The Amendments, Sir, to this Bill, which are alleged to have been of a verbal character, might have been made when the Bill was before the Unopposed Bills Committee. They were not proposed, apparently in order to avoid the Report stage of this Bill; and I wish to put as a point of order in reference to that question, whether it is competent to, first, move Amendments and call them verbal Amendments of this kind, when there is an opportunity of moving them at the proper time, and when the exact effect of them can be considered; and, secondly, when an Amendment is down on the Paper which proposes to leave out the word "black" and insert the word "white," as is done in one of these Amendments, whether it comes within the meaning of the Rule, and should be called a verbal Amendment, although it substantially alters the meaning of the clause.

I have examined the Amendments with the Bill, and am satisfied that they are mere verbal Amendments, such as may be properly moved at this stage.

I move that the Bill be recommitted, and I do so owing to the circumstances under which the Bill was rushed through Committee. I characterise it as the unseemly haste with which this Bill has been smuggled through this House as an unopposed Bill, when there was known to be the very strongest opposition to it by Members of this House, some of whom were ratepayers of the parish concerned. That was one of the many little schemes which have been adopted in order to avoid a discussion on the terms of this Bill. And now, Sir, I wish to draw your attention to this: there was an arrangement with those who are responsible for the promotion of the Bill, that discussion should take place on a particular day. In the meantime the Bill is taken without notice given to those who oppose it, without a word being said about it, and whilst there is a notice on the Parliamentary Paper indicating that a very important discussion is to take place on the following Monday. That is a proceeding of which the promoters cannot be very proud. I submit that this course ought not to have been taken, except under very exceptional circumstances. That course has, I know, been taken once or twice before, but the circumstances were of so extraordinary a character, and it was such a case of urgency, that the Government took upon themselves the responsibility of adopting that course, but there was nothing in this case to call for anything like that. There were three weeks of the Session left, and that was ample time. The Instruction would have been decided on the Monday, and the Bill ought to have been taken through Committee on the Tuesday. Even if this Instruction had been carried it would not have interfered materially with the progress of the Bill. All that would have been necessary, if the Instruction had been carried, would have been to insert a few clauses omitting this Instruction. But the real object of the underhand procedure adopted was in order to stop discussion upon this job which is proceeding in the parish of Marylebone. The promoters may object to such a description of their proceedings, but anyone who goes through this Bill as we have gone through it must come to the conclusion that it is a very gross job indeed. Property belonging to the parish is handed over to another body—the control of it is handed over to another body—property worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. Rights of patronage are handed over. In a sense they are rights of patronage, because these appointments are not to be made without the consent of the vestry; those rights are handed over without compensation. The sanction of the vestry has to be obtained before certain clerical property is handed over; but the vestry, when called upon to pay £83,000 for the privilege of handing over property worth two or three hundred thousand pounds, quietly assents. This is an extraordinary proceeding, and I can understand why the promoters of the Bill are exceedingly anxious that as little discussion as possible should take place upon the details of the Bill. Why are they so anxious to get it through in the dark and underhand manner adopted all along by the promoters? Because they are afraid of public opinion. There is no man who can defend this Bill upon the principle of a fair and open transaction between one body and another. It is not a bargain, and if it is called a bargain, it is a very bad one; and if the vestry were simply acting as trustees for the ratepayers, they might have made very much better terms than those. They might have said, "We will hand you over this property on condition that you will give us a complete discharge of all liability. But their action in this matter is worthy of a Mullingar board of guardians. It is a perfect job, and they know that well, and that is the reason they wish to hide it from the light of public discussion. There was a very important question raised in this House, which ought to be thrashed out in a Committee of this House. That is the question of the 2d. rate. The learned Attorney General made an ingenious speech, which I fully admit made out a case that appeared at the time to be irresistible. His case was this: there are two rates in this parish—one is a 4d. rate imposed by an Act of George III., and the other is a 2d. rate imposed by a later Act, by an Act of George IV. With regard to the 4d. rate that is invalid, and has been declared to be so by the Court of Appeal. With regard to the 2d. rate, I understood the learned Attorney General to say that the Court of Appeal had declared that rate to be valid. As a matter of fact the 2d. rate was never before any court at all. We have had no adjudication upon the question of limitation or otherwise of the 2d. rate. The 4d. rate is bad, but the 2d. rate has never been challenged. The learned Attorney General admitted that there was a distinction between the 2d. rate and the 4d. rate. An honourable Member of this House, seeing that the 2d. rate has never yet been challenged, is perfectly prepared to go into every court in the land and test its validity, and he will do so at his own expense. That is a perfectly fair offer. It is not inflicting a costly litigation on the parish of Marylebone, but he will test the validity of this 2d. rate entirely and absolutely at his own expense. That is a very generous and handsome offer, and if it is true that this Bill is purely a bargain, and a fair bargain, made between the vestry, representing the ratepayers, and the ecclesiastical authorities, in order to get rid of a burden upon the parish, and they are paying £80,000 for the purpose of so doing, surely it is well worth their while to accept such an offer, which may get rid of the whole of that burden by the one possible test, and that is the test of litigation, and that at the expense of somebody else. What is the position of the 2d. rate? I understand from the Attorney General that it was on an entirely different base to the 4d. rate. I go to the Act of Parliament which is alluded to in the Marylebone Churches Bill, which is now before the House, and I say that this ought to be thrashed out in Committee of this House, and that is why I am moving the re-committal of this Bill. This 2d. rate is supposed to be valid. Now, see what the Act says which imposes it—

"And be it further enacted, that it shall and may be lawful to and for the said vestrymen, if they shall think the same necessary, at the like times and in the same manner, and under and subject to the like powers and provisos, as to the persons and property to be assessed, and with all and every the like powers and remedies for recovering and enforcing the payment of the rates so to be assessed, and subject to the same right of appeal, and to every other matter or thing relating to the rates directed to be made under the said first recited Act, to make one or more additional rate or rates, assessment or assessments, upon all and every the person and persons who do or shall inhabit, use, or occupy any land, house, shop, warehouse, coach-house, stable, cellar, vault, building, tenement, hereditament, within the said parish of St. Marylebone, as long as such rate shall be necessary, and so that no such additional rate or rates, assessment or assessments, shall exceed the sum of twopence in the pound in any one year of the full, or according to such proportion of the yearly rent or value as the same property shall from time to time be assessed to the rate for the relief of the poor within the said parish, to the intent that there shall be only one rate now exceeding sixpence in the pound on the value or yearly rent of such property as aforesaid, for carrying the purposes of this Act and the said first recited Act into effect, and for defraying all and every the expenses incident to both such Acts respectively; and the said additional rate or rates shall be collected in like manner and under the like penalties, to all intents and purposes, as the rate or rates assessed under or by virtue of the said first recited Act are directed and enacted to be collected."

This rate is imposed in the same way, upon the same persons, in the same manner and the same power as the 4d. rate. If the 4d. rate is invalid, is it such an impossible proposition that the 2d. rate which is to be imposed by the same power and in the same manner may be equally void? It seems to me such an obvious thing, reading the section of the Act of Parliament, seeing that both are on the same basis, as far as that Act is concerned, that it is only fair to accord the parishioners of Marylebone an opportunity of thoroughly testing this question before anything is done. However, I can quite understand that the ecclesiastical gentlemen who will get hold of this £80,000 are very anxious that this question should not be looked into. They do not want it looked into. They want their money. They have had their £4,000 from the parish, and now they want another £80,000. It is only another illustration of the policy pursued by the Unionist Party in this Parliament. That Party has given two millions to one set of its friends, three-quarters of a million to another, £700,000 to another this year, and now they say to the parish of Marylebone, We have just given £700,000 to the landlords of Ireland, and we will give £80,000 to the clergy of Marylebone. That is the policy which was laid down by the Secretary of State for India. He said, "What is the task which the Government have to perform?" and the answer really contains the whole principle involved in the Marylebone Churches Bill. It was, "It is to safeguard and protect the interests of our friends, not only while we are in office, but even in the contingency of our being out, that we have asked throughout." That is the principle on which they have acted. They want to safeguard the interests of their friends. A 2d. rate is liable to be abolished. It may be decided in the Court of Appeal at the expense of somebody else. It is this possibility that the Court of Appeal may show this rate to be what it decided the 4d. rate to be, namely, a bad and invalid rate, that the Government say, "We want to protect our friends. We must make the thing perfectly secure and safe, and the next Parliament may not be inclined to jobs of this kind, like the present Parliament is. We have elections at Heading and elsewhere, which indicate the opinion of the country as to the Marylebone Churches Bill and the Agricultural Rating Bill; therefore we want to give you £80,000." This, I say, is peculiarly a question which ought to be looked into by a Committee of the House of Commons, and that is my reason for moving its re-committal. As I understand that my honourable Friend may not be allowed to move his instruction afterwards, I will move his.

