To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the proposed scheme for four lighted buoys and one lighted beacon for marking the channel off Avoch, Ross-shire, has yet been sanctioned; and, if so can he say when the work will be commenced. (Answer.) I understand that it is agreed that the proposed works would be of service to the locality, and I have no doubt they will be undertaken when circumstances permit. But there is so much pressure upon the finances of the General Lighthouse Fund for payment for urgent works of more use to the shipping trade generally that I cannot promise that the expense for the lighting of this channel will be sanctioned during the present financial year.—(Board of Trade.)

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the difficulty experienced by the public in securing a registered abbreviated telegraphic address in London in consequence of most suitable words having already been appropriated, will the Postmaster General state the number of addresses now registered in London and in the provinces respectively, and, seeing that the present charge is only one guinea per annum, will he say whether he has yet decided to increase it. (Answer) The number of telegraphic addresses registered by the Post Office is 25,048 in London and 39,267 in the provinces. The Postmaster General has not decided to increase the present charge.—(Treasury.)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to an accident which happened at New Shildon Colliery, Durham, on the 17th instant, by which a shaftsman lost his life; whether he is aware that the coroner's jury asked the coroner to intimate to the employers that they did not consider the engineman a competent person; and whether he will take into consideration the advisability of arranging for persons in charge of engines and boilers to pass an examination, and obtain certificates of competency before they are allowed to fill such positions. (Answer.) I have received from the inspector a report of this accident, and I find that, as stated in the Question, the coroner's jury expressed an opinion that the engineman was not competent. On the last part of the Question I must refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Select Committee of this House, which sat last session, on the Steam Engines and Boilers (Persons in Charge) Bill. That Committee, after full inquiry, came to the conclusion, for various considerations (including the fact that accidents due to the carelessness or incompetence of persons in charge of engines and boilers are few), that the legislation which would be required to carry out the hon. Member's suggestion was unnecessary.—(Home Office.)

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to the efficiency of the shooting of His Majesty's Ships "Barfleur," and "Terrible," obtained under the system of instruction invented by Captain Percy Scott, C.B., of H.M.S. "Terrible": whether the Admiralty will issue Captain Scotts models and apparatus to other ships in the Navy, so as to have the system thoroughly tried and reported upon. (Answer.) The Admiralty is fully acquainted with the excellent results of the firing on H.M.S. "Barfleur" and "Terrible," and with the still better results recently obtained on board H.M.S. "Crescent" on the North American Station. The Admiralty have recognised the desirability of extending the use of Captain Scott's system, and have taken the necessary steps to supply the apparatus to such an extent as may be necessary.—(Admiralty.)

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, since the latest dispatches relating to the case of the senior Cooper's Hills engineers presented last year, and the India Office despatch to the Government of India, P.W., 214, 9th June, 1901, any further communication on the subject has been received from the Government of India; and if so, whether he is prepared to lay a copy of it upon the Table. (Answer.) Some correspondence on a point of procedure, connected with the subject of this Question, has passed between myself and the Government of India, since the despatches to which the hon. Member refers were presented; but this correspondence has no bearing on the merits of the case, and I do not propose to lay it on the Table.—(India Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the following despatches relating to the case of the senior Cooper's Hill engineers, viz. : Despatch from the Government of India, No. 15, Public Works, dated 28th January, 1890; also copy of Sir George Chesney's Minute, written in 1890, referred to in that despatch; and Government of India's Despatch, No. 10, dated 30th March, 1899, covering memorials from Mr. A. S. Russell and others. (Answer.) I laid upon the Table last year Copies of a Correspondence containing the final decision of the Secretary of State in Council upon the subject to which my hon. friend's Question refers. These Papers contain a full statement of the case of the I engineers and the decision of the Government. There has been no subsequent correspondence which in any way relates to the merits of the case, and I do not propose to lay upon the Table any papers antecedent in date to those which have been already published.—(India Office.)

To ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can cite the precedents in Scotland and Ireland for a Law Officer of the Crown acting as counsel for one of the parties in an election petition matter where charges of corrupt and illegal practices were alleged in the petition. (Answer.) Cases are not reported on such points as these. I could not, therefore, possibly answer the Question without having first searched the records of the Courts in both countries, since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882. These records are as open to the hon. Member as to me, and I submit I am not, therefore, called upon to undertake the duty of obtaining the information he desires.—(Irish Office.)

