the other Measures, leaving the Education Bill till the reassembling of Parliament. For his own part he believed that the delay would result in the Bill, when it became law, being in a better and more useful form than if the discussion had been proceeded with at once, de die in diem. [Cheers.]

This discussion will always be memorable for the admission which it has elicited from two of the leading Members of the Government in this House—that the House of Commons, the better equipped it becomes in knowledge and oratorical power, shows itself, under its existing constitution, the less fitted for the transaction of public business. [Cheers.] That is an acknowledgment which will not be forgotten. When we come to a comparison such as the Secretary for the Colonies has endeavoured to institute between the present procedure of the Government and that of the late Government of 1893–94, I must, before examining it, make this preliminary observation—That, at any rate, the first great legislative Measure which we introduced into the House was one which had the object of relieving the House of a great part of this congestion of business from which it at present suffers. [Opposition cheers and Ministerial laughter.] Instead of wasting time over fantastic schemes for the devolution by the Education Department to other bodies of duties which it is perfectly capable of performing, it is much more essential to find a proper system for the devolution of the business of this House. [Cheers.] The Secretary for the Colonies said that the late Government adopted two expedients to relieve themselves from such difficulties as that of the present Government. The first was to "gag" the Home Rule Bill by compartments. We take note of the holy horror of the right hon. Gentleman for any such procedure now. [Cheers.] I am not fond of gagging Bills by compartments; but I do not know that it is a much more barbarous or indefensible method of promoting public business than the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule—[cheers]—and the keeping of the House sitting until you have extorted from its physical weariness what you could not otherwise have obtained. [Renewed cheers] But the second plan which the late Government pursued, and for which the right hon. Gentleman has not expressed the same reprobation—indeed, he claims it as the precedent for the present course—was the hanging up of the Parish Councils and the Employers' Liability Bills from the summer till the autumn Session of 1893. I cannot imagine a comparison which is less relevant or which tells more against the procedure of the Government to-day. We had in 1893 a large number of Measures which we had introduced into the House of Commons, and which were of a contentious character. We deliberately sacrificed the whole of those Measures excepting two, the principle of which was universally conceded and which were described in Debate as being non-contentious in principle. The whole field of controversy with respect to those Bills was limited to detail. I admit that when we came practically to carry out our intentions we found that you discussed at as great a length and with as large a consumption of oratory the details of the Bills as their principles. In the Parish Councils Bill not less than 32 days were spent in Committee before we arrived at a compromise, and seven days were spent over the single clause providing for the popular election of the Boards of Guardians. What comparison is there between that Measure and this Bill? This Bill is the central and contentious Measure of the Session. [Cheers.] It was opposed on the Second Reading, as the Government know, as strongly and as strenuously as any Bill in any recent Parliament. The state of the Notice Papers at this moment shows that when we come to discuss its details there is hardly a single point upon which either the supporters of the Government or the Opposition agree with the Bill as it stands. [Cheers.] There is absolutely no precedent in the history of Parliament for suspending discussion upon a Measure of this kind for a period of six months, and then inviting the House of Commons to resume that discussion in the month of January. [Cheers.] I want to bring some of the positions taken up in regard to the Bill to the test of reality. We were told that the Measure was introduced in order to relieve the intolerable strain upon the Voluntary Schools. Yet the Voluntary Schools, it appears, are to continue subject to the strain, which is increasing day by day almost to the cracking point, for another nine months, while Her Majesty's Government are thrusting through the House of Commons measures like the Light Railways Bill and other political projects for which there is no public demand, or which at least do not arouse any great public interest. We have had a number of versions of the principal object of the Education Bill. We were told the other night that it was the decentralisation of the Education Department. To-night the Secretary for the Colonies tells us it is for the relief of the Voluntary Schools. I prefer to take that as the most authorised version. But if that be so, it must be obvious to all its supporters that the course proposed to be adopted by the Government if not one for defeating that object is one for indefinitely postponing the attainment. [Cheers.] But I am disposed to take a different view of the motives of the Government. I think the reason is to be found in the candid speech of my right hon. Friend, the Member for the London University. The truth is that the moment practical discussion of this Measure is approached it is found that its supporters are so wholly at sixes and sevens amongst themselves—[cheers]—so entirely unable to conceal from the public view their fundamental differences, not only on matters of detail but on questions of principle, that it has been thought convenient to hang up the Bill in a state of suspended animation for six months, on the calculation that in the meantime those domestic differences may be adjusted; that, for instance, the Archbishop of Canterbury may come to agree with the Archbishop of York—[laughter]—that the controversy between rate-aid and State-aid may be brought to a decent termination by a reasonable and practical compromise; and we, in the House of Commons, after wasting our time over the Second Reading of a Bill which is never intended to pass into law—after some further discussion of more of its preliminary details—after we have gone through an autumn campaign of agitation against the Bill, shall come here next year and find presented to us a new Measure furbished up for consideration and shall have to begin the discussion de novo. [Cheers] I cannot imagine a course less conducive to unity of opinion or action in the Party opposite, or a scheme more detrimental to public business. When we come here in January what is to be the situation? We are not going to have Closure by compartments. I have already taken a note of that satisfactory announcement. [Hear, hear!] But the House of Commons, which cannot sacrifice its autumn holidays for the purpose of relieving the strain on Voluntary Schools—[cheers]—will, I suppose, be allowed a decent interval after Christmas before it is required to undertake the arduous duties of legislation. [Laughter.] We Will assemble, then, in the second week in January. How much time will you then have for the discussion of your Education Bill? You must not leave out of view the financial interests of the country, and the financial year closes on March 31st. It is therefore obvious that you will not be able to give more, at the outside, than a month to the Bill. That is to suffice for the stages of Committee, Report and the the Third Reading in the Commons, and for the whole Bill in the calmer and serener atmosphere of the revising chamber elsewhere. [Laughter and cheers.] Was there, I ask, ever a more obviously transparent confession of, I will not say insincerity, but of want of zeal and want of unity in the prosecution of what has been described to us as the great and capital Measure of the Session? I say there was never a step that more invited and required the censure of this House. [Cheers.]

asked whether, when the House met in January next, other Bills undisposed of, besides the Education Bill, would be taken up?

Any Bills not withdrawn when the House adjourns will be still before the House when it meets again. I hope the House will now proceed to a Division on this Motion.

said it was easy to see that the Government were in great difficulty in regard to the Education Bill. At the same time he thought the experience of past years showed that the position the Government was about to take up was the worst that they could assume. The effect of the proposed arrangement, by which ten days or a fortnight were to be devoted to the Education Bill before it was adjourned till next year, would inevitably be to prolong Debate on each Amendment, so that time would be lost instead of gained in the progress of the Bill. He thought the best course the Government could adopt was to adjourn the consideration of the Education Bill at once, and devote the rest of the time at their disposal in this part of the Session to pushing through their other Bills.

said that if the Education Bill were hung up till January, it would be practically impossible for the Government to get the Bill next year. Why then should not the Government withdraw the Bill immediately, and introduce it afresh next Session? The effect of the proposed action of the Government would be that, when the House met again in January, the number of Amendments on the Paper would be considerably increased. What had brought about the present state of things?