The honourable Member will be in just as good a position in a general way as in a particular way.

I beg to second the Motion of my honourable Friend, but I do so not quite on the grounds brought before the House by him. In that I disagree with him. I would ask the House to look at this question apart from any considerations which have been introduced or apart from any considerations of sectarianism or of party. As to the reasons that have compelled us to bring this matter forward I can only say that I believe that the promoters of this Bill have nothing whatever to do with the unfortunate circumstances to which attention has been drawn, but I earnestly hope that in future it will not frequently happen that arrangements which are made are broken by such another unfortunate accident. With regard to the Bill itself generally I support this Motion, not because I am opposed to the principle of the Bill as a general principle, because my position is that I am in favour of the principle of this Bill, for I take it that the particular principle of this Bill is to make the work in the Church of this district of Marylebone more effectual and more satisfactory by removing from it the friction of public irritation and all cause of ill-feeling; therefore, in that sense I am prepared to support the principle of some arrangement. I think it is wise that there should be some arrangement, not only in the interests of the Church, but also in the interests of good-fellowship and good-feeling in the neighbourhood. We do not, therefore, object to their making a bargain; but the question is as to what sort of a bargain is made. This is not a fair bargain. It is not a bargain such as the Church ought to have initiated or such as this House should sanction. It is said that the vestry has consented, and therefore we have no right to raise this matter; but I think that everyone who knows anything about London knows how difficult it is to rouse public opinion and public enthusiasm. Therefore, because the vestry has sanctioned anything of the kind, it is by no means certain that public feeling is in favour of the bargain. In my opinion it is rather a sign that they do not know anything about it. I venture, therefore, to consider the bargain quite apart from all considerations of sect and quite apart from all considerations of political party. I want to consider whether these terms between the public and the Church are such as the House ought to sanction, and I may at once venture to say that they are not. I wish the House to look at the matter as a matter of bargain between the people of Marylebone, and not to look at it as a matter of church, or of chapel, or of sect. It is purely and simply a matter to consider whether this is for the best interests of the public of Marylebone. The Church of England as a body cannot hold property. Every parish church is a corporation sole in the ordinary term, and therefore we must consider the bargain as it will affect the particular place. I take as an example one of the most important churches with which I have myself been personally associated and of whose circumstances I know a great deal, and when we are asked to consider what is the bargain made between the public of Marylebone and the church of Christ Church let us see what the church of Christ Church is. There are, of course, some slight differences in the arrangements, but the principle is the same. In the first place, the church, the building, and the land were found by public money, certainly the building was found by public money entirely, and the fabric is made over to the rector in the usual way. Therefore they get that church given them. Then, in the second place, Christ Church gets a sum not exceeding £130 per annum towards the maintenance of the fabric—that is, £130 per annum in perpetuity for the maintenance of the fabric. And in addition to that they get a sum not exceeding £220 per annum towards the maintenance of divine worship. And then there is a further sum of £400 a year towards the rector's salary. Thus we have three items in addition to the absolute gift of the fabric. First, £130 a year for the fabric; second, £220 a year for the maintenance of divine worship; third, £400 a year towards the rector's salary. Now, how about pew rents? In regard to pew rents a considerable sum is being raised from that source in the different churches, but I am dealing specially with Christ Church. What has been the proceeding hitherto with regard to these pew rents? As you will see on page 2 of the Bill, they are vested in the vestry up to the present moment, and until the Bill passes the pew rents continue to be vested in the vestry; the building is vested in the vestry, and it belongs to the vestry; and the ordinary method has been that the pew rents collected have gone to the credit of this particular account. What are you doing now? You are capitalising the debit side of the account. You are giving up your money and your securities, and a fund which was a set-off against your expenditure. That is the condition of affairs at the present moment. What are the people getting in return? It is fair that there should be a bargain. It is fair to remember that the people now are bound to provide for the carrying on of these churches. That is the obligation which they have to face, and the value of which this House must consider. But, in considering the value of that obligation, remember that that obligation is not a perpetual one. The obligation depends upon an Act of Parliament, and what Parliament has done Parliament can undo; and I beg the House to consider further that this obligation is one which depends upon public feeling, and that public feeling is running, as it were, contrary to imposts of this kind. Does anyone now contend that this House would sanction a Bill to make a church rate compulsory? Has not the history of the past 25 years shown that such a proceeding would be utterly futile? Such Acts of Parliament are bound to be swept away when once our attention is called to them. That is why this Bill is brought in. This Bill is brought in because the Marylebone churches have no perpetual security, and because it is well known that when a change of public feeling takes place, which invariably follows public attention being called to them, such things are certain to be swept away. But what are you doing? As I halve said before, this obligation is not a perpetual one; it may cease this year or next. But this Bill values that obligation in perpetuity. Practically speaking, it sells this £4,000 a year for a lump sum of £80,000; therefore, it guarantees £4,000 a year for ever. Therefore, I say that it is not fair to the public of Marylebone, and because the public of Marylebone has not awakened to the fact of its unfairness, that is no reason why this House should not look after the public interests of the parishioners of Marylebone. We are here to guard the interests of those who cannot help themselves, and therefore we will not sanction a bargain—or, I should say, we ought not to sanction a bargain—which is not fair to the public. I do not ask for the money to be altered, or for the financial arrangements to be altered, but I do ask that something shall be done, at any rate, which shall show the public that we have some regard to their rights in this matter. One thing the House can do. Considering that the fabric is given, the land given, income given, funds for the repair of the fabric given, funds for maintaining Divine worship given, surely the least thing the House can do is to allow the public to go into their own churches for nothing. This was the precedent which was followed last year. Two new churches were built in the place of an old one—an old church built under an Act like this—and this condition was inserted in the Bill—

"All sittings in the new church of St. Peter and Christ Church respectively shall be free and unappropriated."

In this case you make over the pew rents to the authorities. It is quite true that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may alter this arrangement, but I have not so very much confidence in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as some people have; and not only so, but if a bargain is being struck the fundamental conditions of that bargain ought to appear on the face of the bargain. You ought not to take the whole advantage on one side and leave everything on the other side to the determination of some other authority which is not acquainted with the facts. I differ from most of my colleagues in this matter. I have, for many years, steadily upheld the value of a national Church, because I believe that such a Church is good for the nation and good for the Church. It is good for politics, for it keeps them high. It ought to be good for the Church, because it ought to keep it practical. We have had some discussions about ritual and doctrine in reference to the old Catholic idea. I ask the House, is this a matter of return to the old Catholic idea? Anyone who has read knows that the highest and best ideal of any church is that ideal which makes it the protector of the people, and not the plunderer of the people. It is not easy to stand un for these things and to uphold these views which are contrary to the feelings of your colleagues, but that task will be made much more difficult if a Church does not recognise that a national Church ought to be national—national in sympathy, national in ideal, and national in method. The ideal, surely, of a national Church in a democratic country is that is should stand upon a democratic basis—that it should be open to ail. I have pleaded for the Church, because it is not congregational, but because it is parochial, and the power of that position is this, that because it is parochial it is open to all, without money and without price. Now, here is an opportunity of carrying out that principle into action. I have seen honourable Members and heard honourable Members on the other side of the House pleading for this principle of open churches—pleading for this democratic principle of no pews and no pew rents. Can you ever have an opportunity so good for carrying their views into practice as this affords you? Will you ever have so good a chance of carrying out this principle as this one affords you, where you have the fact that the churches were given for nothing, and that an income was guaranteed? I have a letter coining from a well-known parishioner, which puts the case so very simply that I will read it, if the House will allow me. I may say that this is from one of the most well-known parishioners in Marylebone, and one of the most well-known Members of this House. [At this point a person in the Strangers' Gallery loudly clapped his hands.]

That disorderly person is to be removed from the Gallery immediately.