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what was the total cost of the recent prosecutions at Ballinaford. County Roscommon, including cost of moving police; and who was responsible for ordering prosecutions under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act in these cases. (Answer.) The prosecutions were ordered by the Executive Government acting upon the advice of the Law Officers. The expenses amounted to £24 18s.—(Irish Office.)

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that a large proportion of the Roman Catholic inmates of Irish unions are females, the desirability of appointing a Roman Catholic lady inspector of workhouses in Ireland will be favourably considered. (Answer.) As at present advised, I do not consider that any necessity exists for appointing a female inspector of workhouses. The Local Government Board has recently appointed two additional medical inspectors for workhouses, both of whom, it is understood, are Roman Catholics. Of the entire inspectorate on the Board's establishment, seven are believed to belong to that religion.—(Irish Office.)

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Agriculture and Industries Department in Ireland, in opposing the Private Bill before Parliament of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, had been advised by the Solicitor General for Ireland, and that the Solicitor General afterwards was the leading counsel for the promoters of the Bill before the Committee of the House; can he explain why this was permitted; and will he take any steps to see that this is not repeated. (Answer.) The hon. Member has been misinformed. The Solicitor-General has never advised the new Department in respect of this measure, either directly or indirectly. Nor was he at any time invited to do so.—(Irish Office.)

To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the grounds upon which in 1900 the War Office, in the interests of the public safety, reported against the proposal of the Corporation to reopen the disused rifle range in Epping Forest; if he will state the length of the range and the distance at which the public roads cross the danger zone behind the stopbutt. (Answer.) The range was not considered suitable for use, as two very much used roads crossed the danger zone, one at 600 and another at 1,000 yards behind the stopbutt. The traffic on these roads is so considerable that it was held to be impossible to stop firing while people passed. The range was originally 800 yards, but was used latterly to 600 yards.—(War Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will publish the whole of the despatches relative to the operations in South Africa up to the 29th November, 1900, the date of the promotion of officers for service in the field under Lord Roberts. (Answer.) I am not in a position to make a statement on this subject at present, but I hardly think the date suggested could be adopted in any case.—(War Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that Volunteers when under canvas receive no payment, and are accommodated ten in a tent, and sleep on the ground without beds or flooring; and, seeing that Yeomanry while under canvas receive pay at the rate of 5s. per day, and have beds and flooring in their tents, and an allowance of £5 each for a horse; whether he will take steps to provide that Volunteers have the same treatment as the other branch of His Majesty's service. (Answer.) Volunteers are accommodated eight in a tent, or ten when in camp with the regular forces, the normal period for Volunteer encampment being six days only. Yeomanry are accommodated six in a tent, their normal period of encampment being for eighteen days. As regards bedding, waterproof sheets and wooden tent bottoms, the two forces are treated alike. As regards payment, a Volunteer corps receives a minimum allowance of 2s. 6d. a day for every volunteer under canvas, out of which the Commanding Officer may make payments to the men.—(War Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for War if, in making arrangements for the return of the troops from South Africa, he will invite tenders from all shipowners capable of undertaking the transport service, and impose such conditions as to accommodation and rations as will tend to secure the health and comfort of the men. (Answer.) A number of transports are already at the disposal of the Admiralty, and can be employed on the service of bringing home troops from South Africa. Should additional ships be required, only vessels belonging to lines capable of satisfactorily carrying out transport work will be engaged. The hon. Member may rest assured that everything practicable will be done to ensure the health and comfort of the men on the voyage.—(Admiralty.)

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why any Volunteers from outside London were invited to come up for the Coronation ceremonies when their services were not required; and whether, in view of the fact that many of these Volunteers have recently returned from South Africa, and have specially distinguished themselves there, he will explain why they have been asked to be present as mere spectators, and why they are to be treated in a different manner to other branches of the Service. (Answer.) The invitation was intended as a compliment to the Volunteers, affording them an opportunity of being represented at the Coronation. The arrangements for them are practically the same as for the Yeomanry, and are in accordance with the precedent of the Jubilee.—(War Office.)

at the Bar, acquainted the House that he had a message from His Majesty the King, signed with His Majesty's own hand, and he presented the same to the House, and it was read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members being uncovered), and is as followeth—

I have already collected the voices.