The hon. Member would not be in order in discussing the past history of the Session, or how the present state of things came about. He must confine himself to the present state of things.

said the present state of Parliamentary Business was due to the fact that the Party opposite was divided against itself, and a house divided against itself could not stand. That morning a letter appeared in The Times from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Salford (Sir Henry Howarth) in which the present state of things was said to have been brought about by the action of the Colonial Secretary. The letter thus concluded:—

"When, however, upon matters in which his early training and opinions are necessarily not those of the Tory Party, he insists upon forcing his shibboleths upon us and making us his doormat—"

[Laughter.] He did not say that those words represented the views of the majority of the Party opposite. ["They do not."] But they represented the views of a large number of the Gentlemen who sat on the Opposition Benches. He would vote with his hon. Friend if he went to a Division.

said that surely the natural consequence of what had been done by the Government was not to proceed further with the Committee stage of the Education Bill. The Government said they would, in the Recess, have an opportunity of ascertaining the opinion of the country. [Mr. BALFOUR: "I never said that."] That was urged by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London. That advantage would be taken by Members on both sides of the House. What were the parts of the Bill upon which the opinion of the country had not been heard? Why, Clause 1 in the first place. At the last General Election it was said that assistance should be given to the Voluntary Schools, and practically the question was decided in favour of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but never at any time was there put before the country the idea of creating a new authority, which new authority should be in opposition to——[Cries of "Order!"]

ruled that the hon. Gentleman was out of order in pursuing that line of argument.

said he would merely add that he regarded the proposals of the Government for getting through the business of the House as a pure waste of time. To discuss Clause 1 under present circumstances looked very like the end of the Education Bill. He could not help thinking that when they met in January they would find there was an end of the Measure. If he were right on that point, they had better drop the Bill now. [Cries of "Divide!" and "Order, order!"] In discussing the early clauses for a fortnight they would simply be beating the air.

believed that not the slightest progress would be made by pressing the Education Bill in the way suggested. They could not now discuss any of the principles or details of the Bill, but there were one or two notorious facts which it would be well if the Leader of the House would take into consideration. A week ago he had it from the highest authority in the House upon the Education Bill, that the first clause of the Bill was not to appear in the shape in which it did ultimately. It was understood that they were to discuss an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, but eventually they had to discuss the Bill as originally drafted. On the first night they adopted a new principle.

said the hon. Gentleman was not in order in discussing past Debates.

said there was another point worthy of consideration. If the first few clauses of the Bill were passed in the next few weeks, in what position would the Government find themselves when they met next January? They would find that those clauses hung like a dead weight round their necks. Why not, therefore, drop the Bill entirely, and start with a clean slate next year? The Bill had not been properly thought out by the Government. The inconvenience of the small authorities admitted in the Bill on Thursday night——

again called the hon. Gentleman to order.

said his last remark was quite involuntary on his part. His only point was that no real progress would be made with the Education Bill by devoting another fortnight in the next eight weeks to the Measure.

said that hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think that the carrying over or hanging up of the Education Bill would result in its killing. They had forgotten that when the House reassembled in January next the present Session would still exist. The first result would be that they would carry with them into January next the whole of the Order Book. The next would be that the Government would, under the Resolutions the House had agreed to, have possession of the whole of the time, and therefore they would have ample means of getting rid of private Members' Motions, and of carrying on as long as they liked—through all hours of the night if they pleased—their discussion on the Education Bill. It was true there was the financial consideration put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, which would no doubt hamper the Government to a considerable extent, but they would get over that themselves. [A laugh.] But as to the Education Bill, the Government would have no difficulty.

said he voted for the Motion giving the Government the time of the House for the purpose of carrying through Government business. He also voted with the Leader of the House with regard to the reform of the procedure of the House, by means of which both private and Government business might be facilitated. But, in giving those votes, he little apprehended they would have public business in the condition of muddle and mismanagement it was now in. He did not think they would discuss for a considerable time on the Second Reading the Education Bill, a Measure introduced for the purpose of giving political capital to the Party opposite, that then they would discuss it in Committee for a fortnight, and then hang it up and revive it next year. The Education Bill was dead; but the Government had not the courage to say it was dead. The Government had no right to assume that the condition of public business would permit of the renewal of the Bill next January. Personally, he was of opinion that irresponsible and unauthorised men, both in Egypt and South Africa would create an embroglio that would render it impossible for the House to discuss finance or any other matter in January. He would not be surprised to find Parliament summoned in November or December, in order that a stop might be put to the proceedings of unauthorised individuals who were sacrificing the fair fame of England both in the north and south of Africa, and that in January the position of foreign politics would induce them to go on with their business minus the Education Bill. He protested against the waste of time which would be involved in their discussing the Education Bill for another fortnight, and asserted that it would be only creditable to the Leader of the House if he were to get up and announce, what he really must feel—namely, that the Education Bill had been a mistake.

said that, as it was apparent that much could not be done henceforth this Session with the Education Bill, he would appeal to the Leader of the House to withdraw it at once, in order that time might be given to proceed with other important Bills, including especially the Mines Bill, in which great interest was taken by the miners of the country. ["Hear, hear!"]

proceeded to put the Motion, when—

said that, as the Motion had effected its object in obtaining a statement from the First Lord of the Treasury, he did not propose to Divide the House, and ho thought that the Motion might be withdrawn.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Motion be withdrawn? [Loud Ministerial cries of "No!"]

Order, order! The opinion of the House being divided, I must put the question.

I did not ask leave to withdraw the Motion; I consent to its being negatived.

who had the first Amendment on the Paper, rose and proceeded to call attention to what had already taken place during the afternoon.

Order, order! That has nothing to do with the Amendment.

You have not heard the Motion I proposed to make, Sir. I was not going to move my Amendment first.

Then I must call on the hon. Member who stands next on the Paper.

I was going to move the Amendment later on, but I now move that you do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

I decline to put that Motion. [Laughter.]

said, that in that case he had no alternative but to proceed with his Amendment. He moved after the words last inserted (as printed above in italics), to insert the words:—

"And every Council of an urban district having a population of not less than twenty thousand according to the last census for the time being."

The hon. Member explained that the effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be to place the urban districts of the country on exactly the same footing as the municipal boroughs incases where the population was 20,000 and more. It was not necessary for him to discuss the wisdom or un wisdom of the concession made by the Leader of the House on Thursday, but he thought it would be generally admitted that if it was right to give municipal boroughs containing 20,000 inhabitants the right to appoint their own educational authority it was equally right to give the privilege to urban districts of similar size and importance. He would point out to the Committee that for this purpose the urban districts were in precisely the same position as the municipal boroughs, and that there was no practical reason for granting the privilege to the boroughs and denying it to the districts. The municipal boroughs were regarded as urban sanitary districts for the most important part of their work under the Public Health Act, 1875, and amending Acts, and practically there was no difference between the municipal borough and the urban district, except that the former had a mayor and corporation. That being the case, there could be no real justification for excluding the urban districts from the privilege, and he would point out that there were many towns of considerable size in the country that had refused to be incorporated. Merthyr Tydvil, for instance, was one of the largest and most important sanitary districts in the country, and it had declined to be incorporated, though it was a Parliamentary borough. He proposed to give the Committee a few figures to show how inconsistent it would be under the circumstances to exclude urban District Councils from having the right to appoint an educational authority of their own. At first he was opposed to giving the power to the municipal boroughs, but that having been done the point now was whether it could consistently be withheld from the urban districts. Now, in Lancashire, there were many urban districts which were not municipal boroughs, but which had a population of 20,000 and over. For instance, as the Bill stood, Barton, though it had a population of over 20,000, would not have the right of appointing an educational authority because it was an urban district, while Eccles, which was near it, and had a population of 29,000, would have the privilege simply because it was a municipal borough. Accrington, with a population of about 38,000, would have the privilege as a borough, but Chorlton, with a population of over 22,000 would be denied as an urban district. Chorley, with a population of 22,000, Bacup, with a population of 23,498, and Leigh, with a population of 28,700, would be granted the powers as boroughs, but Farnworth, with a population of over 23,700, and Leigh, with a population of 28,700, were to be denied it because they were urban districts. Moss Side was another urban district in Lancashire with a population of 23,833, and almost next door was Middleton, a municipal borough with 21,000. Then there was Toxteth Park, another urban district, with 21,000, and Rawtenstall, a municipal borough, with 29,000, and the same observations he had made with regard to the other urban districts and boroughs applied also to these cases. Walton, an urban district with 40,304 inhabitants, double the population necessary in the case of a municipal borough, could not appoint its own educational authority, while Ashton-under-Lyne, a borough with 40,494, had that privilege. West Derby had a population of 38,091, but whereas that urban district would be drawn into the county of Lancaster and subjected to the jurisdiction of the County Council in this regard, Blackpool, with a population of 15,000 more, would have its own educational authority. Widnes was an urban district with 30,011 inhabitants, and Darwen, a borough, had 34,192, and here again they had the glaring anomaly in regard to this educational authority which ought not to be allowed. The last instance he would give from Lancashire was that of Withington, an urban district with 25,729 inhabitants, and Lancaster, the county town, with 31,038. He had taken Lancashire in order to show not merely that the anomaly was a great one, but that it would occur all over the country, and that it would be spread all over the counties, especially in those which had a large population like Lancashire. He had instanced nine municipal boroughs having this right, and they had, in the same county, nine towns winch were urban districts with practically the same population, and he would await with interest the reasons which the Vice-President would give for refusing them the privilege which was extended to boroughs. But he had also taken a county in a totally different part of the country to show that the same kind of thing existed. That was Kent. In that county there was Bromley, an urban district with 21,685 inhabitants; and Folkestone, a municipal borough, with 33,700. There was also Gillingham, an urban district, with a population of 27,813, and Chatham, a municipal borough, with 31,711. There were too several instances from Staffordshire, which brought home his argument very strongly. Bilston was an urban district with a population of 23,453, while Stafford, a borough, had only 27,270, yet Stafford, with only 270 above the limit placed in the Bill, would have its own educational authority and Bilston would be denied that right. He had been able to arrive at no reason why Bilston should be treated in a different way to Stafford. Then there was Hands-worth, with 32,756 inhabitants, and, not far off, Longton with 34,356—to all intents and purposes, similar districts in every way, and with no requirements in one district for an educational authority of its own which would not apply equally well to the other, and yet one was to have that right and the other was denied it. Rowley Regis, in the same county, had 30,791, but it was an urban district and would not have its own educational authority, although Burslem, with within one or two hundred of the same population, would have that privilege because it was a municipal borough. The same remark applied to Tipton, an urban district, with 29,314 inhabitants, and Stoke-on-Trent, a municipal borough, with 24,000. Then there was the case of Wales, in regard to which he would say that there was going to be a serious effort made in that part of the House to prevent a distinction being drawn between Welsh counties and English counties in respect of the educational authority. If they gave one large educational authority, for instance, to one part of the country, they said they were entitled to have some central large body as their educational authority in Wales. If they were to be treated county by county there was no reason at all why, because the County Councils in Wales were really representative of the people, they should endeavour to substitute a body which was not as representative as the body which they proposed to give with regard to England. The cases of Merthyr and Aderdare had already been mentioned. There was also the urban district of Llanelly which was the largest town in Carmarthenshire. Llanelly had a population of 23,937, and was in the very forefront of the educational and intellectual movements of the Principality, yet it was not to have its own educational authority, while Lowestoft was to enjoy that privilege. Wales possessed a distinction in the matter of these figures in that they had the largest urban district in the whole country. There was Ystradyfowg. [Laughter.] It had a population of 88,350, and was increasing as rapidly as any district that could be named. How could it be said that an English town with a population of over 20,000 ought to have the right to the appointment of its own educational authority and a similar right denied a district like this? The town of Pontypridd was nearly up to the limit applicable to English municipal boroughs, its population, in 1891, being 19,971. It was an enlightened town, taking the deepest interest in educational affairs, and if it was right to give the power of appointing educational authorities to the municipal boroughs in England, it was equally right to give it in cases such as those he had instanced. He submitted that there was an unanswerable case in favour of treating urban sanitary districts in precisely the same way, from an educational point of view, as they treated boroughs. ["Hear, hear!"]

