To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of deaths due to the use of electricity in mines or shafts from 1st January, 1902, to 29th May. (Answer.) I am unable to give the figures asked for without special reference to every inspector, to whom, and not to the Home Office direct, the accidents are reported. The particulars of such accidents as those in question are given in the annual Reports and Returns; and, unless some special object is to be attained, I do not think it desirable to call for special Returns from the inspectors at irregular intervals.—(Home Office.)

To ask the Lord Advocate, seeing that the farm of Inverlael, in the parish of Loch broom, Ross-shire, formerly supported many crofter families, and is now vacant, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of communicating with the proprietor with a view to the acquisition of the farm by the Congested Districts Board for the creation of new holdings. (Answer.) The Secretary for Scotland is informed that no part of the farm of Inverlael is now vacant. Some ten or twelve years ago a part of it was taken from the farmer and given by the proprietor in extension of crofter holdings. The transference of the remainder, after buying out the farm tenant, is now a completed transaction.—(Scottish Office.)

To ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to the fact that a petition from the island of North Ronaldshay, praying that telegraphic communication should be-established with the mainland, was refused consideration by the Post Office owing to the extensive nature of the work; and whether, seeing that the population of the island is over 400, that there is no medical officer there, and that medical or surgical attendance can only be procured after considerable delay, he will consult with the Northern Lighthouse Commission, the Scotch Fishery Board, and the Congested Districts Board as to the establishment of communication by heliograph, semaphore, or pigeon post. (Answer.) The Secretary for Scotland-is not prepared to initiate action in the direction indicated by the hon. Member. He will, however, be happy to consider any scheme for facilitating communication that may be laid before him by those interested.—(Scottish Office.)

To ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that there is now a vacancy in the offices of sheriff and commissary clerk at Ayr, he will, in any re-arrangement, consider the claims of Kilmarnock as a convenient business centre for the county. (Answer.) The new arrangements rendered necessary by the death of the commissary clerk of Ayrshire are at present under the consideration of the Treasury, and the whole matter will be duly considered by the Secretary for Scotland and myself, but I do not think it is at all probable that the commissariat of Ayrshire will be treated in a different manner from that of all the other Scottish counties.—(Scottish Office.)

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state why British consulate protection is no longer afforded to Afghan subjects in Persia. (Answer.) It was arranged between His Majesty's Government and the Persian Government in 1890 that the Persian authorities would receive in a friendly spirit representations made by British diplomatic and consular agents on behalf of Afghan subjects who might appeal to them. There has been no departure from this arrangement.—(Foreign Office.)

To ask the President of the Board of Trade, seeing that the overcrowding of omnibuses and tram cars is prohibited, and that the overcrowding of railway carriages causes inconvenience to passengers, and has resulted in accidents, will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will render railway companies liable to penalties in cases of overcrowding. (Answer.) It is not the intention of the Board of Trade to propose such legislation.—(Board of Trade.)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Horns Department whether he is aware that Mr. E. Dew made applica- tion to the Spelthorne sessions, Staines, on Monday, 5th May, for an exemption certificate on the ground of conscientious objection to vaccination; that, four of the magistrates being in favour of granting the certificate and four against, it was refused; and, seeing that under the circumstances two of the magistrates who were in favour of granting the certificate could have signed the certificate, whether he will state what action he proposes to take. (Answer.) I am advised that where a majority of the justices sitting in petty sessions are not in favour of granting a certificate of exemption from vaccination, it would not be proper for any minority to grant the certificate unless the other justices present abstained from adjudicating in the case. There is no action which I can take in the matter.—(Home Office).

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the names of the Departmental Committee he has nominated to inquire into the matter of accidents in mines; whether any of these gentlemen have any practical experience of coal mining or electricity, and whether any of them hold a first-class certificate; and, if not, whether he will forthwith appoint representatives of both the coal-owners and workmen to advise him on this inquiry. (Answer.) I have not appointed any Committee to inquire into accidents in mines. That subject was fully investigated a few years ago by a Royal Commission. The Committee to which I referred, in answer to a Question some days ago, was appointed to report on the system of notification of accidents, not in mines only, but in all industries.—(Home Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the fact that Mr. A. H. Stokes, His Majesty's Inspector of Mines in the Midland District, has stated that the two fatal accidents due to electricity occurring in his district during the year 1901 could have been avoided if, in the first case, an earth return had not been employed; and, in the second case, if the motor terminals had been properly protected, whether be will explain why, under these circumstances, he did not forthwith order an inquiry into these two cases, and why his Department made no request to the companies in question, to grant facilities for such an inquiry. (Answer) Only one fatal accident due to electricity occurred in the Midland District in the year 1901. Another, which is perhaps alluded to, occurred at Wyken Colliery in September 1900. In both cases full inquiry was made by the inspector with the result shown in his report. Every facility appears to have been afforded him to ascertain the facts, which were also given in evidence at the coroner's inquest held in each case.—(Home Office.)

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Order in Council of 15th August 1S90 applied to the abstractor, class of clerks on 20th October 1894, on 27th January 1897, or even on 14th September 1899, on which date an efficient established abstractor formally protested against being compelled to come under Clause 10 of that Order. (Answer.) Clause 10 of the Order of August 1890—as extended by Clause 18 of the Order of November 1898—became applicable to the Abstractor Class for the first time on 29th November 1899. But apart from Orders in Council there is a right inherent in every head of Department to retire an officer at any time at which he considers that the interests of the service make it desirable.—(Treasury.)