Another point I want to make is this, that this district of Marylebone, as honourable Members know, is largely changing its character. A new railway and a new station have been brought there, and the population has become almost exclusively a poor population. What is it we are asking for? We say that if the Church is a national Church it must be open to the poorest and to the masses of the people, and I beg Members of this House to take this opportunity of illustrating in London that, in a large area of London, the Church—the National Church of England—can safely rest upon the broad and sound principles of trust in the people.

I really must apologise to the House for obtruding myself upon its attention again upon this subject, but it is impossible for me to leave entirely unanswered the matters which have, been brought forward by the two honourable Gentlemen who have moved and seconded that this Bill be re-committed. I fancy that the House must have got tired of the Marylebone Churches Bill. Every Parliamentary device that is known to delay and obstruct and defeat the Bill has been exhausted probably by now. The honourable Member for Carnarvon says that this Bill has been rushed through the House—that unseemly haste has been used with regard to it. But it does not so very often happen to the lot of a private Bill that there should be no less than three Debates upon it, and three Divisions upon it, before it comes to the third stage, and I suppose we shall have a Division upon the re-committal, and probably another upon the Third Reading. As I said on a former occasion, this is an ordinary Bill, treated in an ordinary way. As regards the complaint of the honourable Member for Carnarvon, there has been nothing whatever, as far as I know, outside the ordinary rules and regulations of the House, applied to this Bill which does not apply to every Bill. This is an unopposed Bill; there was neither opposition nor objection from any parties at all, excepting the petition which was not allowed to be put upon the forms of the House. The honourable Member for Carnarvon has disclaimed any desire to defeat the Bill.

No, I did not.

The course taken by the Welsh Nonconformists and their friends on this subject has indicated that their desire is to get rid of the Bill in any manner they can. The Member for Carnarvon says that the promoters of the Bill have no desire that the Bill should be discussed. The promoters are the Vestry of Marylebone, and that vestry represents the inhabitants of Marylebone. As I have said before, upon two or three occasions, I represent to the House, as an earnest of the bonâ fides of the Vestry of Marylebone, that there has been no opposition against this Bill from the ratepayers of Marylebone. It is true that a public meeting was called to denounce the Bill, at which there were to be no less than three prominent Members of Parliament, but they could collect only 50 persons, and that, to my mind, hardly seems to indicate a strong feeling against this Bill. The honourable Member for Carnarvon used a lovely word with reference to the Bill—he says it is a job. The job is this: it is to get rid of a rate which falls upon the ratepayers in perpetuity, and to substitute for it a charge which will exist for 30 years, and no more. The honourable Member for Bolton says that the rate is not in perpetuity. That is preaching again the doctrine of repudiation and confiscation, and it is quite clear that where Parliament has imposed upon a local authority an obligation which takes the shape of a money payment, Parliament is not likely to disturb an arrangement of that kind unless an equivalent is given for it in some shape. Now, with regard to the continued suggestion that the rate is illegal, those honourable Members of the House who heard the Attorney General, I think, were perfectly satisfied with the lucid explanation which he gave—so lucid, indeed, that no Member on the other side of the House ventured to get up and answer the statement so made. Then the honourable Member for Bolton says that it is not a fair bargain, and he poses as the guardian of the ratepayers of Marylebone, who cannot look after themselves. I have lived in Marylebone all my life, and I can say that the inhabitants of Marylebone are quite as sensible as most people are, and can look after themselves equally well without the interference of gentlemen who have nothing to do with the Bill. I assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that this is a first-rate bargain. I do not say that it is so good a bargain for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but for the ratepayers it is a first-rate bargain. There is the commutation of a rate for the lump sum of £80,000, the payment for which is spread over 30 years, and, as a matter of fact, the ratepayers, who at the end of 30 years; will be quite free, will have been compelled to pay no more than they could have been compelled to pay for the next 300 years. I am not going into details with the honourable Member, but he alluded to Christ Church. That was a most unfortunate choice of his, because the House must be reminded that Christ Church is situated in one of the poorest districts in London, and that the pew rents which are receivable from the people are so small that they are not sufficient to maintain the services. The Nonconformists object to a church rate, and very naturally and very properly. The Vestry of Marylebone have a church rate which the Nonconformists have to pay, and they are making an honest attempt to relieve the Nonconformists of the burden of that church rate. The position of honourable Gentlemen opposite is not logical. They say they do not like the imposition of a church rate, and yet they will not allow a Bill to pass which will relieve the inhabitants of that church rate, and it looks to me as if they prefer to nurse and keep their grievances against the Church alive. I hope that the House will not indulge them in that luxury, because it would be a great expense to the inhabitants of Marylebone. I sincerely hope that the House will this afternoon, refuse to recommit this Bill, but will read it a third time, and pass it into law as speedily as possible.

I do not rise for the purpose of repeating again the arguments which have been urged of a general character against this Bill; but I do think, Sir, that the parishioners and ratepayers of this very large parish have some right to complain of the way in which the Standing Orders relating to private Bills have been, applied and utilised for the purpose of getting this private Bill through Parliament this Session. I will ask the House to recollect what the position was last Thursday. There were three Motions down "By Order," and two other Notices of Motion, and Instructions for Committee had been also placed down on the Paper, but they were not "By Order." In accordance with the usual practice when there is a Motion down against a Bill, you, Sir, said that the Bill must go over till next day, and then my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone said "Monday," and subsequently Monday was agreed on. After that, I saw both him and the Parliamentary agent, and by arrangement the Motions were deferred till the following Thursday, that is, to this day. But, in the meantime, without any notice given to us, the Unopposed Bills Committee deal with the matter. I had foreseen that, Sir, and earlier in the week I saw the Parliamentary agent. Possibly, what the Unopposed Bill Committee did was in accordance with the Standing Orders, but, as I say, I saw the Parliamentary agent, and, according to my recollection of the conversation, and I am very clear about it, the general effect was that, so far as the notices of Motion that you, Sir, ordered remained on the Paper, the Bill would not be taken by the Unopposed Bill Committee. Now, I acquit my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone of any sharp practice whatever. I know him to be quite incapable of such a proceeding. But I do not know how the matter stands as far as the Parliamentary agents are concerned. In an important matter of this kind we should have an explanation as to how the matter came to be proceeded with without any communication, and without reference to the arrangement which I understood had been made between those who opposed the Bill and the agent for the Bill. I only say that by way of answering the charge of obstruction made by my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone. I absolutely deny the charge of obstruction. I thought we had made a fair arrangement by which we could raise every Motion by way of instruction to the Committee, and that the matter should go on in the ordinary course. I have one or two other remarks to offer in order that the House may not come to a decision upon this matter without knowing the absolute state of things in this parish. One of the most important vestrymen of the parish, Mr. J. Lewis, has handed me this communication—

"The inhabitants of Marylebone have never had the question before them, and are mostly ignorant of what is now being done. It was in the hands of a sub-committee, and ultimately rushed through the vestry in face of a strong minority. Mr. Boulnois' statement that the report was adopted nem. con. is misleading, for it applied only to the principle of the severance of the vestry and the churches—6th May, 1897—and not to the terms, which were resolutely opposed, as the minutes show—14th October, 1897, 11th November, 1897. 18th November, 1897, 15th June, 1898. Sir E. Galsworthy, a staunch Conservative, and the most influential member of the vestry, is prepared to give evidence in support of the above statement."

That is the state of things as recollected by men of a representative character. One word further in regard to the statement of the character of the bargain made by the Attorney General and my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone. My honourable Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has accurately stated the legal and actual position. The 4d. rate—the rate imposed under the Act of 1811, is illegal—that has been decided by the Court of Appeal. The 2d. rate imposed by the Act of George the Fourth has never been judicially tested. The Attorney General has given an opinion, and, coming from him, I need not say it is one which I, at any rate, would attach the utmost importance to. The Attorney General says that the rate condemned has never been levied.

Not since 1889.