As I pointed out to the Committee on Thursday last, there is great disadvantage, from an educational point of view, in increasing the number of educational authorities over the different areas. I do not know whether that disadvantage is greater in the functions which this Bill proposes to delegate to the authorities in regard to primary or secondary education, but it is great in either. ["Hear, hear!"] In the case of primary education it is quite clear that you cannot devolve any of the duties of the Education Department upon an enormous number of local authorities. ["Hear, hear!"] It is also quite clear that all hope of anything like elasticity of the Code—having not the same uniform Code all through the kingdom, and having a Code which will bear more relation to the particular necessities of the district in which it is in force—is entirely taken away when the number of authorities is too greatly increased. [Opposition cheers.] And with regard to secondary education, it must be perfectly clear to every member of the Committee that the attempt to set up an immense number of small authorities dealing with Secondary Schools which have scholarships, and which are to exercise all those functions that can be well exercised by a large authority in secondary education, is not one which it is possible for the Committee to entertain. [Opposition cheers.] I laid all these reasons before the Committee on Thursday last—[ironical Opposition cheers]—but I am afraid that, even when dealing with education Bills, political considerations have often as great a force as educational, and, although no one, I think, doubted the correctness of my arguments from the educational point of view, the great desire for independence and separation which animates—perhaps properly animates—the smaller municipal communities of this country made it necessary that 69 fresh authorities should be let in, and 69 fresh authorities accordingly were let in on Thursday last. [Opposition laughter.] Now the present Amendment proposes to let in 49 more, and there are other proposals behind to still further increase the number. This is all very well for those who are enemies of this Bill and who desire to see it brought to ruin. I can understand their motives. [Ministerial cheers.] But I must ask those who are the friends of this Bill, and who desire to see it carried into law, to support me in declining to admit any more local authorities. [Opposition cheers and laughter.] It is quite obvious that what was a difficulty becomes, in such circumstances, an impossibility, and, hard as the task may be to carry out the Bill with the number of authorities that have already been put into it, if 49 more are to be brought in, and another dozen or so by subsequent Amendments, I think that difficulty becomes an impossibility; therefore, I must ask the Committee to support me in trying to find reasons and distinctions for rejecting this Amendment. [Opposition laughter.] I think I can give one very strong reason which will have special application to the hon. Member for Glamorgan who has brought this Amendment forward. There is in Wales, as he is aware, an Act recently brought into operation known as the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and this present Bill has been most carefully drawn so as not to interfere with the operation of that Act. Happily, the Amendment passed on Thursday is not inconsistent with that Act, because there are not in Wales any municipal boroughs which are not county boroughs and which have more than 20,000 of a population, and there are no boroughs which have anything near 20,000; therefore, there is no likelihood of the Amendment of Thursday last creating any fresh authorities in Wales, either immediately or in any reasonable prospective future time. But if this Amendment were carried it would be inconsistent with the Welsh Intermediate Education Act. An Amendment of that Act would become necessary, and it would be essential for this Committee to make such provision as would not interfere with the educational work which is now being carried on under the operation of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and to make fresh arrangements altogether, because that Act is entirely based upon the principle of the authorities being counties and county boroughs. The whole Act rests upon that foundation, and if you made the urban districts in Wales the county authorities the foundation of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act would be upset, and fresh arrangements of a somewhat complicated character probably would become necessary. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject this Amendment, because, among other things, it would interfere with the operation of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act. There are in Wales four large urban districts with a population of more than 20,000, and a district so nearly 20,000 in 1891 that, probably, by this time it will be at that figure, and all of these, if this Amendment were adopted, would have powers inconsistent with the Intermediate Education Act. I must ask those Members of the Committee who really wish to see these educational authorities made a reality and not a sham, who wished them to be clothed with powers in connection with elementary and secondary education something like those which are projected in the Bill, to reject the Amendment. [Ministerial cheers.]

We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman one of those characteristic speeches which always delight the House of Commons. [Cheers.] The speech reminds one of the instrument which was familiar in one's youth, and which I think was called a boomerang, which was sent out to a distance and was intended to come back and decapitate somebody who stood by the side of the thrower. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] Sir, what has the right hon. Gentleman got up and said? He has said what was perfectly accurate—that all the arguments he has addressed against this Amendment were addressed against the Amendment which was accepted by the Leader of the House. [Opposition cheers.] That is perfectly true. He said he pointed out that if municipal boroughs were admitted, as they were admitted, it would destroy the Bill, and that Amendments of that character could only be accepted by those who were enemies of the Bill. We remember how that Amendment was accepted and upon what grounds it was accepted. [Opposition cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman has said it was accepted on political considerations. But what were the political considerations that induced the Leader of the House to accept that Amendment against the advice tendered by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.

I did not say it was accepted on political considerations. I said that political considerations had forced the Amendment into the Bill.