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that officials known as abstractors perform precisely similar duties as second division clerks, and seeing that the latter class of Civil Servant receives an initial salary of £70 a year, rising rapidly to £250 and higher, while it takes an abstractor twelve years to reach £100 a year and twenty-two years to reach the maximum of £150; will he take steps to obtain from the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury their sanction to an improvement in the prospects of abstractors, considering that abstractors have had training in Government duties as boys. (Answer.) The scale of salary for abstractors is not peculiar to the Post Office but is general for the various public departments in which abstractors are employed, and the Postmaster General sees no reason to make any representation on the subject so far as the officers of the abstractor's class in the employment of the Post Office Department are concerned.—(Post Office.)

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is prepared to give an answer to the petition, forwarded to him in February, from the indoor staff of the Grimsby post office, asking that a Home Office inspector might inspect and report upon the sanitary conditions of the office. (Answer.) The Postmaster General has received reports upon the head telegraph office at Grimsby, which is presumably the office referred to. These do not lead to the conclusion that the conditions of the building are insanitary; but he has called for a further report from the local medical officer of the post office; and when that has been received he will decide what further measures, if any, are necessary. There is no reason to suppose that the requirements of the Factory Acts, if they were applicable to such a building, are not fulfilled—(Post. Office.)

To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can now state the position of the seats to be provided for Members of Parliament, and their friends, on the 26th and 27th June; and whether, in the event of the Coronation procession not passing in front of such seats on the 27th, seats can be provided on the Speaker's Green. (Answer.) The stands for Members of this House, and their friends, to view the Royal processions on the 26th and 27th of June, will be on either side of the road leading past New Palace Yard from Bridge Street to St. Margaret's Church. A plan can be seen at Mr. Speaker's Secretary's Office. The pro cession will on both days pass in front of these stands.—(Office of Works.)

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why any allowance whatever is made to Volunteers from outside London, attending the Coronation ceremonies, seeing that their attendance is purely voluntary, and simply as spectators. (Answer.) An allowance is given as a concession in and of food for the men on a great public occasion, as was done at the Jubilee of the late Queen. It should be clearly understood that these Volunteers are in excess of the numbers required from a military standpoint.—(War Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what decision has been come to by the Colonial Office with regard to the matters referred to in the Petition of the inhabitants of Labuan concerning the British North Borneo Company. (Answer.) A great many points are raised in the petition, and I have not yet had time to come to a decision upon them.—(Colonial Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether any representatives from the two new colonies are to be invited to the Coronation of His Majesty; and, if so, if he can give the names of such representatives, and whether any of the Boer leaders will be included in the invitation. (Answer.) It is not proposed to take any steps as regards the representation of the new Colonies at the Coronation. Representatives from those Colonies could hardly reach this country in time for the Coronation.—(Colonial Office.)

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the services held at St. Saviour's Church, Poplar, in connection with the decease of the Reverend R. Dolling, including vespers for the dead, the celebration of a requiem mass, the censing and aspersing of the coffin, and the pronouncement of absolution; and that at subsequent funeral service the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Stepney were copes; and, whether, in view of the prevalence among a section of the clergy of such practices, the Government will, by legislation or otherwise, take steps for facilitating the enforcement of the ecclesiastical law. (Answer.) I am informed that the hon. Member is incorrect in stating that the bishops mentioned were present at the services described in the Question. On the contrary, the only service at which they were present was in strict conformity with the Prayer Book and was of the simplest possible kind. I understand that in wearing a cope on this occasion the bishops were acting legally. I have no information as to the character of any other services in this church of which the hon. Member complains.—(Treasury.)

I have to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can inform the House as to his proposals for the course of business.

As the House is aware, there has been some difficulty in arranging public business, owing to events which are present to the minds of all of us. On carefully considering our, position. I think it will probably be for the convenience of the House that the discussion in Committee upon the Finance Fill should be taken as far as possible in a block, and I think it would be the best plan to begin that discussion on Monday next. Further, I ought to say, in regard to financial business, that my right hon. friend is under a pledge to give an opportunity for a discussion of the Loan Bill at an early date, and I think the evening sitting tomorrow would be a convenient opportunity for taking that. At the evening sitting on Thursday there is private business of some importance, which will probably limit greatly any time available for public business. At the morning sitting tomorrow we intend to proceed with the Education Bill. On Thursday I should not propose to take Supply, but to move a vote of thanks in connexion with the troops in South Africa, and I may possibly be able to present some other subsidiary resolution upon a closely-allied subject. That would occupy part, at all events, of the morning sitting. So the course of business will be, the Education Bill today and at the afternoon sitting tomorrow; the Loan Bill at the evening sitting tomorrow; the vote of thanks on Thursday; private business and, perhaps, some other small matters at the evening sitting on Thursday; Friday is allocated to private Members this week; and on Monday, under those circumstances, I hope to begin discussion in Committee of the Finance Bill.

Might not the discussion of the Loan Bill be left to a rather later date than is proposed, so as to allow of longer notice?