I accept the challenge, and I ask how comes it that as late as June, 1898, the vestry paid £20 towards the cost of repairing the bells and other repairs to the parish church. The parish church is the church dealt with by the Act of 1811, and if the Attorney General's proposition is true, no part of the rate ought to be applied to the repair of anything connected with the parish church. That is only one thing we have discovered. We have not had time to investigate the whole of the matter, but still that is one important item, and I have very little doubt that if time were afforded us by this House to go into the matter that we should find there have been great irregularities in the collection of these rates, and I am prepared to accept the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General that he is speaking from information which he has received, but which I submit is not in accordance with the documents I have in my hand connected with the vestry. There is one other point, and one only: I do not think that when the Attorney General and my honourable Friend explained this bargain to the House that they made the position quite clear. It was said that the 2d. rate comes to so much. That amount was capitalised at 30 years' purchase, and it works out at £80,000, which is the sum now in this Bill; but the House was not informed that, on the other side, there is a credit income. The pew rents ought to be credited to the parish, and, even adopting the principle of this Bill, that this is a perpetual liability and not a terminal liability any year, any man will see that you must, in arriving at this amount, deduct the value of these pew rents for the next 30 years. I am only dealing with the income and liability. But is nothing to be allowed in assuming the value of this liability? Is nothing to be allowed for the fee simple of these sites? There is nothing to prevent our bringing in a Bill for taking these sites, and using them for other purposes. I do not wish to shook the susceptibilities of other Members, but I must say these are extremely valuable sites; the population has increased, and I put it to any business man who will approach this matter with an unbiased mind whether something ought not to be allowed for the capital value of the land and the value of the buildings. I think I have made clear to the House the nature of this bargain. I assert that it is a bad bargain, and there is a strong minority in the vestry which agrees with me that it is a bad bargain, and I complain very much of the way in which the promoters of this Bill have used the forms of this House for their own purposes.

I do not propose to enter into the merits of this question, but as the honourable Member for Swansea has addressed the question tome as to how it was that the Unopposed Bill Committee took this Bill last Friday, I will tell him shortly how it happened. It came about in this way. The time for presenting petitions had lapsed; no petitions against the Bill were presented; due notice was given, in accordance with the forms of the House, that the Bill would be taken—I think it is two days' notice that is required—before the Unopposed Bill Committee, and when the time came the Bill was taken in the ordinary way. I was not informed that any arrangement had been entered into, and I do not believe that any arrangement had been entered into, that the Bill was to be hung over until after the discussion of the Instruction on the Paper of the honourable Member for Carnarvon. If any such arrangement had been entered into that the Bill was to be hung up, and was not to be taken, until the Instruction had been disposed of, I should not, under the circumstances, have taken the Bill. I was not informed that any such arrangement had been entered into, and I do not believe that any such arrangement was entered into. Therefore, in the ordinary course, I took the Bill on Friday last, because I saw no reason why the promoters should not go with the Bill in the usual and ordinary way.

I did not allege that there was any specific arrangement, but that the language used in the Lobby was such as to lead me to suppose that such an arrangement was made. I am speaking about a conversation I had with the Parliamentary agent.

The House has naturally looked to the right honourable Gentleman for some explanation of this most extraordinary proceeding, and I think the House will allow that the explanation is as extraordinary as the proceeding. The right honourable Gentleman pleads ignorance. But it was upon, the Journals of the House that notice had been given of these Instructions, and that they were set down by order of the House; and yet he would have us believe that it was his duty to ignore that fact, and to proceed with the Bill as though no such notice had been given. I will leave the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman with the House. I am struck with the absence of any reasonable and rational defence of the provisions of this Measure. It seems to me that it is sought to carry it by a conspiracy of silence, and yet there are several parties to this Bill. First of all there is the vestry. The vestry has been represented by the honourable Member for East Marylebone, and he has very little more to say in defence of the Bill than that it contains a first-rate bargain. I decline to take his opinion upon that point. He has made no attempt to show that the bargain is of so good a character. He has not replied to the specific objections which have been urged against it. Then the Crown is a party to this transaction. The Crown is the patron of the livings. If I am not misinformed, the First Lord of the Treasury is responsible for the large sum of money which is to be handed over under the provisions of this Bill, and I am sorry he is not here to defend his share of the transaction, Then there is the Bishop of London, and I do not remember that he offered a word of explanation or of defence when the Measure was before the House of Lords. Next there are the incumbents of the churches. I am rather curious to know what Canon Barker and the Rev. Russell Wakefield, and the other reverend gentlemen, whose incomes will be receivable under this Bill, think of the method by which it is proposed they shall be maintained during a long series of years. Then there are the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who are represented in this House by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield. I await with much interest the reason why the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are proceeding in this case on principles so different from those which they have adopted in dealing with analogous cases. There was a vicar's rate in Halifax which was the occasion of great agitation, and the agitation drove the friends of the Church into making an arrangement. But in that case, in the year 1876, the Government, through Mr. Cross, who was then Home Secretary, offered to abolish the rate—to give up the sum of £970 a year—for the comparatively moderate sum of £11,000, or about 12 years' purchase; and the rate was abolished on those terms. The next case is more interesting still. Coventry has a vicar's rate: that also has been a source of great irritation and friction, and there again the Churchmen are desirous of getting rid of the rate. What is the arrangement there? Are the Ecclesiastical Commissioners going to exact a large sum from the inhabitants of Coventry in order to get rid of this obligation? No, on the contrary. Of the £12,000 which is agreed to be paid as commutation for the rate, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are going to contribute £7,000, leaving the rest to be raised by voluntary subscriptions from Churchmen and Nonconformists, who admit the equity of the arrangement, and are anxious that it should be carried out. Why is Marylebone to be treated in a different manner? While objecting to this Bill, I am anxious to get rid of these vexatious exactions, which are not only injurious to the Church of England, but are also destructive to social happiness. My objection is to the mode in which, it is sought to bring this quarrel to an end. It is based on an utterly unsound principle—the exact opposite to that contained in the Church Rate Abolition Act, 1868. The rates were then abolished, without the payment of any equivalent whatever, and the only exceptions are the cases where money was borrowed on the security of the rates, and there they were kept in existence until the debts were paid. The other exception was that in which rates were paid as an equivalent for tithe. But this Bill does not belong to either of those categories, and I think it is most questionable whether, when the legality of these rates comes to be tested, it will be found that there is any legal basis for the Bill whatever—I mean for the Bill as it is now before the House. Why should the inhabitants of Marylebone, or rather, the congregations which worship in these seven churches, be treated differently from all the other inhabitants of Marylebone? Why should these congregations be treated differently from all the other inhabitants of the kingdom from one end to the other? Why should this exaction be continued in this particular part of the kingdom, and in one part of London only? That is the case which has to be made good by the Members who support this Bill; or, at least, they might show that it would be inequitable to be rid of this rate on other terms than those which are set out in the Bill. I will not detain the House, but I must advance some other consideration. The honourable Member for East Marylebone has shown some impatience at the treatment which has been accorded to this Measure in this House. I do not think that the inhabitants of Marylebone will forget this Measure when it has found its place on the Statute Book. For years the ratepayers of Marylebone will have a continual reminder of the injustice which has been done to them, and throughout the kingdom the passing of this Bill will be regarded as illustrative of the injustice, the grasping character, and the unscrupulousness of the upholders of the Established Church. This is a piece of ecclesiastical brigandage, for it exacts heavy ransom for relief from a burden which should never have been imposed, and from which the people should have been relieved two generations ago. We are entitled, not merely to resist this Bill, but to endeavour to put an end to the system out of which Measures of this kind spring.

Of all the speeches made against the arrangement embodied in this Bill, not the least forcible has proceeded from, the honourable Member opposite, the Member for East Marylebone. He has furnished the strongest argument against this Bill. He has, with great frankness, said that the Nonconformists have a right to complain if they are made to pay a church rate. I thank him for that admission, and I hope there are more on his side who are prepared to make that admission. Unfortunately, however, it is felt it is not always admitted with the frankness with which it was just admitted by the honourable Member. Now, he proceeded at once to take us to task for wasting the time of the House, and for obstruction, because we objected that this rate was neither more nor less than a church rate. It is a rate levied under the name of a district rate, and providing a capital sum of money from which an, income will be derived. But it is in all essentials a church rate—a rate for the assistance of the Church, and if there is any difference between a church rate raised for the maintenance of the Church and a district rate raised for the maintenance of the Church, I shall be very glad if some honourable Member on the other side will kindly get up and show me