Political considerations forced upon a majority of 150! [Opposition cheers.] Yes, and how was it forced into the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, after three speeches had been made, two in favour of the Amendment and one—that of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill—against it, did not say that they were political considerations that forced the Amendment upon him, but what he did say was that the weight of argument was in favour of the Amendment. [Opposition laughter and cheers.] The weight of the argument of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and the hon. Member for Islington, in the opinion of the Leader of the House preponderated over the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. [Laughter and cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman, with a candour which no one could fail to admire, when called upon to argue against this Amendment, said he left it to the Committee to find out arguments to make a distinction between the two cases. [Laughter.] Of course, that is an admission that even his inexhaustible ingenuity is incapable of finding a single argument to make such a distinction. If the weight of argument in the view of the Leader of the House was in favour of the former Amendment, surely the weight of argument, even without speech or argument from the Vice President of the Council, must be in favour of this Amendment, unless the right hon. Gentleman thinks he will prevail if he does not offer any argument, though he failed when he did argue against the Amendment of Thursday night. The right hon. Gentleman is a great supporter of decentralisation. He wants elasticity in the Code to suit the circumstances of particular localities. I should have thought, if that was a sound argument, the more localities whose peculiarities you consider the better, because if you take a great county like Devonshire you may have conditions in one part of Devonshire very different from the conditions in another part. So there may be different conditions in many populous counties of the north of England. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that in his effort at decentralisation he has already received the repudiation of his scheme from the West Riding of Yorkshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, East Sussex, Wiltshire, Durham, Devonshire, Carnarvonshire, Flintshire, and the county I have the honour to represent. These, some of the most important and populous counties in the whole of the United Kingdom, have repudiated this offer of decentralisation. But if you have decentralisation and what I may be permitted to call local option with reference to education, the Code, and inspection, you ought to consider the wishes, circumstances, and idiosyncracies of each place. Are you going to give this power to municipal boroughs of 20,000 and refuse it to urban districts three or four times as numerous in population? In Lancashire and Yorkshire there are districts which have not been incorporated, but which are as important, if not more so, than many municipal boroughs. What is the argument with regard to Wales? The right hon. Gentleman says the Amendment will interfere with the present constitution of Welsh secondary education. But that argument does not apply to the question of elementary education at all. If you can confine your Bill solely to secondary education, it would be easy indeed to meet the case of Wales by a special provision. But what we are dealing with here is the question of elementary education, and the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman just now has no reference to elementary education in Wales at all. So the argument has no importance. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that there is no distinction—at least, he has offered none—between the case of urban districts and municipal boroughs, and he left it to the Committee to discover something which would distinguish the Amendment from the fatal error he committed on Thursday week. It is not for us to supply the right hon. Gentleman with arguments. They must come from other quarters. For my own part, if we are to have this system of decentralisation, populous districts are quite as much entitled to have their voices hoard as the smaller municipalities, and even the greater. The right hon. Gentleman has offered no argument against the Amendment.

The House is sufficiently aware from the controversial methods of the right hon. Gentleman, that a speech of which he gives a version is seldom recognised by its author. So I am not surprised to find on inquiry that his version of the speech of my right hon. Friend does not represent it in the least. [Cheers.]

I beg pardon. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman heard the speech of the Vice-President. What I said, and I think the Committee will bear me out, was that the right hon. Gentleman said he must leave it to the Committee to supply arguments which would show the distinction between the case now before the Committee and the case which was decided on Thursday night. [Cheers.] I am in the judgment of the Committee as to whether I am correct or not.

The right hon. Gentleman said a great deal more than that, and I am informed that even that is not accurate. But as the right hon. Gentleman calls upon me to find arguments against the Amendment, I will do so without difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman said that urban districts stood obviously on the same footing as boroughs. I say they are different, and the whole legislation of this country with regard to local government in urban districts proved that. At this moment urban districts of over 100,000 inhabitants have not the privileges which are given to county boroughs. Does the right hon. Gentleman object to that? Does he wish every urban district of over 50,000 inhabitants should be put in the position of boroughs of 50,000 inhabitants and made counties by themselves? It will not be denied that Parliament has always drawn a broad distinction between the cases of boroughs and urban districts. The former have a long history and traditions behind them; the latter are but the creation of yesterday. The one have been accustomed to manage their own affairs for centuries; the others are the recent invention of Parliamentary ingenuity. We only desire to see carried out in this Bill and to retain the distinctions deeply marked in all our legislation, and not to endeavour to efface differences which the House has rather sought to emphasise than diminish. That is an adequate and ample reason for keeping a distinction which we did not invent, but which was already invented; and I hope the Committee, therefore, will not accept the Amendment. [Cheers.]

said the argument of the right hon. Gentleman for continuing this distinction between urban districts and municipal boroughs, because of the ancient history of the latter, had no weight in it, as some boroughs were only a few months old. There was no difference between some urban districts and many large boroughs. He made no secret of the fact that he was bitterly opposed to the whole educational authority created by the clause, so he came under the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, who said he understood the action in this matter of those who were opposed to the scheme of the Bill but not the action of those who supported it. He confessed he did not understand the full effect of the Amendment they had carried or grasp that of the Amendment they were now asked to adopt. Under the former Amendment they had to provide technical education money to meet new schemes and get money directly for the 20,000 boroughs alluded to by the hon. Member for Islington. The real object of the boroughs in fighting for the Amendment that had been carried was to escape from the control of the counties. They had a real local life which should be respected, and he objected to the whole scheme of the county authority created by the Bill, believing it would be unworkable and oppressive to localities and a Measure of centralisation rather than of decentralisation.

said the Amendment which was accepted on Thursday night dealt a very heavy blow, not only at county administration, but also at certain parts of the machinery of the Bill, and, he asked, was it necessary or advisable to follow it up immediately with another blow of this kind? This Amendment would be fatal to all the devolution proposals contained in the Bill. There was scarcely a county in England that would not be broken up if this Amendment was superadded to that of last Thursday. In Lancashire, owing to the former Amendment, they would have, he believed, 30 "paramount" educational authorities, and if the urban districts, with a population of over 20,000 were added, there would be over 40. The county of Middlesex, as it happened, contained no boroughs, but if this Amendment were accepted two-thirds of the population would be subtracted from the county authority. Then there was the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the West Riding Council stood second to none among the authorities who administered the Technical Instruction Act wisely and efficiently, but if this Amendment was carried the West Riding would be honeycombed. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were so zealous in the cause of big towns did not seem to have the slightest regard for the educational needs of the country districts. The Secondary Education Commission pointed out clearly that the smaller towns ought to be taken together with the country districts surrounding them, in which they had a common interest, and which, to a great extent, depended upon them. The Vice President had said that it would not be fair to interfere with the administration of the Intermediate Acts in Wales, and he ventured to say that it would be equally unfair to interfere to such a great extent as was proposed with an educational organisation that had been so carefully and thoughtfully built up by many of the counties in England. Surely the introduction of a Bill which proposed to confer much greater powers on the County Councils was not the proper occasion on which to do everything they could to strike a blow at the authority and position of those County Councils. They could not, in this matter, divorce the interests of higher education from those of elementary education, and he thought the Committee would act most unwisely by accepting such an Amendment as this, which would still further disorganise the present system.

said it would have been very desirable if the Government had taken into consideration the essential difference between elementary and secondary education. The movement to include the smaller municipalities and the larger urban districts arose, no doubt, from a desire on the part of these bodies to be exempt from the operation of the county authority, but the exemption was a totally different thing from the establishment in each of those districts of a new authority. The Committee would observe that if this Amendment and the Amendment that preceded it were inserted in the first clause of the Bill, and then if the first clause proceeded unamended with merely these insertions, they would have made two great changes. They would have made, in the first place, the fairly reasonable change of excluding from the dominion of the county authority those boroughs and urban districts to which the Amendment referred, and in the second place they would have made a most serious change, namely, the erection in the midst of each of those districts of an authority which was to be over, and would, he feared, be largely in conflict with the School Board. He really thought that if this Amendment were added to that of Thursday last it would necessitate their determining whether to separate the Committee which was to deal with secondary education from that which was to deal with elementary education. If they were going to deal with the matter from the point of view of separate localities and not counties, it seemed to him to be utterly futile to draw the line at 20,000, or at boroughs as distinguished from populous urban districts. There had been a good deal of cross-voting on the previous Amendment, because many of them saw the difficulty there would be by greatly increasing the number of authorities in those districts in which they would have two co-terminous educational authorities. Where there was a School Board they would be erecting in that district another educational authority co-terminous with it, and which derived its authority from exactly the same electors. He was in favour of the authority being the School Board in those cases. A means would be given in these districts for creating an educational authority, and he would say it should be the School Board, because by adopting it friction would be avoided. It would not be out of order to move that exception afterwards. They were saying that the County Councils and the boroughs above 20,000, and the urban districts above 20,000, should do something; they did not say what; they placed all in the same category, and would afterwards say what they were to do. What he would propose was that those of them who had no co-terminous School Board areas should elect a new authority, and those who had got co-terminous School Board areas should not elect another authority, so that friction might be avoided. They were doing two things at once; they were taking steps, in the first place, that they should not make the county supreme over the local authorities indicated in the Amendment; and many of them felt they were at the same time making provision against that friction which they desired to avoid. By the proposal he had suggested they believed they could do the two things, and therefore he supported the Amendment.