My right hon. friend bas been simply fulfilling a pledge that I gave in regard to the Loan Bill. The evening sitting tomorrow is not only the most convenient, but the only possible, occasion when I could make a statement, which, I think, ought to be made to the House as to the, present financial situation.

in the chair.]

said he wished to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey. Its object was to secure the simplification of authority and the efficiency of the management as regarded the schools. He knew it was professed that the Bill was drafted with the same intent, but in his opinion it was very far from effecting it. Some time ago they were told that the Government had an open mind on certain questions, and he hoped they would show that to be the case in this instance. They were all agreed that simplification was very desirable, but he maintained that the Bill would not give them what they wanted. There were now two authorities dealing with education—the School Board and voluntary managers. But the Bill would give them in addition the education Committee appointed by the County Council, while local managers were to be appointed by the Education Committee, in addition to the ex officio members such as the local clergy. Thus the actual management of the schools was three removes away from the education authority, and he consequently failed to see where the simplicity came in. In fact the authority would have practically no control over the local management of the schools, and that he submitted was a very great defect. The position was very complicated in another way. There were three authorities, one to raise the rate, another to receive it, and the third to spend it. Could that be called simplicity of administration? The Amendment, however, would secure simplicity. It would make the local education authority and the local managers one and the same body, and it would secure the necessary local knowledge. County councillors were drawn from a very wide area and if parish councillors were substituted for them as the authority, the hon. Gentleman would get on the school management men living on the spot and interested in the success of the schools. They would be the best possible persons to place in control.

said he scarcely thought the Amendment was proposed in earnest. Could it really be intended to be suggested that the Parish Councils should be the authority for both primary and secondary education? He would point out that Parish Councils did not exist in every district, and that the Amendment would consequently leave some districts without any education authority. He thought that, in these circumstances, it was hardly worth while to discuss the Amendment further. No one would suggest that a Parish Council would be a proper authority to deal with secondary education.

suggested that the right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension. The power of the Parish Councils would be confined to elementary education, and there was no idea of setting them up as authorities to deal with secondary education. In his opinion, it would be impossible to establish a thoroughly efficient system of education unless they secured in some way the co-operation and sympathy of all the people in a locality, not that of mere sections. He could not believe that with the present divergence of authority the Bill would secure that end, unless they brought the Parish Councils into a position of being able to share in the management of the schools of a locality. Speaking as a Welsh Member, he would like to make it clear that they had no lack of confidence in their County Councils, but, at the same time, there was a great deal to be said in favour of setting up the proposed machinery in the Bill. They believed that the Amendment would, have the effect of bringing into play on behalf of elementary education the interests most concerned and the people best fitted by local knowledge to deal with it.

thought the right hon. Gentleman had hardly given the arguments of the mover of the Amendment the consideration they deserved. It was quite true that in many portions of the country there were no Parish Councils, but there were Parish Meetings which could arrange to undertake the work. He would like to point out that the Amendment moved in the direction of popular representation, and he would be very glad to see some Amendment accepted whereby people in every locality could, through their duly elected representative, have some control over the schools. That was the object of the Amendment, and it raised a question of the most vital importance in connection with educational work. It was desirable to bring it into harmony with the local organisations of the people in every district, and he hoped that in the transformation which the Bill would undergo, the Parish Councils would be given some share in the management of parish schools, and that the elected representatives of the people would have some control over the education of the children. He could conceive no object more worthy of the sympathy and support of the right hon. Gentleman.

quite agreed as to the importance of bringing the parish into our educational system, but that was not the, proposition embodied in the Amendment. That proposed to make the parish the sole educational authority for all purposes. He did not think they could rely on small local authorities to provide all that they wanted. They desired to improve the education in their villages, and to do that they required more than the mere local interest which that proposal would bring into co - operation. First, money was needed and that was best obtained by means of a county rate. Next they wanted to receive the services of men of ability, and the wider the area of the choice the better chance of getting them, and the last thing necessary was local interest which the Amendment would alone provide. There should be some central authority over and above the parish, and he hoped that later on it would be possible to give under the Bill the Parish Councils a share in the local management. This proposal went a great deal further, and, under the circumstances, he could not support it. Some of his friends on that side of the House were rather uneasy about making the County Councils the authority for controlling education. They seemed to fear that the Councils would be too reactionary. It was, however, necessary to adopt progressive instincts in the matter of education, and they could not rely upon so small a local authority as the Parish Council providing that progressive, or on having that breadth of view, that largeness of mind, and that bigness of opportunity which was essential to a progressive policy. He, therefore, hoped that the Amendment would be rejected.

said he perfectly; understood the object of the Amendment, and he had considerable sympathy with the views which had been expressed by the mover, but he did not think it was a very practical proposal taken in connection with other parts of the Bill. It was supported by many of his hon. friends on the ground that they ought to use almost any means of introducing popular control over elementary education, a view with which he heartily sympathised. He hoped that when they came to the question of the schools themselves and their managers they would be able to induce the Government to allow the Parish Council, or, at all events, the ratepayers, the parents, to have a much larger voice in the matter than was given under the Bill. There were several considerations which made this Amendment inadvisable, and among others there was this—that there was a large number of parishes throughout England, parishes restricted in area, in which the Parish Councils would not approach the ideal authority to which the power proposed by this Amendment should be entrusted. He hoped, therefore, having obtained the satisfaction of a considerable amount of sympathy for his Amendment, the hon. Member would not trouble the House to go to a division.

said he did not quite agree with his right hon. friend who had just spoken that the Parish Council would be a good authority for educational purposes.

I did not say so.

said it would be an infinitely better authority than that proposed in the Bill. It had been suggested that the Parish Council lacked breadth of view and bigness of opportunity. He, as a parish councillor, entirely repudiated those charges, and he did think that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Education, instead of dealing with the Amendment in so perfunctory a manner, should have told them what the Government intended to do in regard to bringing in the Parish Councils, which certainly had some local interest in the matter. How did the right hon. Gentleman expect the schools to be managed if the Bill were carried in its present form? There were something like 560 schools in Devonshire. How could a county educational authority possibly manage them all? Did the Government intend to give the parish any sort of direct responsibility in a matter in which they ought to have some voice? The Parish Councils after all were a directly elected authority. In many parishes, no doubt, they had very little to do; but the proposal in the Amendment would enable them to usefully utilise their energies, and the Government might very well give them power of supervision over the local managers.