On the preceding stage of this Hill I endeavoured to call attention to what I think was a very irregular matter. I wag very much astonished by the statement made that I was misinformed as to the facts of this case. My point was that this Bill, which had passed through all its stages in the other House, was referred to the Unopposed Bills Committee without any Amendment. Well, the next day it appears it was reported with an Amendment. I was told that I was misinformed as to the facts. Now, I have obtained a statement from the Parliamentary agent, who is practically the promoter of the Bill, and it is to this effect: the statement is that this Unopposed Committee received the Bill without Amendment at the meeting of that Committee. The representative of the Education Department attended and stated that there was no Amendment to the Bill, and a representative of the promoters, or who were practically the promoters, of the Bill also attended, and, as there was no Amendment, the leaves of the whole Bill were turned over in, the ordinary way, and it was understood that this stage of the Unopposed Committee was at an end. These are the facts upon which I proceeded upon the last occasion. I think I may mention that without fear of contradiction. The point is that subsequently the Bill was amended. Now, Sir, I want to call the attention of the House to this fact. After the Bill had passed through the Unopposed Bills Committee it was amended secretly, and, above all, without any notice being given to those who were practically the promoters of the Bill. Now, if it were necessary to carry any Amendment, I understand that for the convenience of the Department the Chairman of Ways and Means practically was in possession of the Bill until it was reported to this House. My point is, if it were necessary to carry any Amendment, notice should be given to the London School Board. I asked the question of the right honourable Gentleman as to why he did not do that, and he stated that he had not the time, after his attention was called to it, to give notice to the London School Board. Well, I do not desire to question anything that the right honourable Gentleman said, because I think it can only refer to his personal honour, because the Education Department were for three, four, and six months previous to this in communication with the London School Board, because all these Provisional Orders demand that proof should be given that they have been duly advertised, and this Provisional Order was advertised in five London papers; and on the 30th of April this House and the Education Department recognised that the forms which had been gone through with regard to this particular site were satisfactory. Even supposing the right honourable Gentleman's attention had been called to the inclusion of this site, as I believe it was, there were these other transactions to which I have referred. I say that the Vice-President of the Council should have postponed the consideration of the matter. There was plenty of time to give the London School Board notice of the fact that this site had been struck out. I think it reflects a great deal of discredit upon the conduct of this business by the Education Department. This is no trifling matter. The striking out of this site has been justified on the grounds that it was in the interests of Voluntary schools. There is a temporary building already on the spot in which 366 children are housed. It appears this building is in two parts, so that there are really two schools instead of one erected at great expense, and this all arises from the fact that this site was treated in an underhand manner, and the Amendment was carried without any discussion. When we mentioned it before, it was said that we should have an opportunity of discussing the matter, but judgment was given against us on that point. It is a very different thing to discuss a matter of this kind on its merits before any decision was arrived at, which is what the London School Board desired to do. Now, this House naturally likes to support the action taken in Committee, and, therefore, I was at every disadvantage in asking that this site should be reinstated in the Bill. I think we have every reason to protest against the way this Bill has been carried through. I find myself in a very difficult position in moving that this Bill be not read a third time, nor can I restore the site to the Bill. However, as I think the matter is of great importance, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of procedure, whether it is in accordance with the practice of this House to amend a private Bill which has passed its Second Reading without notice to those primarily interested in its promotion, after the Bill has passed through the Unopposed Committee, or as we think it passed through the Unopposed Committee, and before it had been endorsed by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and without Amendment, and before the Report stage in this House. I should be much obliged if you would give your ruling on this point, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious that after a Bill has been read a second time no Amendment can be made in it except by the authorised Committee, but that Committee is not bound to give notice of any Amendment to anybody. I have communicated with the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Committees as to what has taken place, and he informs me that this Amendment was made by the Committee.

But should not notice have been given to the promoters?

The Committee is not bound to give any notice whatever.

I do not say that the reason why notice was not given to the London School Board was because I had not time, after the matter came to my knowledge, to give notice. I said that I had no time after the decision of the Committee of Council on the Bill had been arrived at, and that was a fact; and I acted with the greatest possible promptitude in the matter.

This matter has been before the Department for months, and it must have been known that it was intended to take this site compulsorily, and they must have come to the conclusion that this site was necessary, and they were perfectly prepared to confer the powers on the London School Board. Now, what is it that has occurred afterwards? Why, through somebody's influence the Department have struck out the site. Now, I think we ought to have some defence from the Education Department of this conduct. First of all, notice is given in the ordinary course. Ample time is provided for, in order that the Education Department should investigate the whole of the sites, which is necessary to confer the adequate powers of compulsory purchase upon the School Board. Now, they came, to this conclusion, that this was a case for compulsory powers to be given. The Vice-President of the Council presumably concurs; the Bill goes through all its stages in the other House, and in this House up to the Committee stage, through the First, Second, and Third Readings and the Committee stage, and nothing is done by the Department. Now what happened afterwards? Why there is not the remotest doubt as to what happened. We know that the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich placed an Amendment, on the Paper. He called the attention of the Vice-President of the Council to this Amendment, and, as he was a little bit nervous as to the task placed upon him, and wanted a little tonic, he said he was not ready for it. Well, he was attacked in the House of Commons on one occasion, and he collapsed. Now, is this to be a precedent? That is the question. Will the promoters have an opportunity of laying their case before the Committee or before the Education Department? No notice was given of this Amendment, and, what is still worse, the solicitor of the School Board being present at the Committee, the whole Committee stage practically passed through unopposed, the Chairman of Committees signs the document—and I do not think he challenges that statement—he signs the Bill as an umamended Bill after the whole of the proceedings have terminated. He signs the Bill as unamended, and then the Vice-President of the Council goes to him with a sort of backstairs business when there is no one present. The School Board, who are the promoters of the Bill, know nothing about it. Well, he goes there after a private conversation with the honourable Member for Greenwich, and then he asks us to strike out site No. 10. Well, if that is the way in which private Bills are to be voted, I want to know what is to be the end of it. It will be unnecessary to pass openly and straightforwardly anything in the future. All you will have to do will be to get round the Vice-President or the Secretary of State or the Archbishop, and they will alter the Measure. You will say to the Minister, "Do not oppose it in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, take care not to oppose it openly, allow it to go through every stage, and after that come to me and I will strike it out. I will overrule the deliberate decision of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and do it myself." That is practically what it amounts to.

I think we have had a very insufficient explanation of this matter from the Vice-President of the Council. As the honourable and learned Member for Carnarvon has said, this is not a case which applies merely to one Department, but it affects the whole of the Departments of the Government, and they are bound to give a satisfactory defence of this matter. Now, what is the case? Here is a Bill containing a matter of interest, which might involve any other matter in which Parliament is concerned, in which the Department has approved of the proposal, and passed through a Select Committee of the House of Lords without any objection. Consequently the head of the Department—and we even had the Duke of Devonshire concerned—supported it in the House of Lords. That Measure came down openly as far as the proceedings are known to us. The Government have supported this matter and approved of it clearly up to the last stage, and then secretly, without any public communication to this House, without any notice to the body which is interested in the matter—namely, the London School Board—a body which, in my opinion and in the opinion of the people of London, deserves to be respected, whether it is respected by gentlemen opposite or not—behind their backs, believing that they were secure in the support of the Government, as we are told, by a private arrangement with the noble Lord, the Member for Greenwich, who has congratulated the Vice-President of the Council upon having done his work in the past so admirably, this matter is so disposed of, and the site is struck out. Now, I venture to say, that that is a breach of the relations of the Executive Government and a Department to the House of Commons, and it is one that ought to be taken notice of; and not only that, but it is one that ought to be denounced, and it is one which by Division we will protest against. There can be no confidence placed in the conduct of public affairs as between Departments and the House of Commons if proceedings of this kind are to be tolerated in the future.

There is one view of this subject which has not been put before the House, and that is the bearing of what has occurred in this case upon the whole Provisional Order system. We are continually asked to give our sanction to Provisional Orders in such cases, instead of proceeding by private Bills, and I have always tried to put before the House that this power of the Department to suddenly strike out portions of a Bill is a serious defect in the way of Provisional Order procedure. That power has, however, never been, exercised before without proper notice. I have mentioned this matter to the House before, and protested against the practice of exercising this power even when it has been exercised with notice; but this is a much stronger case, and strikes more directly against the system, because we have had no notice whatever given in this case.

Under the circumstances, if it be permitted to me to do so, I will move—

"That the Bill be now recommitted."

I beg leave to second that Motion.

I appeal to the Government in this matter. Here is a thing which—and I cannot use any other word until some further explanation is forthcoming—is a concealment of the action of the Executive Government. It may be that there are reasons to be given; it may be that these transactions can be explained and are capable of explanation. But if it is a fact that this thing has been done unknown to the House of Commons, unknown to the School Board, who are interested in the matter, surely the Government and the House would wish that any error of that kind should be corrected, and that the mistake should be repaired and rectified, and that the House should now have the opportunity by recommitting the Bill of having that competence in the matter and that power of dealing with it which they ought to have had from the first.