The moment you put the Question I said "No."

And so did many of us.

No such sound reached my ear until after I had collected the opinion of the House. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.

We will oppose it when the time comes.

Aye. tooth and nail.

in the chair.

moved an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea Districts making it necessary that boroughs as well as urban districts should have a population of over 20,000, in order to be qualified to act as the local education authority for the purpose of Part III. of the Act (Elementary Education). The Government Bill of 1898 provided that only county boroughs should have paramount local authority, but after considerable pressure autonomy was given to municipal boroughs with 20,000 population. In the original scheme of the Bill of 1896 there were 128 different local authorities, and the Vice president in the course of the debates expressed an opinion that that was too many. He strongly opposed the conclusion of anything short of county or county boroughs, but under pressure municipal boroughs with a population of 20,000 were included. That let in sixty-nine new autonomous bodies. The right hon. Gentleman very strongly expressed his objection to that increase to 197. But what was the position in the present Bill. They had 128 county and county borough authorities, 130 municipal boroughs with a population of 10,000, and sixty-three urban districts with a population of 20,000; in all 329 authorities. If in 1896, 128 were too many, and 197 meant the ruin of the Pill what did the Vice-President think of a scheme which provided 329. The right hon. Gentleman was their educational guide, philosopher and friend, and by reason of the position he held they were entitled to look to him for advice. How-did he reconcile his attitude in 1896 with his support of the present proposal. They had now given up the farce of endeavouring to secure one authority for all grades of education. At one time he did think the Government were sincere in endeavouring to obtain that, but they had apparently given the idea up altogether. He commended this Amendment to the consideration of the First Lord. It embodied the scheme he accepted very reluctantly no doubt in 1896, on the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Islington, and if it were adopted it would reduce the total number of authorities to 276. The great bulk of the Members who sat on the Opposition Benches were against him yesterday in his endeavour to strike out the proviso altogether. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen made an appeal for popular control of education, and he was bound to sympathise with him in that, but he would point out that the Bill did not provide popular control in any way whatever. It was vitiated in that matter from its very fountainhead. The right hon. Gentleman objected to striking out the proviso because he wanted to get as near popular control as possible. But the Bill as he had said did not secure that. For instance, Municipal Councils would not control education : they would have to appoint an Education Committee, the members of which would not necessarily be members of the Municipal Council. Then he came to the question of finance. Under that proviso they would have the county levying a 2d. rate for secondary education, and even more if it could get the authority of the Municipal Council; then they would get the excluded districts levying a Id. rate for technical instruction; thirdly, there would be the county or residue of the county levying a, county rate for elementary education; and fourthly, the autonomous districts would be levying their own rate for their own education. Thus there would be four systems of rating, which would only tend to make confusion worse confounded. He sympathised with those who desired to secure popular control, but under this Bill the narrower the area the less popular control they had. The people for whom he was pleading did not want exactly what they wanted. They did not want autonomy in the matter of rating, they did not want the right to rate themselves, but they did want the definity of an independent local authority. At a meeting at the Westminster Palace Hotel on the previous day of representatives of the authorities proposed to be constituted under the Bill a Resolution was passed which indicated that while they wished to control their our affairs in their own areas they were not prepared to pay for the privilege. They, in fact, passed a Resolution protesting against legislation which did not provide for a grant for education purposes from the Imperial Exchequer. The Government would probably have to find the money for this Bill from Imperial sources, and unless they agreed to do that these people would doubtless decline to rate themselves. He again appealed to the Vice President to state the grounds on which he supported this part of the Bill.