said that when they had set up an authority the question would arise what powers should be given to it. A borough, he contended, was a separate community, with a corporate life and a highly organised vitality, but an urban district was no community, with no corporate life, and had a low vitality. ["No, no!"] The difference between a municipal borough and an urban district was just the same as between a fully-rigged ship and raft of timber. [Laughter and "No, no!"]

said if anything were wanting to show the absurdity of mixing up elementary with secondary education it was supplied by the speech of the Vice President, which furnished strong arguments in support of an Amendment on the Paper to divide the Bill into two parts, one dealing with elementary and the other with secondary education. As between borough and urban districts, he could see absolutely no distinction between them. Why should Stafford, because it had a mayor and aldermen, enjoy a privilege to be denied to Merthyr Tydvil with five times the population? It was true that some of the boroughs had a long history; there were half-a-dozen in Wales that had a very long history, but they would all be excluded by the Amendment which was accepted by the Leader of the House the other day because they were all under 20,000 population.

said that many references had been made to the concessions made by the Leader of the House, but he could only say that, if the point had not been conceded, it would have been contested, and he believed it would have been carried, because it evidently commended itself to the judgment of the House and of its Leaders. Under the Act of 1888 boroughs were divided into two classes, and so long as that distinction existed, so long would the non-county boroughs fight the question, whether as applied to education or aught else. But this exclusion did not apply to urban districts, which were generally more or less of a rural character—[No, no!']—although he admitted there were exceptions. As a general rule, varying of course with particular parts of the county, urban districts had a character which did not attach to municipal boroughs; and this question was raised with respect to boroughs, and did not arise in the case of urban districts. It was desired to take the technical grants out of the jurisdiction of the county, and by an Amendment on the Paper that point would be raised; it was raised on the ground that county administration involved a grievance. Who could blame the boroughs? They were for this Bill; they were for education; they were almost unanimously in favour of municipal administration in education. What had been just heard? Many of the counties had no sympathy with municipal administration, and perhaps not with education, and did not believe in their own powers to administer the Bill. Were the boroughs who sympathised with the aim of the Bill, and who had been doing good educational work, still to be chained to county administration? It was that against which the boroughs protested. The great object of the Amendment, which was much wider than this particular Bill or clause, was to annul the statutory provision of 1888, which made the distinction between county and non-county boroughs. That had been breached, and it would be attacked whenever a Bill before the House embodied the objectionable distinction. The Amendment was very much broader than it appeared to be, and whenever municipal education, or any other subject, was dealt with, the protest would be repeated against their being enchained in county life, which had already injured them too much.

said that in the county of Middlesex there were nine large urban sanitary authorities, some of them sending Members to this House, and they complained bitterly of the treatment they received under the Technical Instruction Act from the County Council. Tottenham was mainly a working men's residential district with a population of 71,000, and there were bitter complaints that it could not obtain from the County Council any assistance for technical education. He could hardly believe that Middlesex, the centre of the kingdom, should have refused to grant adequate aid to these great boroughs. Yet the Middlesex County Council received £21,000 a year from the local government grant, but only spent £7,000 upon technical education, applying £14,000 of the money in the reduction of rates. If it was right that all communities should have the management of their own educational affairs, the community itself should have the control over them, and not a Committee of the County Council.

said that he must support the Amendment. There were two urban districts in his own constituency, each of which had a population of 25,000. He agreed that the multiplication of education authorities would be a misfortune, but he did not see how the concession which had been made in favour of boroughs with a population over 20,000 could be refused to urban districts. There was no marked distinction between urban districts and municipal districts. The urban districts of Radcliffe and Farn worth, for example, were two big towns, and the inhabitants were full of public spirit, and had shown great liberality and generosity in dealing with the question of technical education. Although he was a warm supporter of the Bill, believing that it would be made an excellent Measure before they had done with it, he was constrained to vote for this Amendment, against the wishes of his right hon. Friend.

contested the argument of the Vice President of the Council that Wales would suffer if this Amendment were agreed to. He submitted that under Sub-section B, Wales would not be affected even if the Amendment passed. The Sub-section said:—

"Where a county governing body has been constituted for any county by a scheme made in pursuance of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, the county governing body shall be the Education Committee for the purposes of this Act, and the County Council, acting through that governing body, shall be the Education Authority for the county."

In every county in Wales a county governing body had been appointed. It was evident that if this Amendment in favour of urban District Councils were, passed, Wales would not be injuriously affected.

said that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had told the Committee that there was a great distinction between Borough Councils and urban District Councils, because the boroughs hung together and had organisation, which was lacking in the case of urban districts. The Committee must know, however, that almost the only distinction between a borough and an urban district was that the borough possessed a Mayor and a mace, and enjoyed the advice of aldermen. The motive of the hon. Member for King's Lynn was obvious. He thought that if urban districts were excluded there would be more chance of the inclusion of the little boroughs like his own. The hon. Member for South Islington asked the Government to exclude District Councils on the ground that they were concerned with rural areas, whereas Borough Councils were not. Such a generalisation as that was not supported by facts. There were many District Councils in his own constituency, not one of which was rural. On the other hand, he knew many Borough Councils which governed large rural areas. The distinction which the hon. Member sought to establish was, therefore, futile. There was no distinction in principle to be drawn between the Borough Council and the Urban. District Council.

drew attention to the case of his own constituency, which he said was one of those districts that would be sorely affected by the Bill, unless the Amendments were accepted. The Rhondda was unique in many respects. It was one of the largest urban districts in the kingdom. Its population at the last census was 88,000; now it was 123,000 and probably by the time of the next census it would be 150,000—a population larger than that of many counties and county boroughs, which under the Bill as it originally stood, would nominate the education authority. In the Schools of this urban district there were over 21,000 children—1,000 more than the total population of the boroughs which by the Amendment accepted on Thursday had been included in the clause. If they looked at the character of the district it was favourable for the creation of such an educational authority as the Bill contemplated. It was a huge mining centre with no comflicting interest. The School Board of the district was one of the first in the kingdom to provide higher education for its children. Was it reasonable that this large population should be asked to go without advantages which were given to very much smaller communities?

mentioned the cases of Tunstall and Fenton in Staffordshire. These were urban districts where a highly important industry requiring high art was carried on. Each district had its own art school, which was in the highest state of efficiency. Why should these two districts both of which had to face the keen competition of France and Germany, be excluded from the management of their own educational affairs, while many towns would by the Amendment of Thursday have that privilege, though they had very little industrial interests. He maintained that many boroughs depended wholly on the surrounding agricultural interest for their existence and expressed surprise at the statement of the hon. Member for Islington that urban districts were really rural in their character.