Order, order! The hon. Member is rather anticipating a discussion which is to come on at a later stage, as to what is to be the authority.

said he would only add that, in his opinion, they ought to know what were the intentions of the Government with regard to giving the Parish Councils a direct popular interest in education.

said he too thought that the Government would have taken this opportunity of bringing the Parish Councils into more direct connection with educational work. They were the representatives of the people in the parish, and, therefore, ought to have a controlling voice in the management of the schools. There was no intention of making them the authority for secondary education, but if the representatives of the people in the locality were given a direct interest in the schools of the parish, many injustices which were now constantly heard of would soon be got rid of. The had received a letter from a teacher stating that he had played the church organ for twelve years, and had never been a single Sunday out of the parish during that period, and that if he wrote a history of the grievances of teachers it would fill a volume. Supposing the Parish Council had a direct official connection with the school, such grievances would be entirely impossible; the moral sense of the community would be brought to bear on the schools, and their management; and if the parents or the teachers had grievances they would be brought to the knowledge of the Parish Council. Moreover, it would bring the public in the locality into direct living interest with the schools. What was the secret of the success of the American school system? Was it not that in every district the people were associated, either directly or through their representatives, with the management of the schools, and they were willing to subscribe to objects in connection with the schools. At present a large number of people in England and Wales entirely withheld their subscriptions, simply and solely because neither as ratepayers nor through their representatives had they any say in the management of the schools. So far as secondary education was concerned, such a proposal would, he admitted, be entirely impracticable. In order to carry out the supervision of technical education, a certain number of parishes should be associated together, and the county was the best unit. But so far as elementary education was concerned the representatives of the locality ought to have some voice in its management. The Parish Council ought to be able to obtain some measure of control, and thereby promote the higher interests of education.

said he wished to point out to his hon. friends how thoroughly impracticable the Amendment was. He himself represented a constituency which contained eighty-five parishes, many of them only containing from fifty to seventy electors. Many parishes had Parish Councils, but a large number had not; and further there was not a school in every parish. Therefore, if the Amendment were to be practical there should be some proposal to group parishes. Feeling on that side of the House was in favour of some kind of parish representation on the management on the lines suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick in his speech on the Second Reading. He thought it would facilitate the progress of the Bill if the First Lord of the Treasury would indicate that he was prepared to make some concession in the matter at a later stage of the Bill.

said he thought there was some misapprehension in reference to the object of the Amendment. He did not understand that its object was to make the Parish Council the supreme educational authority. His hon. friend had an Amendment later providing that the County Council should be the supreme authority as far as education was concerned, and, therefore, his object was not to make the Parish Council supreme, but to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick which had found support among educational experts, and which was that the Parish Council should be utilised in the management of the schools. That was an object which would commend itself to every hon. Member on that side of the House. He thought his hon. friend had served his purpose by having a discussion on the Amendment, though it would not be possible to have a fair and square division on it at that particular stage. He would there fore suggest to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment and move it later, when the question of the management of the schools arose.

I entirely agree with what has been said by my hon. friend the Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs, and I entirely sympathise with the view expressed by my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Parish Councils should be introduced into the management of the schools. That is a perfectly sound principle, and I hope it will be carried out when we come to the question as to how the authorities should be constituted. That being so, I hope my hon. friend will withdraw his Amendment, until we come to deal with the management of the schools.

said that after what had been stated he would withdraw the Amendment.

The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, is, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "and of every county borough." That was disposed of last night.

said that the Amendment disposed of last night dealt with a number of authorities besides county boroughs, and he then ventured to express the hope that he would have an opportunity of raising in a definite form the question that county boroughs, and the county boroughs only, should be taken out of the scheme.

The hon. Member evidently thought from his speech last night that the Amendment he then supported covered the Amendment on the Paper. That was the point on which he addressed the Committee. If the hon. Member will look at his Amendment in page 16, he will see that the first words are, "In every county borough." Yesterday the Committee decided that in every county borough the School Board was not to be the authority, and the greater includes the less. That seems to me to dispose of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

said that he used the words "School Board," but he did not imagine that School Boards would be elected in the future on the basis they were elected at present, and in speaking on the general proposition he said he hoped he would have an opportunity of dealing with the exclusion of the county boroughs from the scheme.

I must attach to the words "School Board" the meaning ordinarily attaching to them. In the future the words may mean something else, but at present I consider the Committee have disposed of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