I made a full statement the other day on this matter before the House, and it is only owing to my reluctance not to take up the time of the House that I have not repeated my statement to-day. The matter is a very simple one, and this, is only a sort of a storm in a teacup. The site in question—site No. 10—was struck out of the London School Board Bill the Session before last, and that was done after a very long and careful inquiry by the Education Department. The School Board for London, and those who opposed the site, were then informed that a temporary school should be built in the neighbourhood, and the question whether the site was to be taken was to depend upon the success of the temporary school. The school was accordingly erected, and it is now opened; after this, unknown to the heads of the Government, site 10 was again reinserted in this Bill. Of course, the Departments technically were aware of the insertion of this site, but, practically, the Lord President of the Council and some of the other higher officials, only had their attention called to that, fact at the very last moment. But the moment it was discovered the Department decided that, in good faith to those who had opposed the proposal, and towards the arrangement which has been made as to the, erection of the temporary school, the site should be struck out of the Bill. As to the executive officer, he had to strike out the site, and he would have given notice to the School Board if there had been time. But there was no grievance created by that notice not being given; and what has been done is what the Department have always claimed a right to do, and it is constantly done.

Yes, with notice.

Well, this Bill was a public Measure in charge of the Education Department, and we were the promoters of the Bill. The right honourable Baronet has said that this is an abuse of the Provisional Order system.

I did not say that. What I stated was that I disliked the practice very much. My point is that it damages the Provisional Order system as against private Bills. This is a public Bill, I understand, in charge of the Education Department, and they are the promoters of it; consequently, I say that there was a breach of faith in this matter.

Does the right honourable Gentleman say that this is a Bill brought forward by the Education Department?

Yes.

Then why did they put in site 10?

That site was put in inadvertently with a large number of other sites, because there was no opposition to it. Nobody gave, any notice of opposition, and it went in along with the others. Now, what is it that has been proposed to be done in this case? The right honourable Gentleman proposed a Motion for the recommittal of this Bill. Well, that is, perfectly useless, because the House has already determined that on the Motion of the honourable Member for Islington, and it has resolved that site No. 10 shall not be inserted. I contend, therefore, that it will not be in order put this site in the Bill. If it is re-committed, the only way to reinstate this site is to go to the, other House, and, if you can persuade the other House to do it, that is the best way to proceed. As the honourable Member for Islington's proposal was not carried, I apprehend that no re-committal of the Bill would be in order now.

There is a perfect answer to the apparently only strong point of the right honourable Gentleman's remarks. It happens that two years ago the Education Department demanded that a temporary school should be erected on that spot. The school board absolutely and loyally did this. They erected a temporary school—in fact, they erected two schools there, and both are now crowded with 366 children, so that there has been something like 10 months' experience of a temporary school on the spot to which this Bill refers That is what makes the strength of the present position. The London School Board has done everything it was asked to do; it has done what the Education Department demanded; and it has found that it was necessary to build a school there, and these 400 or more children are put to the greatest inconvenience for school accommodation and the greatest possible discomfort. Not only this, but the London School Board is saddled with all this unnecessary expense. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the right honourable Gentleman will give us another word, and we shall be able to settle this matter. Nothing could be more pacific than my suggestion. I would ask my honourable Friend not to press this matter to a Division, if the right honourable Gentleman will give us a little more assurance as to what will take place in the other House. They examine every point in the other House, and if the bishops and the Voluntary schools want any protection, surely they would get it there. I think I have made the point perfectly clear that the London school Board did everything that it ought to do, and that there is the most flagrant and apparent case against the action of the Education Department, and I do hope that if nothing more is said, they will accept the Motion that has been made.

The Vice-President of the Council has evaded the gravest allegation made by the honourable Member for Islington, and that is that this Bill passed through the Committee stage without any Amendment, and that the Chairman afterwards signed the document as an unamended Bill in the presence of the parties who were concerned. I submit to the House that that is a very great departure from the procedure of this House, and I draw the attention of the House to the fact that although the Vice-President of the Council made a lengthy statement to-day and the other day, he has not traversed that charge at all, and, what is more, the Chairman of Committees, who is responsible for this, is not present now, although he knows perfectly well that this matter is going to come on. He knows the whole of the facts, in opposition to the honourable Member for Islington, and he is not here to challenge them. He knows that this thing was done in the absence of the parties interested, after he had signed the document; therefore I say that is a very grave departure from the Rules of this House, and I emphasise the fact that the Vice-President of the Council has not answered that charge at all. I can quite understand why he objects to be questioned upon this point. It is very awkward to be questioned about things of this sort. He said that the heads of the Department knew nothing about No. 10 site, but this throws some light not only upon the Education Department, but upon every other Department of the Government as to the way their business is being conducted. I ask the Vice-President of the Council, when these proposals were submitted to the Education Department, was there not a Report made upon those proposals of the London School Board? This is usually done by every Government Department. It is all very well to say that this Bill is promoted, not by the London School Board, but by the Education Department; technically that is true, but nobody knows better than the Vice-President of the Council himself that substantially it is not true, and the answer is not a perfectly genuine one. These Bills, it is true, are promoted nominally by the Department who have got them in charge, but really they are promoted by the local authorities. The Vice-President of the Council says there was no time to interfere. Well, there was a vast amount of expense incurred by the London School Board in solicitors' charges and other matters, and the Vice-President allows them to go through all this form of expense, and there is no opposition, and at the very last moment he throws away all these costs by means of this departure from the usual course, and he is setting up a perfectly dangerous precedent, and one which I venture to say every Member of this. House must agree with me in describing as grossly unconstitutional.

The Vice-President has protested against this discussion, and has pointed out that even if this Bill were recommitted, site No. 10 would not and could not be put in. But the Vice-President does not seem to understand why we are dividing the House. We are dividing in order to relieve our Parliamentary consciences. We find that there has been a great deal of departmental secret "hanky-panky" business in regard to this Bill, and we consider that the control of Parliament, even upon the Education Department's own Bill, will be destroyed, and the respect entertained for Parliament outside in regard to legislation will be injured by this course of procedure. For these reasons, I hope my honourable Friend will divide the House.

In this case there is a much wider application, for it affects the general procedure and practice of the House, and not only the injustice done in this case. No doubt the Vice-President is technically right in this, that the House having decided that this site 10 should not be inserted in the Bill, it would not be competent for the Committee to reverse the decision of the House. I want, however, to point out to the House the great danger of this mode of procedure if the House is going to condone this new departure. Now, I am a strong advocate for proceeding by Provisional Order, and I differ from my right honourable Friend below the Gangway, the Member for the Forest of Dean, on this point. I think it is one of the truest solutions of the enormous expense of private Bill legislation. The thing is that this has, passed absolutely unnoticed by the Government of the day, and the head of the Department is simply dealing with his own individual action. Now, this is a question affecting the procedure of the House, and neither the Leader of the House nor any Member of the Cabinet has thought it worth while to take any part in the discussion. Now, I want to point out where this practice will lead us to. Let us take the case of an Order made by another Department. Technically the Bills forming these Provisional Orders are simply performing an executive act on behalf of some body who have a right to make such a petition for such Provisional Orders—I mean such bodies as the London School Board, town councils, or other local bodies. Now, if that form of application for these Orders is opposed, the Government Department takes no further interest in the procedure, and it bears no part of the expense of the position, for that falls, on the local authority who have to defend it. Take the ordinary course of the Local Government Board in reference to the poor laws. A local authority applies for power to borrow certain money in order to perform certain works, and an inspector goes down, and he inquires fully into the case. He makes his report to the Local Government Board, and, therefore, they make a certain Order, in, which they insert certain conditions as to costs, as to time, and as to the sinking fund, and any other conditions which a Committee of this House might be disposed to insert in a private Bill. Now that Order is published. The local authorities are perfectly satisfied with that Order, it is brought in and nobody presents a petition against the formation of it, and, therefore, the local authority have a right to assume that it is going to pass through the House without opposition, and they practically take no further trouble, in the matter. The Local Government Board, as a matter of form, pass the Bill as an unopposed Bill, and if it goes before the Chairman of Committees, as an unopposed Bill would go, I have always thought that no substantial alteration could be made in a Bill of that description. But that is not necessary for my argument. Supposing some local person, or some other local authority interested in this Provisional Order, proposed some change, and went and convinced the Local Government, Board that that Order should be radically altered, that some main provision should be altered, or some new power should be put in, or that you must strike out some restriction imposed, or impose some restriction which should not be imposed, and all this without any communication with the local authority interested, even after the Bill has been formally passed by the Unopposed Committee. Now, does this House intend any official of this House—I will not exempt even Mr. Speaker from this remark—any official—to have the power to alter private Bill legislation without notice to anybody, and without notice to any of the parties concerned. I think the privileges of this House are vitally involved, and this is a matter in which the House has a right to have an opinion from the Executive Government of the day. In order to elicit that opinion I beg leave to move—

"That the House do now adjourn."