Perhaps the hon. Member will permit me to repeat what I did say and what I believe, that as a general rule the urban districts are more rural in character than the municipalities, but, of course, much depends on the particular part of the country.

contested that statement. He would go further and assert that there were more corporate towns of between 20,000 and 40,000 inhabitants dependent upon agricultural interests than there were urban districts of a like size. He was a member of the Urban District Council of Cromer where there were only 3,000 inhabitants and yet that district had nothing to do with agriculture. Its interest was in quite another direction. There was no logical reason why boroughs of 20,000 should obtain a privilege of which urban districts of a like size were refused. Here was an opportunity for the Leader of the House to say that there was nothing in a name and to have regard to the interests of education, of the necessities of industry, rather than to mayors, maces and aldermen.

maintained that the difficulty in which the Committee was now placed had resulted from the unfortunate arrangement of Thursday evening. Local Government authorities in Wales had already experienced great difficulty in making suitable provision for secondary education because they had not also the control of the primary schools. He regretted the inclusion of the municipal authority as a separate educational authority under the Bill, and because a mistake had been made on Thursday evening no reason existed, in his opinion, why another mistake should be made now. Under the Bill certain duties would be thrown on the educational authority which would necessitate the expenditure of money, and the cost should be equally distributed over a wide area. The proposal before the Committee would throw the cost upon a narrow area, in some cases of a low rateable value, and in other districts it would pick out the wealth-producing centres from the county area. He would vote against the Amendment.

said that it was clear that the Government had not had the best of the argument. The hon. Member for South Islington said that these District Councils were rural in character. Some of them were; but the Amendment dealt exclusively with Urban Councils. Many of the municipalities had no historic traditions, but were the creation of yesterday; and urban districts were constantly being incorporated. The position of the Government was most lamentable. One of the most foolish and reprehensible characters in Scripture was the man who strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. But the Government were worse, for they had swallowed the camel first, and had strained at the gnat afterwards. The Vice President had admitted that the Amendment of Thursday last required its logical completion. The right hon. Gentleman said that the more educational authorities that were constructed the worse it would be for education. But the Bill, as originally introduced, proposed to create 128 different educational authorities; the Amendment accepted on Thursday would add 69 more; and to that total of 197 the present Amendment would only add 49.

Every Vestry in London would, in addition, be an educational authority.

, continuing, said they should be very glad to hear the noble Lord dealing with the question from a metropolitan point of view. The great point which he wished to urge was that those urban districts which contained a population of more than 20,000 should be admitted, as they had already admitted towns of that population. Now, what was an urban district? He thought that it might be described as a young town. It was sure to develop into a town if time was given to it. In fact, all the urban districts round the Metropolis were practically towns. His contention was that these urban districts were entitled to the same treatment as the towns. Did any Member of the Government deny that? They possessed all the characteristics of towns. They were an agglomeration of streets, they were municipal authorities, and the chief feature of their municipal vigour was exhibited in the creation of educational authorities already. The chief feature in which they displayed and maintained their claims to be recognised as towns was in the spread of education. He thought there was no less than 180 of these urban sanitary districts throughout England, with a population of over 20,000. He had the list now in his hand, and every one of these 180 had a School Board already. The reason he had intervened in the Debate, was that he wanted to say a word on behalf of London, and to show the injustice which would be done if the Amendment was not accepted. London was surrounded by urban districts. There were 13 of them with School Boards in operation. Let them take the case of Richmond. How could they give the proposed power to Richmond and refuse it to, say, Walthamstow? He should like to hear the noble Lord defend before his constituents the infliction of a degradation on Chiswick, with a population of 23,000. Then there were the cases of Acton, Edmonton, Hornsey, Tottenham, and others. Every one of these had School Boards at present; they had shown their capacity for organising a great system of elementary education, and he asked on what principle they admitted the municipal boroughs and refused to admit these urban districts to become educational authorities for their localities? Logically, no line could be drawn, and as they admitted towns over 20,000 on Thursday, they ought to-night to admit urban districts over that figure, He did not think the Committee realised the difficulty they would be in if they did not accept this Amendment. The County Council would have to set up an expensive system and make arrangements to develop education, but to-morrow any one of these districts might be turned into a corporation, and it would at once be turned into an educational authority. They would then have to undo all that had been done. They had School Boards already, and now it was proposed to put them under County Councils. He hoped hon. Members would consider it. They could not rest where they were; they had gone too far to go back. Sir J. Gorst admitted that. He hoped, as they had admitted towns over 20,000, they would not refuse the same liberty to these great urban communities.

also supported the Amendment. It was the logical corollary of the Amendment accepted last week. He did not think that the right hon. Member in charge of the Bill would admit that there was any difference between a municipal borough and the urban districts. These places had 21 years experience of local self-government. As to the cases quoted by his hon. Friend he thought that that of Ealing was more instructive even than that of Acton. In Ealing there was no School Board. They had simply got the Voluntary system there. All the schools would be brought under the Middlesex County Council, which, with the exception of the two or three representatives Ealing had got on the County Council, would have no local knowledge of Ealing. On what ground, then, would the noble Lord the Secretary for India refuse to Ealing what had already been given to Gravesend? He would also like to know what was going to be done with municipal authorities which had got representatives on the County Council? When questions of the administration of funds, and the inspection and administration of schools came up at meetings of the County Councils, were the representatives on those Committees of municipal boroughs which had got their own separate educational authorities going to vote on those questions which did not concern them at all, and did the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill propose to introduce an "in and out" clause, which would deprive the representatives of municipal boroughs on the County Councils of the right of voting when questions of education came before the County Councils? The proper way of dealing with the difficulty was by extending the powers of the Bill to urban districts and to groups of parishes. The right hon. Gentleman should make the County Council the only paramount educational authority in the county, and instead of giving to the County Committees the power of appointing Local Committees, as was contemplated by the 6th Sub-section of the Bill, separate educational authorities should be given to urban districts as well as to municipal boroughs of 20,000 inhabitants and up wards. In Wales they had experience of the success of such a system. They had got there a County Governing Board, and they had got local managers, appointed, not by the County Council, but by the districts—which was what the Amendment before the Committee contemplated—with the result that the governing bodies had absolute knowledge of the local wants of the localities. If that system had not been adopted, the intermediate scheme of education would have been an absolute failure in Wales.

said that not even the hon. Member for South Islington, with all his great knowledge of municipal affairs, had any substantial argument to advance in support of distinction being drawn between urban districts and municipal authorities in this matter. If the Bill were carried into law, all local authorities would start level in the matter of education. The duties that would be cast upon them would be of an entirely novel character, and whether they were municipal boroughs or urban districts would not make the slightest difference. It had been urged that municipal boroughs were more highly organised, on the ground that they had centuries of work behind them. The same distinction might be drawn between Courts of Quarter Sessions and County Councils. Courts of Quarter Sessions had centuries of experience behind them, yet no hon. Gentleman opposite would contradict him when he said that for the purposes of educational organisation the County Councils had proved themselves to be as highly efficient as the Courts of Quarter Sessions would have been. If urban districts were not allowed the powers which it was proposed to confer on the municipal boroughs, the result would be that the urban districts would have an ambition to at once obtain municipal charters. There was no logical ground of distinction and no practical ground of distinction between the two cases, and it was utterly impossible to draw it. The argument which had been chiefly used against the Amendment was that if those 49 or 50 additional authorities were created there would be too many educational authorities, and the whole system would prove unworkable. His strong opinion was that there were too many educational authorities already. He asked the other day the special attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one solution of the difficulty. He ventured to do it now, and he did it because he was confident that sooner or later it was the solution of the difficulty that must be adopted. It was this—that there were now too many educational authorities to deal with. Whether this Amendment be accepted or not, the fact remained that the Bill had, in consequence of the concession made on Thursday night, become practically unworkable. It would be absolutely necessary, now that the Committee had decided to disperse the educational authorities to such a great extent, to have provincial departments. He was sure that would be so in Wales, and he believed that was the only practical way in which matters could be worked in England. In conclusion, he asserted it was impossible to draw a distinction between urban districts and municipal boroughs. Whatever difference there was between them was only one of regalia and paraphernalia.

said that instances had been given in the course of the Debate of a large number of local authorities which would become their own educational authorities, but he would like the House to understand what difference the Amendment carried on Thursday night and the carrying of this Amendment would effect in the county which he represented. It would simply wipe off at one stroke very nearly half of the total population of the administrative county and put them under different authorities. The total population of the administrative county of Staffordshire was 818,000, and the number that would be taken away from the cognisance of the educational authority of the County Council would be very nearly 400,000 persons. That change would be brought about, too, just at a time when combined schemes for the promotion of technical education in north and south Staffordshire were being introduced by the County Technical Committee. He had had the honour of serving on that County Technical Committee ever since it was started, and he knew full well that between the different borough authorities and the county authority there had never been the least dissension, but all bodies had worked well, and just at the present moment, when combined schools were being created both in North and South Staffordshire, the effect would be most disastrous if an Amendment such as this were carried. He would just give two instances. At the present moment there was under consideration a scheme for the establishment of a metallurgical school in South Staffordshire, in which all the non-county boroughs in South Staffordshire would participate, and they had also in contemplation a scheme for a large central school in the Potteries, to be connected with the pottery trades. Both these schemes would be smashed and utterly destroyed if the non-county boroughs were taken away from the cognisance of the County Council. In addition, if an Amendment like this were carried, the Technical Committee of the County Council would be deprived of the services of men coming from the urban districts who had acted very well with the County Council Committee hitherto, and if now, by this Amendment, the urban districts were cast loose on their own resources they would not have enough funds to carry out what they wished in their own particular localities. He could sum up what he wished to say by quoting the maxim "United we stand, Divided we fall."