said he desired to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Loughborough Division. Its effect would be to postpone until the County Councils had been reelected the consideration of the matters entrusted to them under the Act. He submitted that that was a very important and perfectly fair proposition, The present County Councils were elected to discharge duties imposed on them under the present statutes. When they were elected no one imagined that they would have to deal with schemes for education, and that they would be called on to undertake the very important duties to be committed to them under the Bill before the Committee. If the county electors knew that large questions affecting elementary and secondary education would have to be dealt with, they might have re-considered their decision. He admitted that the Amendment would require a great deal of consequential alteration, but he submitted that the Committee should have regard for the principle of the Amendment, which was that the electors should have the right to choose men who would have, for a considerable period, the management of both elementary and secondary education. If the Bill passed as it stood, the present County Councils would be called upon to frame schemes which would afterwards have the affect of an Act of Parliament, and which could only be altered by a Provisional Order. It was, therefore, only right that the county electors should have the opportunity of choosing men for that particular purpose. He begged to move.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press this Amendment, because it would be seen on consideration that it was in applicable to many of our local authorities, and was quite unexampled in our legislative methods. The hon. Gentleman proposed that the County Councils should be re-elected before having thrown on them the duties under this Act. That was clear and definite as regards counties, but not as regards boroughs. Under the Amendment, three years must elapse before the Bill became operative in boroughs. But he had no wish to rest his case on the Amendment alone; he rested it on a broader ground. He thought it was inconvenient in itself to delay the question for three years; he saw no object in differentiating between the counties and the boroughs. He went further; this was an entire innovation in dealing with great assemblies of this character. The House must necessarily, in the course of time, throw entirely new duties on these bodies, such as were never contemplated when they were elected, and it was an entire innovation to suggest that when new duties were thrown upon them they should require re-election before they undertook the duties. No precedent existed for such a suggestion. Were the duties given to local authorities under the Bill so absolutely novel that a change in the constitution of those authorities was absolutely necessary? After all, it must be remembered that these bodies carried out this great educational work, of not indeed primary education, but what was believed to be-primary education, before the Cockerton judgment was delivered. Those duties were thrown upon these bodies without requiring the re-election of the whole body, and he trusted the House would not think it necessary, for so elementary a provision of the Bill, to adopt the unprecedented course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

urged that there was much to be said in favour of giving the ratepayers time to consider whether their elected representatives were to undertake these duties. What educational work the local authorities now discharged was a mere trifle compared with the work they were to be asked to undertake with regard to secondary and technical education, and the instruction of the teachers, and, above all, primary education all over the country. He thought the right of the ratepayers to an opportunity for considering so great a subject as this should be safeguarded.

pointed out that if the First Lord of the Treasury looked at Clause 20 of the Bill he would see that it gave the Board of Education liberty to do things which, up to now, the right hon. Gentleman had said was an innovation of the law. The right hon. Gentleman could not have understood the purport of Clause 20. Why was the Board of Education to have power to defer the operation of the Bill until twelve months after March 26th, 1903? Was it not intended by that that there should be an election? This was a matter that would have to be explained. He had no doubt in his mind that the intention of not allowing the Act to come into force until then was that there should be an election. The right hon. Gentleman had said this was an innovation, but he thought it was essentially a matter upon which the ratepayers should express an opinion as to whether these bodies should take over the duties of elementary education or not.

said that the delay provided for in Cause 20 was simply to enable the scheme to be prepared. It would be impossible to administer this Bill until the central authority was formed, and that must take some time. The date chosen was probably that which marked the close of the financial year. The result of the Amendment would be to put off the operation of the Bill for two years.

said he felt compelled to take a division on this Amendment, unless the First Lord of the Treasury would accept it. The persons who would form the new educational authority had never been elected for the particular purpose prescribed by this Bill. The First Lord of the Treasury said that these authorities had heretofore had some educational work to carry out. That was so in certain districts, but the County Councils had certainly had no educational work to perform so far as primary education was concerned, and it was only fair that the ratepayers should decide who should be their representatives on the Educational Board. If they took the Borough Councils as at present constituted, they would probably eliminate from the Education Committee some of the most expert educationists in the country. Of course, the Opposition were not at all pleased with the principle of the Bill, believing that as drafted it would not conduce to a good, moral and intellectual education, but this Amendment did not affect the principle. It was simply an Amendment dealing with a detail of the Bill, viz., giving to rate-payers the right they demanded, and the opportunity of saying who should be their representatives in arranging for the education of their children in the near future. He, therefore, appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to accept the Amendment.

said as he understood it was intended by the Bill to have new County Councils elected. With the experience which they had already had, the existing County Councils were quite competent to deal with this matter. The Shropshire County Council had spent £10,000 on the purposes of education, and he failed to see any reason for postponing the operation of the Bill until the new Council had been formed to carry out another portion of the educational scheme. He saw no reason whatever for postponing the bringing into force of the scheme of the Government on the ground which had been suggested.

said the hon. and gallant Gentleman had omitted to notice that the £10,000 administered by the County Council of Shropshire to the satisfaction of the ratepayers was not raised out of the rates of the county, but came out of the "whisky money." When the ratepayers of a County Council district were asked to rate themselves to the extent of 8d. or 10d. in the £—which many believed would be the result of the Bill—it was only right and fair that they should have an opportunity of saying whether or not they desired the Bill to be adopted. If the Government changed their mind with regard to optional principle, it might be a different matter, but, so long as the original intention of the Government was adhered to, it was obvious that such an opportunity as the Amendment suggested should be given to the people of the district concerned.

pointed out that while the County Council would have to frame a scheme by which the education authority would be selected, he could discover no provision in the Bill by which that authority could be removed. Possibly it would go out of office with the County Council, but at any rate, the nominated portion would apparently be a permanent body. From that point of view, it was desirable that the ratepayers should have some voice in the election of the body. It had also to be borne in mind that the duties were of an altogether different character from those connected with, technical education. It was impossible to make any such comparison as that suggested by the First Lord of the Treasury and the hon. Member for Newport, between the work of the Technical Education Committee and the management of both primary and secondary education. The argument that there was no precedent for waiting for an election before fresh duties were devolved on these local authorities was not a good one, because there was no case in which duties of so opposite a nature to those ordinarily discharged by the County Council had been so devolved. As the Bill provided an option, the electorate surely had a right to instruct the representatives as to whether or not they desired them to take over the duties in question. This being only a detail, though an important one, the Government would do well to yield to the strong reeling which had been expressed in regard to the matter.