strongly supported the Amendment. On the previous day he expressed his views on this matter, and he now noted that his opinions were those also of the teachers of voluntary schools. While he adhered to the view that there should be one local education authority, he thought the Government might make a concession on this particular point by raising the population limit of the boroughs to that of the urban districts. What was the logical ground upon which a distinction was made between an urban district and a borough? Upon historical grounds he could understand the distinction, but not where education was concerned. What was the difference between an urban population, which happened to be called an urban district, of 20,000, and an urban population which happened to be called a borough, of 20,000? He thought if there was any argument at all for this distinction it would be in the opposite direction, because the urban district would be more likely to be progressive than the boroughs, which, from the fact of their being boroughs, were often moribund (they must be so or else their population would not remain so low), whilst urban districts on the other hand were virile bodies, set up in the midst of large growing centres of industrial life. In the course of the debate on the previous night it had been said by an hon. Member in support of the Government proposal that they were not going to force upon these borough councils the duty of becoming the educational authority; they had the opportunity of adopting the Bill or not. But he thought the time had come when in order to discuss the question of "the authority "with full knowledge, the Committee ought to know what was the policy of the Government and what were really to be the future districts of the country for this educational scheme, and whether this was to be an optional or a compulsory Bill. There was a very strong argument in support of postponing Clause 1 until they knew what was the meaning of Clause 5. He asked for some indication on the part of the Government as to what was their policy with regard to Clause 5, because the decision of the Government if stated to the Committee now with regard to that clause might entirely change the views of the Committee with regard to Clause 1.

said an Amendment on the same lines as that which now occupied the attention of the Committee stood in his name, and it was put on the Paper mainly but not entirely for the reasons which his hon. friend behind had stated when moving this Amendment. He did not think the Government recognised the meaning of the Amendment as it now stood, neither had he gathered from the debate what the object of this preference was. The First Lord of the Treasury when introducing the Bill had said its first principle was the creation of one educational authority, but that there would be certain exemptions made with regard to boroughs of a certain size. But no explanation had been given for the limit of 10,000. If it was the intention to maintain the existing privileges of the boroughs, then the limit of 10,000 was too high. On the other hand, if the object was simply educational efficiency, then the limit of 10,000 was too low, and the proviso would, in his opinion, produce results which would be detrimental in education. Take the case of Swansea He sat for about half of Swansea and for two contributory boroughs, Neath and Aberavon. Neath had a population of nearly 20,000; it had a School Board of its own, and, under the Intermediate Education Act of 1889, a separate board for the management of secondary education. If this Bill passed, the result would be that the Neath Borough Council would become the authority for elementary education, but not for the intermediate education. But in the case of Aberavon, the population of which was only 5,000, and which also had its own School Board and its own intermediate school under the Act of 1889, the proviso did not apply; the County Council became the authority and the rights and privileges of the Borough Council were lost. What sound argument could be adduced for such a principle as that? He submitted that if educational efficiency was the aim of the Government, this proposal could only have a detrimental effect upon the education of the country.

said he represented a constituency of 19,000 people, and in his opinion, if the Amendment of the hon. Member was carried, it would very prejudicially affect that constituency. He thought there was considerable difference between a borough of 10,000 and an urban district of 20,000 population. In the borough there was a close community of local feeling, which did not exist in a larger and more scattered community. It was for that reason that he ventured to raise a protest against the Amendment, and he hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would resist it.

expressed regret that he could not agree with the hon. Member for North Camber-well with regard to boroughs of 10,000 inhabitants. It was quite true that under the Bill they would not have direct local control, but at the same time in the appointment of the educational authority they would appoint those whom they knew would be efficient for the purpose, and certainly those within their own area, and they would be more intimately acquainted with the capabilities of those they appointed than the County Councils. If he had thought for a moment that this provision would militate against the educational efficiency of the district he should have supported the hon. Member for North Camberwell, but he was certain that it would not have that effect. It was quite true that there would be four systems of rating under this Bill, but there were four systems of rating under the present scheme. There was no increase at all. Many boroughs had admirable School Boards and admirable schools under those Boards : schools which were far more efficient than schools in larger areas. He therefore asked the First Lord of the Treasury to resist the Amendment, being in his own mind convinced that the smaller area would manage its educational interest better than a large area.