said it had been demonstrated almost ad nauseam that there was no essential difference between an urban district and a municipal borough, but, believing as he did most thoroughly in the County Council as an educational authority, he desired to see the Bill limited as much as possible. He shared the view entertained by all friends of education in the House that it was a most deplorable fact that the Leader of the House saw fit to accept the exceedingly reactionary Amendment whereby non-county boroughs of not less than 20,000 inhabitants were established as educational authorities. County Councils would, under the Bill, have powers in respect of technical education, intermediate education, and elementary education. Hitherto, small urban bodies had effectively exercised powers in regard to technical education, but no one would say that an urban District Council with a population of 20,000 was a proper body to administer the Act in respect to secondary education. As to elementary education, the duties of an educational authority would be those of superintending, supervising, and testing the efficiency of the education. Would his right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham assert that an urban District Council was an effective and capable body for superintending the work of a School Board or of Voluntary Schools? What would be the result? The right hon. Gentleman, under Clause 4, would withhold powers from the authorities. The fact was that they impaired the value of the Bill by introducing municipal boroughs, and they entirely destroyed the value of the Bill by introducing urban authorities. He did not believe that vestries would desire to undertake the work of the School Boards. It was futile to suppose that a local vestry should exercise the powers of a supervising body over the School Board, which represented the same area and the same population, and in favour of which there was this characteristic, that the School Board was elected ad hoc, and was composed mainly of men interested in the work of education. There were many parts of the Bill to which objection was taken, but if hon. Members wished to make the Measure effective, they should work together in unison as far as possible for that purpose.

said he had utterly failed to find, in the words of the Vice President, any distinction which should induce them to vote on this Amendment differently from what they did on Thursday night. He heartily welcomed what was done on Thursday night from the point of view of secondary and technical education; but he had already said that he disagreed fundamentally with most of the propositions which, on the subject of elementary education, were brought under the authorities created in the first clause. It was absolutely necessary that with two different types of education they should be at liberty in dealing with a Bill of this sort to declare their view either as to secondary education or elementary education, and if they did not do so they would not be giving to the Committee their whole mind on the subject. As to secondary education, he had always felt the same thing. Under the Technical Act, which was passed in two or three days at the end of the Session, they had no opportunity of dealing with the question of authorities; and under the Local Taxation Act also, when by an Amendment of his own the money was allotted to the purposes of technical education, they had no opportunity of raising the question of the local authority to which the work of education should be assigned. He had always felt that many of the non-county boroughs and many of the large urban districts did not get their rights with regard to the matter of secondary education. In his own Division of the West Riding there were many places—Dewsbury and Rotherham, for instance—which felt that they could manage their work of technical education as well, if not better, than the West Riding County Council, of whose work he desired to speak with the utmost respect, could manage it for them. He failed to see that any distinction on the question before them could be drawn between the urban districts and the municipal boroughs, and he did not at all understand how it could be said that, while the municipal boroughs—some of which had not been in existence as boroughs more than four or five years—were fit to manage those matters, urban districts, which were governed by popular bodies, were unfitted to do so. ["Hear, hear!"] He would repeat that, so far as secondary education was concerned, he thoroughly agreed with what had been done, and he only wished that it could be extended in the present case.

, who spoke amid cries of "Divide," and was almost inaudible, was understood to say that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill stated on Thursday night that if the concession was made to municipal boroughs of 20,000 inhabitants it would be a necessary corollary that the same powers should be conferred on the urban districts of the same population. In those circumstances he failed to see how the right hon. Gentleman could take an opposite course now, and object to the present Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman further said that many of those urban districts would make efficient educational centres, and it was this very point which was being urged in support of the Amendment. It had been pointed out that many urban districts had much larger populations than the limit fixed for the municipal boroughs, namely, 20,000, and one hon. Member had mentioned an urban district which contained upwards of 80,000 inhabitants. They considered that there should be separate areas to deal with elementary and secondary education, and he could not see the slightest reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not make the further concession now proposed by the Amendment, especially after what the right hon. Gentleman stated on Thursday last. It had been stated that if they adopted the smaller areas it would be impossible to have elasticity in the Code. Speaking for his own district, he could say that uniformity of Code was what they wished for more particularly than anything else. Elasticity of Code meant educational weakness throughout the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were not bound to accept the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, because he himself on Thursday last stated in the clearest possible language that if this concession were made to non-county boroughs, it was the natural consequence that the same concession must be made to these urban districts, and in the face of that he should be glad indeed to hear what explanation the right hon. Gentleman could give to this most astounding change of front.

thought the whole course of this discussion showed the importance of two or three considerations which some of them ventured to urge on the first night of the Committee stage when the proposal was made to postpone the earlier clauses of the Bill. They had been embarrassed throughout this discussion by two obstacles created, he did not say deliberately, but perhaps from want of forethought, by the Government and arising from the framework of the Bill. In the first place, throughout all these early clauses they had to deal with the difficulty that the functions of the new authority in relation to primary and secondary education had been inextricably entangled. In the second place, they had to encounter a still more formidable difficulty from the fact that in this clause they were bringing into existence an authority before they arrived at any conclusion as to the functions with which that authority was to be invested. If he was asked whether he thought that either municipal boroughs with a population of 20,000 or upwards, or Urban Councils representing districts with such a population, were fit to undertake and to have delegated to them the functions of the Education Department in relation to inspection, examination, and the distribution of grants, he did not hesitate to say he thought not. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it far better, in regard to these important duties, that they should remain where they were at present vested—in the hands of an authority which would apply to all parts of the country, without discrimination and without favour, certain not inflexible but elastic rules which would at the same time rest on uniform principles of action and procedure. [Cheers.] But it did not in the least degree follow that those who supported this Amendment, any more than those who voted with the hon. Member for Islington the other night, were in favour of any such proposal. They were going—at least he was going—to vote for an Amendment which they would very shortly reach, for excluding primary education altogether from the purview of this clause—[cheers]—and, if that Amendment were carried, the authority created by this clause would be the authority which would deal with secondary and technical education and with nothing else. For a moment, let him assume that that was a state of things with which they had to deal, and supposing they had for the first time to create in their various local communities a representative authority to deal with secondary education, what was the authority they would choose? Would they or would they not, from the point of view of educational efficiency, choose a Committee of the County Council? He said they would not. ["Hear, hear!"] It had been conclusively shown that there were many County Councils which, from want of knowledge of local conditions or want of touch with local sentiment, had used the money Parliament had bestowed upon them partly in relief of the rates and, so far as it gave to technical education at all, in an unintelligent and wasteful manner, and, if they were to constitute a local authority to deal with technical and secondary education, in his judgment it was better, so long as they had a sufficient identity of local life and sentiment, to get these smaller communities than the larger community which had proved itself in the past incompetent to discharge the duty. That seemed a very substantial argument in favour of the Amendment. But he would assume for the sake of argument that the Amendment to which he had referred was rejected and that certain functions—the exact scope and limitation of which would have to be decided at a later stage—in relation to primary education were to be cast upon the authorities created by this clause. There were many of those functions which, as it seemed to him, could be more adequately and efficiently performd by authorities representing a comparatively small local area than by the County Councils as a whole. ["Hear, hear!"] Take, for instance, the functions at present performed by the School Attendance Committee. Could anything be more absurd in the view of any one who was acquainted with the facts of their local life than to intrust the duties of the School Attendance Committee to a Committee which represented the county as a whole ["Hear, hear!"] Take one of their large rural counties—Devonshire, Cornwall, Wiltshire, or any of those great counties where the population was comparatively scattered, where the means of communication were necessarily meagre, and where the Committee would have to meet at a particular local centre—and imagine the authority created by this clause having to perform the duties of the School Attendance Committee. ["Hear, hear!"] The Vice President shook his head, but that was the proposal broadly, and he said that such an authority was by its very nature and the conditions under which it existed handicapped in making that detailed minute local and personal examination which was necessary if the law was to be administered in strict consonance with the Education Act. Assuming for the purpose of his argument that Clause 3 was out of the question, if they were going to throw on local bodies the functions of the Education Department an entirely different set of circumstances arose. He was arguing from the point of view of those who believed, as he did, that it would be a reactionary step in the interests of education to disestablish the Education Department and split up its functions between the chaos of local authorities acting divergently. ["Hear, hear!"] He was taking those functions in relation to primary education which ought to be locally administered, and as to them he said it would be far better, in the first instance, to place as a substitute for a defaulting School Board, or in lieu of a new School Board, the District Council, acting upon the spot, elected by and responsible to the ratepayers, in touch with the opinions and sentiments and with a knowledge of the interests of parents, than it would be to adopt the cumbrous plan of the Bill of in the first instance reposing the functions in a Committee of the County Council, and then requiring that Committee to delegate its functions as regarded primary education to another body. As to the distinction which had been sought in that Debate to create between the Council of a municipal borough having a population of 20,000 and the Council of an urban district with a similar population, he listened with interest and curiosity to the attempt which was made by the First Lord of the Treasury to demonstrate the existence of some inherent distinction between these two authorities. The right hon. Gentleman said they had always made this distinction. He agreed that they had made a distinction for certain purposes of local government between boroughs and urban authorities, but the functions as to which they had made a distinction were not those which were connected in any way with education. ["Hear, hear!"] On the contrary, as regarded education, they had never made any distinction at all. The right hon. Gentleman said that even small boroughs had the control of their own police and that urban councils had not. Suppose that were the fact, what in the name of common sense had that to do with the question whether or not one body or the other should be intrusted with education? The right hon. Gentleman was, however, totally wrong in his facts. Anyone who had studied the provisions of the various Acts dealing with municipal government and local administration was perfectly well aware that a large number of these small boroughs had not got the control over their own police. But even if that were true, it was totally irrelevant to the question they were now considering. Then the right hon. Gentleman used the further argument that in the case of a borough they were dealing with an authority which was invested with a vast amount of local traditions and local sentiment, whose history stretched back through centuries and which, in the course of time, had acquired a degree of respect and sanctity which the Urban Council, appointed under the legislation of the present day, could not possibly claim. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be unaware that these boroughs were being created every day. ["Hear, hear!"] He had known himself, in the course of a short experience of something like three years at the Home Office, boroughs of this kind brought into existence times out of number, and the mere fact that a particular population living under urban conditions and attaining to a minimum of 20,000 inhabitants had received a charter ought not, in his judgment, to place it in a preferential or privileged position as regarded the management of its own educational affairs as compared with another body that had not the privilege of incorporation. ["Hear, hear!"] If it was right—as he believed it was—to intrust to boroughs which had a minimum population of 20,000 educational autonomy, he had failed to discover a single argument which would justify them in discriminating against a smaller population in every respect identically situated except for the mere fact that it had not received a charter of incorporation. On these grounds he trusted that when the Committee came to a decision on the matter it would not introduce a new anomaly into their educational system but, acting on the principle which the Committee almost unanimously adopted on Thursday last, would accept this Amendment as the logical sequence of what was then done. ["Hear!"]