agreed that the electors ought to be consulted before a Council saddled itself and its successors with duties and responsibilities which there was no idea of their having to undertake at the time they were elected. If the Government really believed the Bill would be acceptable to the ratepayers, why should they be afraid of allowing them an opportunity to make up their minds on this point?

said that, if the option was to be preserved, the manner in which that option should be exercised would be a matter for the serious consideration of the Government. It might be desirable for the Government to consider whether there should not be some opportunity for the people definitely to express their opinion on the point before the Council exercised the option. But the proper time to discuss that matter would be when Schedule I. was before the Committee. In that schedule it provided for a calendar month's notice being given of the meeting, and so on, and it might also be provided that the meeting should not be held until after such and such an election had taken place. The present, however, was not the proper time for discussing such a proposal.

thought the hon. Member had candidly admitted that there was a great deal to be said for the Amendment on the basis of the retention of the option. Having regard to the statement of the First Lord in introducing the Bill, there was no reason to suppose that option was to be dropped; on the contrary, he believed the Government would retain it. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the practice of Parliament when devolving new duties upon local authorities, but he had given no instance of duties being devolved in which the authorities had an option as was now proposed. When local authorities had to undertake new duties nolens volens, the case was entirely different from that in which they had an option. That fact gave strength to the contention that the electors should have an opportunity of saying whether or not their local authority should undertake these duties, and such an opportunity was all the more necessary in view of the great difference of opinion which existed on the part of the local authorities themselves. The electors had a right to choose the persons who should start this machinery. The first two or three years would be the vital and determining period, and it was most important that the electors should have the opportunity of putting on the Councils men whom they knew to be competent to deal with educational questions. Moreover, if the School Boards were to go, the men who had served on those bodies ought to have a chance of getting on the Borough Councils.

contended that, as the Bill would effect a complete revolution in our educational system, they ought certainly to have an opportunity of consulting the electorate in order that the ratepayers might say who should be the men to form the first authority. That was a matter of principle, but there was a practical matter also which had not yet been referred to very much, and which was important. Hitherto the County Council election had been exceedingly slack. In his own constituency at the election before last there was only one contest, whereas at the last election there was no contest at all. If they had known that an Education Bill such as this was going to be brought forward there would have been a contest in every district. They had a right before this Rill was put into force to have a contest in order to settle certain questions.

said he deplored the backward condition of this country in regard to education as much as any one, but the Committee must remember that rash haste was half-sister to delay, and if there was delay here, it was upon the stubborn head of the Government, because they had not allowed the county boroughs to have any voice in this matter. There was only one precedent for this proposal, and that was the Metropolitan Board of Works, which very rapidly went to pieces because of the powers thrust upon it. It was physically impossible in the county boroughs for this work to be taken on by the councils, and it would all end in muddle. The Members of the Government belonged to an aristocratic class. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] That was not his view, but the opinion of the Vice President of the Council, who, on the 23rd of December, 1897, said at Bristol that the members of the Government belonged to an aristocratic class who believed that certain functions in modern civilised life were best performed by ignorant people.

I wish the hon. Member, when he does me the honour of quoting my words, would quote them correctly.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman had corrected the newspaper report.

No.

said it was about time he did. He did not believe that the Government desired to put back the education of the country to the extent that was adumbrated in the quotation he had just made. The First Lord of the Treasury talked about the small amount of work which the councils did now, and it had been said that the Shropshire County Council were now spending £10,000 a year upon education. Take Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. Each of these cities had 100,000 elementary school children to attend to, and 2,000 or 3,000 school teachers in their service. Each of these cities annually expended not £10,000, but £250,000, upon education without the voluntary schools, and the work, both financially and administratively, was much more detailed than the municipal work, and in all its bearings it was equal to the work which the councils now carried out. Was it conceivable that those cities could have all this extra educational work transferred to them, and not have a breakdown? This educational leap in the dark was the most portentous this country had ever taken without consulting the localities concerned. He wished the Government to go back to the position which they took up on this question in 1896. What he asked for was that the great county boroughs should be consulted. Already a member of these boroughs had said that they did not want this Bill. Naturally the School Boards would say that they did not want the measure because they did not wish to be deprived of their present functions. The Cardiff City Council, by thirteen votes to six, passed a resolution to the effect that any new legislation should create a single authority popularly elected, solely for educational purposes, to control the work of elementary, technical, and secondary education. The Gloucester City Council, by nineteen votes to twelve, passed a resolution welcoming the principle contained in the Bill, that all elementary education should be maintained out of the public funds lent, declared the measure unsatisfactory, because amongst other things it did not vest the control for education both primary, secondary, and technical, in a local authority, directly representing the ratepayers. Cardiff and Gloucester were dead against the Bill, and Manchester modified the Government scheme to such an extent, that they could hardly recognise it. If this scheme were thrust upon these great municipalities, it would have to be repealed, and so far from promoting education the Government would have materially put back the cause of education. Because he wished county boroughs to have the option of deciding this matter he was driven to support this Amendment.