The Motion just made is of a most unfortunate character because it will stop any further discussion of the question. Now, although I have nothing to say about the Motion for adjournment, I have something to say on the matter before the House, and upon the speech of the right honourable Gentleman opposite, and I hope he will withdraw his Motion.

The right honourable Gentleman has had much more experience than I have of Parliamentary procedure, and he must know that this Motion is the only constitutional mode of asking the Executive Government to take part in the Debate. Of course, if any Minister would rise and give an explanation, I will at once withdraw; if not, I shall press my Motion to a Division.

I desire to reply to the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. Certainly, if such a contingency as that suggested by the right honourable Gentleman had happened, it would be a grave matter for the consideration of the House, but what has actually occurred does not warrant any such fears. A Provisional Order Bill originates, as my right honourable Friend says, and is drawn up by the Department after a local inquiry amongst those who require a Provisional Order to carry on the work necessary to secure their recommendations, and those interested in the concern have the power of coming in and interfering and altering the Provisional Order, after which it is then sent to Parliament embodying important and perfectly independent schemes, and, as a common matter of business, these Bills then go before the Unopposed Committee. If, on the suggestion of the Department, or for any other reason such as that which my right honourable Friend has suggested—namely, an alteration of the contents, or of any item of the Provisional Order is made, so as to alter the relations of those concerned in the Provisional Order as originally drawn up, without notice to the persons interested, it would be a very flagrant miscarriage of justice in the practice and procedure of this House. But that has occurred in this case. In a Provisional Order embodying several schemes the Department which has control of the Order from the beginning always has the right to withdraw the Order in toto, or, if one part is detached from the other portion of the scheme, go as not to affect by its withdrawal the interests of the different parties concerned in its co-operation, that one independent complete part could be withdrawn by the Department. What my right honourable Friend has said is not the fact, because the Government can withdraw altogether a substantial part, of the Order if they like, since the Department are masters of the situation in the first place, and it can by the same right withdraw anything which it chooses. Supposing that they were entitled to come and say, "We will withdraw this," that is what happened here. So far as this particular site is concerned they withdrew it, and I frankly admit that it is within the competence of the Department to do so; but as between this House and its officer nothing has been done which can be made a subject of criticism as far as the Chairman of Ways and Means is concerned, for he has done nothing but that which the Department allows him to do. I admit that, to withdraw a clause that has reached that stags, it was proper to have given notice to the persons interested, and who were promoting the Order, and that was the intention of the Department; then those persons could have gone and argued out the matter before the Committee. This, however, is simply a Departmental question, and it is not a Parliamentary question. It is a question which affects the action of the Department itself in relation to the persons who promoted this Provisional Order. My right honourable Friend frankly confesses that a mistake was made. It was a mistake to allow this site to go into the clause at all; the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire says that it is a reflection on the heads of the Department to allow such things to occur. Did my right honourable Friend know when he himself was the Home Secretary every item in the list of subjects provided in the Measures prepared by the Home Department?

That is not what I said. I said that this was not substantially a Bill of the Education Department, but substantially the Bill of the London School Board. That is the argument I used. I said that the School Board put in the site, and not the Department.

That shows, I think, that, in the Bills initiated in the Department which was controlled by the right honourable Gentleman, he knows very little of the way in which they were prepared. But it is perfectly irrelevant to the argument. The question raised is that of the argument of my right honourable Friend. As the Vice-President has said, the introduction of this site was a mistake on the part of the Education Department, and they would not, if the heads of the Education Department had had their attention called to it, have allowed it to be introduced; but as the Executive Department is responsible to this House, they would be responsible for refusing to proceed with this Bill. The real matter of regret is that the Education Department, having resolved to withdraw this particular site, did not give notice to the School Board for London of its intention to do so. My right honourable Friend said he had not got time. Well, very little time is wanted, and the Bill could have been put off for a week when it came before the Chairman of Ways and Means. I regret that notice was not given; that is the one defect in the whole Bill. I do not see why my right honourable Friend the Member for Wolverhampton has used such an argument, for he has pointed to a much graver matter which would be of more importance to this House if such a thing had occurred. But he has confused the effect of the scheme; he has confused that with the variation and the details of the scheme. It would be absolutely impossible to conduct business by the Chairman if he exercised such powers, and it would be the grossest possible offence against the duties of Parliament. What has happened has been an error not noticed, which, after all, has not affected the final results of the matter, because the scheme would have been withdrawn if notice had been given. It is not a fact that they would have had power to appear before the Chairman. I think it is recognised from all parts of the House that this is not likely to be repeated, or else Parliamentary action would become rather an absurdity.

The right honourable Gentleman has tried to make out that this is a trivial and inadvertent error which the Department has subsequently corrected without injury to anyone concerned, and without in any way affecting the privileges or practice of this House. But it seems to me, Sir, and to a great many more experienced Members of this House, that something more serious is involved. What has been done here is this: the Chairman of Ways and Means has apparently, after signing this Bill—and that is a circumstance to which the right honourable Gentleman who spoke last did not allude—has made an alteration without giving notice to the Department concerned. Those who have addressed the House have spoken sufficiently upon that point, but we are entitled to know at whose instance, and upon whose initiative, the Chairman of Ways and Means acted. Knowing what has been said, I think we are entitled to have fuller light upon that part of the subject. The honourable Member for Bodmin has said that this is not a case of alteration in the Provisional Order that affects rights of property. I confess I cannot follow him in that. It is an alteration affecting the taking of land. How do we know that this has not been done at the initiative of a private property owner, or at the instance of someone interested in the Voluntary schools? We do know that some time ago the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had a Motion down to re-commit this Bill in order to exclude from the Provisional Order sites Nos. 10 and 23. Now site No. 10 has disappeared, and No. 23 remains. This is rather a singular circumstance, and looks as though the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich has directed the Chairman of Ways and Means which site should be struck out, or whether either of them should be retained. His Motion was withdrawn, and yet he seems to have secured something. Now, why was one of these sites taken out and the other left in? Instead of debating the matter in this House, there appears to have been some private and secret arrangement, and it is from that point of view that I venture to submit to the Government that the privileges and rights of this House are most seriously affected. This is by no means a case which we ought to treat as an inadvertent error of a Department which has asked too much, and then it withdraws this request. I think we are entitled to have a more explicit statement from some member of the Government than we have had.

The honourable and learned Member seems to suggest that there has been some communication apparently of a corrupt character with the Chairman of Ways and Means. That is entirely untrue. I conversed with the Vice-President in the ordinary course, and I anticipated that he would have to bring the matter before the House on the Motion to re-commit the Bill. As I explained before, when in the ordinary course the Government made the concession from the point of view I was maintaining I thought it was unnecessary to delay the business of the House, and, therefore, I took my notice off the Paper in the ordinary course. That is such a process as I suppose every Member of this House has been through, and it is a process which is constantly followed in the management of all Bills. In connection with this Bill there has been none of the mysterious negotiations which appear to infect the imagination of honourable Members who have spoken. I cannot help thinking that behind these manifestations of regard for the privileges and procedure of this House there is some other anxiety in the minds of honourable Gentlemen opposite in this matter. I rather think they entertain the hope that they will prevent this kind of thing happening again, that they will prevent those honourable Members who are interested in Voluntary schools from protesting against the erection of un- necessary Board schools, and prevent the Government listening with a just and impartial ear to our statement of the case. Those who take an interest in Voluntary schools do not desire to conceal that it is part of their policy to prevent the erection of unnecessary Board schools, and that they will use their position and influence in this House or in the other House——

For Mr. Hooley.

I do not understand what the honourable Member is referring to. I repeat, we will use our position to procure the excision from any Provisional Order Bill of any unnecessary school which the present Progressive majority of the London School Board desire to put up We do not mind Government time being wasted in discussions of this kind, and if honourable Members opposite think they will prevent any chairman doing his duty towards the schools of London by any display of impatience they make a great mistake.