said it was his duty to turn a deaf ear to the voice of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and to decline to accept the Amendment, It was not because he doubted the capacity of these boroughs, and of King's Lynn in particular—[laughter]—to manage their own educational affairs. Indeed, he thought it would be found in the Bill that care was taken to enable a municipal council of such a borough to exercise a considerable amount of independence, certainly m elementary education, and a good deal also in secondary education. The borough of King's Lynn was represented on the Norfolk County Council, and it had an equal voice there with the other populations of Norfolk upon the action of the County Council with reference to education. But his reason for declining to accept the Amendment was that which he had already several times stated to the Committee—namely, the inexpediency, in the judgment of the Government, of multiplying any further the educational authorities to take part in the administration of the Measure. That subject had been so fully discussed that he should not be justified in stating over again the reasons why the Government could not accept this Amendment.

said that these Parliamentary boroughs really fulfilled all the requirements that, according to the First Lord of the Treasury, were demanded from boroughs which were permitted to remain their own educational authority. They were not numerous, only 14 in number. Those that he knew best of them had undoubtedly had a great desire to promote education by every means in their power, and they possessed excellent schools, which they made great efforts to maintain in a state of efficiency. He could not help thinking it was most desirable that these boroughs should be added to the list of those which were to be exempt from control of the County Councils. When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House fixed upon boroughs having a population of 20,000 as those which were to be exempt from that control, he supposed that he mentioned this number as an indication of a certain importance, otherwise the right hon. Gentleman would not have fixed upon them for the purpose of exemption. Surely boroughs which had retained the right to return Members to Parliament for many years, and whose Parliamentary life had been preserved at the time of the passing of the Redistribution of Seats Bill were entitled to be regarded as of equal importance with other municipal boroughs having 20,000 inhabitants. In these circumstances, he had been sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council say that he could not accept the Amendment, because he was satisfied that its acceptance would have been very gratefully received by the boroughs concerned.

said that as a representative of one of these Parliamentary boroughs, he desired to enter his protest against the action of the Government in declining to accept this Amendment. If hon. Members who represented these boroughs made that protest, it was the fault of the Government themselves. From the outset the proposal to subject them to the caprice of the County Council was regarded with considerable jealousy, but that feeling had been greatly increased when they saw these exceptional powers given to other boroughs, many of whom had a population only slightly in excess of themselves, whilst few could boast the same historical associations, or experience of political life dating well back over many centuries. He was perfectly prepared to make the admission that in his opinion Government ought not to have made any concession in this direction at all, but having made it, they ought to follow it to its logical consequences. By their action the Government had placed hon. Members who represented these boroughs in a very difficult position indeed. Every argument which had induced the Government to give way in this direction applied with equal force in favour of these ancient boroughs. If the ancient history of these boroughs was considered, it would justify the Government in reconsidering their determination to resist this Amendment. They were corporations of many centuries old, and whereas the smallest of them had 16,000 inhabitants, some of them had a population of 19,000. Could it be denied that these boroughs had done good work in the cause of education? Were they to be punished for the zeal they had shown by being subjected to these new local developments? By way of illustration, he would take the case of his own constituency. No man in that House could say that the borough of Grantham had not done its duty in the way of education. One of the great objects of this Bill was to assist Voluntary Schools. In Grantham they had none but Voluntary Schools, and when they were condemned as inefficient three years ago, a subscription was at once set on foot by the Nonconformists, the Roman Catholics, and the Church of England, and sufficient funds were raised to place them in a state of efficiency. Another strong point was that it was most important that technical education should be given at Grantham, both because of the number of skilled and intelligent artisans it contained, and because it was a natural centre for the neighbourhood around. They had in vain petitioned the County Council again and again to give assistance to the classes in that borough. It was true the County Council had offered to give £600 if an equivalent sum was contributed from the rates, but they knew from the poorness of the locality that that was an impossible condition; and it therefore amounted to a refusal to assist the technical educational system of the borough. With this experience before them, an experience which had been shared with other Town Councils, they distrusted the proposal to hand them over to these new bodies. The Committee must not be surprised if these ancient boroughs, proud as they were of their historical associations, jealous as they were and had a right to be of the continuity of their municipal life—that municipal life which had been one of steady and useful progression during hundreds of years—must regret and resent the action of the Government, when they had once made a concession, in refusing to bring them also within the scope of the sub-section.

said he represented a county which contained no less than four Parliamentary boroughs, which together returned a Member of Parliament. They were ancient, they were Tory, and they were Welsh. Wrexham was the largest town in North Wales; it contained 15,000 inhabitants. There was not a single town of the same size in England or Wales that had done more for education, or which was more anxious to promote education. There was certainly no borough which was more desirous of being its own education authority. Only two days ago he received a letter from the Town Clerk of the town strongly urging him to support this Amendment. Why was that town, which just fell short of the limit of 20,000 to be excluded from the benefit of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington? There was not a single argument which weighed with the Leader of the House in accepting that Amendment which could not be adduced in favour of the present proposal. It was, after all, a very small concern. They had already admitted 59 boroughs; and it would not do much harm to admit 14 more. He hoped the Vice President would reconsider his position.