pointed out that if this Bill became law, borough councils would have double as much work to do, and much of the work would be of an entirely different character to that which they were elected to carry out. During the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, it was stated more than once that if only County Councils were given the power to deal with education, they would get much better and more able men to join them, and they would be able to do better work than the School Boards did now. What was the use of passing this Bill without this Amendment? By the proposals of this Bill the Councils would start their work in a false position. Men would start this educational work who were not elected for the purpose, and who would never have been elected for that purpose, if the ratepayers bad had the opportunity of deciding. Under this Amendment the work would not be delayed for more than a year, and they would start fairly, instead of extremely unfairly, without giving the ratepayers the opportunity of electing the men they would prefer to start the new machinery under this Act.

said he had no word to say against School Boards, whose work, so far from undervaluing, he held in the highest estimation. They had done admirable work; and though in some cases they might have acted illegally, he was glad they did so. He was possibly the only Member on the Ministerial side of the House who had spoken in favour of the optional or adoptive Clause. He did so on the Second Reading; and when they came to deal with it in Committee, he thought there was a good deal to be said in favour of the principle embodied in the Bill. Before any attempt to withdraw this Clause was made, he thought that at least there ought to be an expression of the general opinion of the House, in order to hear what might be said on both sides of the question. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had stated that the great county boroughs were unequal to the work, but he did not think that there would be any overloading of the corporations, because the work would devolve upon committees. The hon. Member opposite said that the boroughs objected to this work being thrust upon them, and he quoted three instances. He had in his hand figures which were wider than the Member for North Camber-well had quoted, and which would speak for the borough councils themselves. He thought the matter of the capabilities of county and borough councils for this work should receive some consideration from the House. With regard to the proposals in the Bill for secondary or higher education, they were unanimously in favour of assuming the duties. They had done their work in connection both with technical education and secondary education, not in the very narrow way which had been suggested, but in a manner which was extremely surprising, considering the way in which those duties were thrust upon them. Moneys were thrown at them which could not be used for other purposes, and without any preliminary training or experience they were called upon to perform duties in connection with education which they; had done extremely well. The development of technical and secondary education under the Technical Education Act had been of vast advantage to the country and most creditable to the authorities both of the counties and towns which had undertaken them. Judging by that experience and the value of that work, the Committee might feel assured that the Councils were able to undertake the duties now proposed to be placed upon them. He thought all the large county boroughs had rated themselves. [Opposition cries of "No."] He thought they had all rated themselves for this purpose with the exception of Preston. [Cries of "No."] In regard to primary education, two years ago a representative body of the municipalities voted unanimously that they desired to undertake the control of preliminary instruction in all those cases in which there were no School Boards. The various boroughs had been consulted within the last month by their association, and the replies which he held in his hand showed that they supported the general principle of the Bill without any reservation whatever.

There is an option clause by which they can leave themselves out.

said he was assuming that, but his hon. friend would permit him to say that the boroughs were almost unanimously against it. He, however, held a strong opinion on that clause, and he would take his own course when the time came.

May I ask whether the Councils have been consulted and whether this is the result of a vote?

said the association had discussed the matter and they referred it to the Councils. The Councils were consulted, and they deliberated on the matter. These were the replies from the Councils which had sent replies. [Cries of "Ah!"] He would give the figures. The county boroughs in favour of the Bill generally were twelve.

Out of sixty-three.

There were against the Bill, three; against taking over elementary education, one; in favour of Part III being made compulsory, fifteen; four offered no opinion; while the opinion of sixteen Councils had not yet been obtained.

May I ask whether that represents thirty-five opinions? I did not quite gather whether the replies were from thirty-five different County Borough Councils.

Certainly. The Committee had heard of one case where the Council was opposed to the proposal in the Bill, and he thought he was justified in making a much larger deduction, so that the Committee might not be misled by expressions, quite bona fide, of course, but which were calculated to mislead. The feeling of the boroughs was that the best plan for local government—the best means, as they believed, of promoting education and other subjects, and even of dealing with the poor law, was to concentrate upon the Councils all the work which was possible, and thus attract into them the best men, and the men of the widest experience in matters of local government. He firmly believed that if the proposed educational duties were added to those the Councils already had, they would be performed well.

said the hon. Gentleman had referred to the desirability of attracting into the Councils the best men to perform the duties which Were now to be placed upon them. In order to obtain the best men, the Councils ought to have the opportunity of selecting in particular areas those citizens who had specially devoted their attention to educational work. He and his hon. friends, therefore, wanted those disbanded experts in education who had been connected with the School Boards to have an opportunity of going into the Town Councils in order to carry on the educational work efficiently. All in this House believed that a body elected, ad hoc, for a purpose like education was better than one which was not elected specially for that purpose. They wanted in the County Councils and the Borough Councils members elected specially for the purpose of looking after education. The First Lord had raised the objection that only one-third of the members were elected annually, but any one who had any acquaintance with Borough Council elections knew that the election of one-third was always taken as an indication of the opinion of the ratepayers. It was not necessary to delay for the full three years in order to obtain the opinion of the ratepayers as to the type of men they wanted to administer education. In this Hill, as it stood, they had still the optional clause; and, in view, of that it was just and fair that the ratepayers should have an opportunity of deciding what line of action the Borough Council should take with reference to the adoption of educational duties, and also what line of action they should take with reference to the election of suitable persons for carrying on the educational work.