After hearing the speech of the noble Lord the House will, I feel certain, have come to the conclusion that this is a more serious business than was at first generally supposed. I do not think, however, for reasons which I will submit to the House, that any fault, is to be found with the Unopposed Bill Committee. That Committee consists, as the honourable Member for Bodmin has pointed out, of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the counsel to the Speaker, and a Member of the House. The Committee has, in my opinion, a judicial position, and it is more or less at the mercy of the agents who appear before it, and, in the case of a Provisional Order Bill such as this, the agents for the Department which has control of the Bill. The Chairman of Ways and Means has, under the circumstances, no knowledge of the persons to whom notice should be given. There is no person before him who can tell him that notice should be given to the School Board, to this local body, to that person, or to anyone. The Chairman of the Committee has no means of judging on the point, and, as I submitted to the House some time ago, it would be a good thing if some independent officer could come to the assistance of the Committee under such circumstances. The Committee has undoubtedly judicial functions in cases of this kind, and I think it is most important that every person interested should appear before the Committee and give information. The honourable Member for Bodmin says this is a small matter, because, it is only the exclusion of a school site; but, as the honourable Member behind me pointed out, it is a very important matter, because it concerns the taking of land. The site in question was originally put into the Bill by the School Board, and afterwards adopted by the Department, passed through the House of Lords, and then brought before the Unopposed Bill Committee. Upon whom does the responsibility for this matter rest? Most undoubtedly it rests upon the Department. The Department ought to have given notice to the School Board, so that the Board's solicitor might have been there to give any explanation or evidence that might be required. The solicitor was not called upon, because the Chairman at the time had no knowledge as to who should receive notice. The Vice-President of the Council of Education says, "We wished to strike this site out of the Bill, but we had not time to give notice to the School Board." But the first duty of the Department was to apply to the Chairman of Ways and Means of the Unopposed Bill Committee, and ask for an adjournment, explaining the reason of the request. The London School Board originally promoted this Bill. It was in substance the Board's Bill, and, therefore, to proceed in their absence, and without giving notice to them as the persons most interested, is trifling with Provisional Order procedure. I venture to submit to the House that this is a much more important matter than it seems at first sight, and I hope the effect of this discussion will be to prevent any public Department proceeding again without giving due notice to every person concerned.

I rise in no spirit of hostility to the Government on this matter, but merely to point out that the whole system of procedure by Provisional Order has been brought into disrepute in connection with this matter. I would also remind the House that the Government introduced a Private Procedure Bill applying to Scotland. A Select Committee considered it and agreed——

Order, order! The honourable Member cannot discuss that subject in connection with the particular matter before the House.

I merely wished to say that the system of procedure by Provisional Order was recommended as a solution of Private Bill procedure, and is so important that I hope the Government will say something on the subject, and will not allow the whole system of Provisional Order to be brought into disrepute by what seems to be simply and solely the mismanagement of one Department.

There are two points to find fault with in connection with this question. The first is that, after this Bill was signed by the Chairman, it was altered. We should like to know from the Chairman of the Committee upon what principle that was done. It has always been understood that when once a Bill has been signed by the Chairman of the Committee it is done with, and no alteration can be made. Then there is the point why the Department did not make up their minds to have this alteration made sooner; and why, whether it was an important or an unimportant alteration, the Committee should alter the rules of the House and create a precedent by altering this Bill without notice? It is quite true that alterations have been made by the Department, as in the case of the Corporation of Coventry Bill, but there a fortnight's notice was given, and the alteration was made in the House, not outside. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich seems to have thought that we accused him of some corrupt interview with the Chairman of Ways and Means. But we did not accuse him of having any corrupt interview; what we complained of is that this question was dealt with outside of the House without the cognisance of the House; we also complain of the position taken up by honourable Members regarding what they call unnecessary Board schools, because we consider that the School Board, which was elected for this purpose, knows better than the noble Lord and his friends what school boards are necessary. I hope that some answer will be given upon the two points

I think the right honourable Gentleman has already spoken on the main question.

I spoke once on the Motion for the re-committal of the Bill, and once on the Motion for adjournment. What I was really going to ask is, whether it is the fact that we are going to be debarred from discussing this Bill after what has taken place, without any statement on the part of those who are responsible for the lead of the House? We have appealed over and over again for some statement as to the practice of this House in a matter of great importance, and we have had no answer on the part of the Government and those who are responsible in this matter. Sir, I do not see here the Chairman of Committees, otherwise I should have liked to ask the question as to what is the practice in respect to the alteration of Provisional Order Bills after they have been signed by the Chairman of Committees, without notice of the ground of any such alteration. That lies at the root of the whole matter; and it is a thing which the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin was either ignorant of or passed over. He fails to tell us how often, under his conduct, Provisional Order Bills have been altered in material particulars after they have been signed by the Chairman. If he introduced that practice into the House it is one I never heard of, and it is one which I know his predecessors and his successors have never adopted. If he is ignorant of the matter I am happy to enlighten him. I think it is a serious matter. I put it in this way: supposing the Provisional Order Bill is affecting a great landowner, and that great landowner has one of those ordinary conversations which the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had with the Department in charge of the Bill, in consequence of which the interests of that landowner are consulted without any reference to the persons affected by that alteration. Is that the practice which was approved of by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin?

My right honourable Friend has attributed to me that which I have expressly repudiated. I have said nothing of the kind—no such practice could be possible in my time, and there is no such practice now. What has been done is quite distinct from that.

Honourable Members will judge of the subtle distinction which the right honourable Gentleman has endeavoured to draw, but which no ordinary intellect can discover. What has been altered is a Bill which was substantially initiated by the School Board, which was adopted by the Education Department, which was passed in both Houses of Parliament up to the point of the signature of it by the Chair man of Committees, and, it is now admitted, on the private instigation of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich——

I find I was right in what I said just now. The right honourable Gentleman did address the House on the previous question. He was followed by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and by the Member for the Wick Burghs.

I am sorry, Sir, that my recollection was in error, and I apologise.

I am sorry, Sir, that I did not hear the remarks of the right honourable Gentleman; but I did, on a former occasion, give an explanation of the part I took in the matter. I acted as Chairman of the Unopposed Bill Committee in the ordinary way. No representations were made to me by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich; he never spoke to me on the subject, neither did the honourable Member for North Camberwell, who, I believe, was interested in the matter. I struck plan 10 out of the schedule of the Bill at the request of the Department, as voiced by the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council before the Bill was reported to the House——

After signature?

After signature, of course. I always sign a Bill before the schedule is taken, and this alteration was not made in the Bill itself, but in the schedule. But that is a technical point which I do not wish to lay any stress upon. It constantly happens that, although a Bill has gone through, I do not report it immediately to the House. In fact, to-day I reported a Bill to the House which I signed a week ago, on account of the parties not being ready. That is only another example of what occurred in this Provisional Order Bill. The alteration was made in due course, and at the suggestion of the Education Department, and of that Department alone, and the Amendment was reported in ordinary course. I heard the remarks which fell from the right honourable Gentleman my predecessor in office, and with the main part of them I entirely agree. There was one part of the remarks of my right honourable Friend with which I cannot agree, and that was when he spoke of having the parties before him and hearing evidence. I doubt whether my right honourable Friend ever did such a thing. I am sure I should decline to listen to anybody except the promoters of the Bill. I have no power to administer an oath. If any opposition is raised, the proper course is to send it upstairs, in order that evidence may be heard. There is a tribunal set up for hearing matters of that kind, and I have never heard of anyone in my position hearing evidence after swearing a witness and then coming to a decision. I would not take it upon myself, because I consider that any such course would be outside my duties, and I should respectfully decline to entertain it. I am compelled, in my belief, if the promoters of a Bill come before me and say, "We wish to strike out certain clauses," I am com- pelled to accept their statement and strike them out. I have no power to force that Bill to be gone on with. I a party comes before me and says, "I want the eighth clause struck out," I am compelled to do so. That is all that occurred in this case, and I need not go through the circumstances again.

Sir, the importance of this matter has not been diminished by the remarks of my right honourable Friend the Chairman of Committees. I wish to explain that if a matter was brought before me, as Chairman of the Unopposed Bill Committee, in which I thought that explanation or plans should be given, what I should have done would be to receive any explanation offered, which probably would enable me to deal