said it was very well known that Town Councils had a very good idea of their own importance, and he was sure many Councils would be prepared to undertake elementary as well as secondary education, even although there might be no educational experts on those bodies. It was right that the ratepayers should have some voice as to who should represent them in conducting a matter of such importance as elementary and secondary education. In 1888 a large number of County Councils were formed, and their duties consisted of little else than attending to roads and bridges. The personnel of the County Councils had remained almost identical since that time, but now that they were to be entrusted with additional work in connection with education, which would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, the people should have some voice in saying who were to represent them. The position would be very much aggravated if the Committee which was to be appointed by the County Council was to be a permanent Committee. What he specially wished to ask the Vice-President was this: In the event of the present County Council electing an Education Committee to manage their school system in the rural districts of the county, would that Committee be a permanent standing Committee of the County Council, or would it be re-elected year after year in the same way as the ordinary Committees of the County Council were elected? He also asked for information as to the tenure of office of the co-opted Members.

said it had been decided to discuss this matter when Clause 12 came before the Committee for consideration, and he should prefer to deal with the hon. Member's questions when it would be in order to do so.

said he represented a county which took a great interest in this Bill, and wanted to make it a real local government measure. It seemed to him that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman had only strengthened the case for the Amendment. It was obvious that the County Borough Councils had not been elected with a view to the administration of education, and their opinion would be only in point in regard to technical and secondary education. It would be of no practical value as regards elementary education. The great majority of the county boroughs had had School Boards which had carried out most effective and progressive educational work. These Boards had imposed enormous and increasing rates, with the entire approval of their constituents, and they had been elected over and over again with the intention of carrying out their educational system. To get a real, broad, and comprehensive opinion of the county boroughs on the education question, they must look to the sentiments of those gentlemen who had been elected on the School Boards—quite a different class, chosen, by an intelligent electorate, from those who would be elected to a County Council.

said that, as a member of the County Council of his own county, he could say that the last thing thought of was having a measure of this kind thrust upon them to deal with the administration of elementary education. They never had, hitherto, any Party questions in his County Council; and there were seldom any contested elections. In fact, there were only two or three contests in the whole county at the last election. But if they had to administer a Bill like the present, there would be a contest in nearly every division in the county. It was only just that the operation of the Bill should be postponed until the people had an opportunity of putting forward their views on the educational question. He was sure that the Bill, as it stood, would create divergencies, which would have been better left out of them.

said that this was an Amendment which a Government with an open mind would have readily accepted. It was not destructive to the principle of the Bill. Surely, from the Government's own point of view, it was desirable that they should get the best possible men elected to the County Councils. The First Lord of the Treasury said that there was no precedent for postponing the operation of the Bill; but could he find a precedent for entrusting large and important powers such as these to a body elected for quite a different purpose? Of course, there were precedents in which new powers were given to local authorities, in regard to licensing pawnbrokers and hawkers, or to the registration of common lodging houses; but could the First Lord of the Treasury produce a single case in which enormous powers of this kind were entrusted to even a representative body, without a new election? The First Lord of the Treasury said that even now the administration of technical education was entrusted to the County Councils. But what sort of administration was that? By this Bill the revenue which the County Council would have to administer would be trebled, and the staff which they would have to look after would have to be doubled or trebled. In fact, it was proposed by this Bill to transform the whole future of the County Councils, and make them the great educational authorities throughout the country. Suppose that it had been proposed to hand over to the County Council all powers in regard to licensing in the district without a previous re-election—it might have been found that the men to administer the Act were the local publicans The Bill proposed that new powers should be given to men who had been elected for a totally different purpose. The best men could not sit on School Boards and County Councils as well. As a matter of fact, the best men for educational purposes could not afford to join the County Councils. There were rural counties, like Radnorshire, where, in order to attend a meeting of the County Council in the county town, it took a man practically three days away from his business. But if education were to be made the real question at issue in an election to the County Council, a totally different type of men than now would compete for a seat, and be elected. They would be elected purely and solely for their educational experience. He, therefore, thought the Government should accept the Amendment.

said if this Amendment was carried it would entirely alter the personnel of the Councils. The figures of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Islington had left a rather misleading impression on the House. The hon. Member had quoted some figures to show that the County Boroughs were in favour of these new powers, but, as a matter of fact, he had only given the replies of twelve out of fifty-seven County Boroughs. Some County Boroughs had not had the question put to them at all. He had been a member of a County Borough Council for fifteen years, and he had seen how the work of that Council accrued, necessitating the appointment of fresh Committees year by year. At the present time it was difficult to get men to serve on the Councils because of the extremely hard work it entailed. If the County Borough Councils were compelled to take over the work of primary education, it would be impossible for them to administer it themselves, and they would be compelled to delegate the work to outside Committees which would not be responsible to the ratepayers. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President had told the Committee that many members of the School Boards were also members of the County Councils, but so far as his information went that was not the case. The School Boards and Borough Councils in Ipswich found it was quite impossible for men to be members of both bodies at the same time. He was perfectly sure that if the work of primary education was to be put upon the Borough Councils they would have to delegate that duty to others. This was an Amendment which the Government might reasonably accept. He thought the ratepayers should have an opportunity of considering this matter. To talk of the work done by the Committees of the County and Borough Councils as comparable with that done by the School Boards was nonsense.

said the hon. Member who had just spoken had addressed himself to the question from the point of view of the Borough Councils. The question, however, concerned the County Council far more than the Borough Council. In the case of rural districts, many gentlemen were returned unopposed by the electorate to the County Council, but the electorate had no idea that these new duties would be thrown upon the County Councillors. If the case was strong for the Borough Councils it was stronger in the case of the County Councils. When the elections took place it never entered into the minds of the electors or the elected that these educational powers would be given to them. To pretend that there was popular representation when they handed the matter over to a Committee of gentlemen elected for a wholly different purpose was one of the greatest delusions as to popular representation which could be conceived.