said that from the speech or the hon. Member for North Camberwell one would imagine the Government had wholly changed the character of the Bill, and that the Committee were dealing with a measure entirely different from that introduced two or three months ago, and which received its Second Reading just before Whitsuntide. The Government had never attempted to minimise or to conceal the character of the Bill or the particular object it sought to achieve. It was stated in the most explicit terms in his own introductory speech, and it must have been present in the mind of everybody who voted for the Second Reading. There had never been the slightest suggestion on the part of any Member of the Government that they were prepared to make the Bill the thing of symmetrical beauty desired by the hon. Member. The Bill was introduced as one to co-ordinate the various forms of education in the different districts, and the Government had always said that that object would be carried out by the measure as presented. He did not deny that the Bill would be more logical and symmetrical if no exceptions were made in favour of non county boroughs. But, after all, the Committee must not approach the subject as if the history of England began last year. They had to deal with authorities and facts as they found them, and there had never been a Government fit to carry on the affairs of the country which had not taken into account in the measures they presented to the House the actual and historic forces at work. The question before the Committee was simply whether the 10,000 should be raised to 20,000. One hon. Member had thought to advance the cause of the 20,000 by pointing-out that in his own constituency there was a borough with a population of just under 10,000 quite as fit to exercise the powers under the Bill as a neighbouring borough of over 10,000. No doubt that was absolutely true, but it would be equally true whether the limit was fixed at 15,000, 20,000, or 25,000. If the Amendment were accepted, and the limit fixed at 20,000, he had not the slightest doubt there were plenty of Gentlemen in the House sufficiently ingenious to find cases of boroughs of 19,999 inhabitants just as qualified to carry out the work under this Bill a other boroughs with 20,000. That course of argument could be followed whatever line of demarcation was adopted. The subject might very well lie left there, but there was one point it was worth while to bring to the recollection of the Committee. Parliament had already by its legislation emphasised the distinction between boroughs of 10,000 and those with smaller populations. A great many duties were exercisable and exercised by boroughs of over 10,000; and as the Government found that line had already been drawn, and apparently worked satisfactorily, they embodied it in the present Bill. He trusted the Committee would decide that this limitation, which he did not deny was more or less of a compromise, should be adhered to.

said the Leader of the House had been asked to explain why the limitation of 10,000 was now adopted, when in 1896 the limitation of 20,000 was taken.

said he had not been asked, and if he had been he would have said that the 1896 measure was quite a different Bill.

said that, in that case, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman now, and through him the Education Department—as apparently the Vice-President had disappeared from the debate, although a point was being discussed on which it was most important they should have the view of the Education Department—why the policy of 1896 was not the policy of 1902. Whatever limitation was fixed, isolated cases could be found in which it would apply somewhat harshly; but they asked the Government to say upon what general evidence they had determined in favour of 10,000. That was information which the Government ought to have, which was not at the general disposal of the Committee, and for which Members were entitled to ask. The right hon. Gentleman accused the hon. Member for North Camberwell of having charged the Government with concealment. It was putting the matter rather strongly. But there was such a thing as masquerading, and if he was describing what had been done he should say that the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters had masqueraded in the country under the guise of one authority, while the Bill they were putting forward was not a "one authority" measure at all. The Government had gone on the same principle as that on which people went ostrich shooting in South Africa. If a man approached an ostrich undisguised the ostrich ran away, but if the man covered himself with the feathers of a dead ostrich he was enabled to approach sufficiently near to the living ostrich to shoot it. The Government had apprdached the electors wearing the garb of a single authority, and the ordinary electors, having neither the time nor opportunity to work through the elaborate details of the Bill, were content to accept the assertions made by the supporters of the measure. That was the position the Opposition had had to meet. They were told the Bill gave direct control and direct authority, and what more could they want? They were accused of being false to all their pledges and principles, simply because the Bill was brought forward by a Tory Government. If that was not masquerading, he did not know what was. The Bill did not establish a direct authority, and when the Government had the opportunity of amending the measure to secure that object they refused to take it. The horn Member for Salisbury had said there was a closer unity between the population of boroughs than between the population of urban districts. What authority had he for that statement Taking the test of enterprise in local affairs, better administration would be found in the District Councils than in the Borough Councils. What distinction could be drawn to justify a limit of 10,000 in boroughs and 20,000 in urban districts? So far as he knew, very few distinctions could be drawn, and those that did appear made in favour of the urban districts rather than of the boroughs. He was not arguing as to the particular figure to be adopted; that was a matter upon which information would have subsequently to be asked from the Government. No reason had been put forward for making a distinction between the boroughs and District Councils, and the population ought to be the same in both. This Amendment was to make the number 20,000 instead of 10,000, and he supported this proposal because they would get better administration and better work for education when the areas were large rather than small. This would make a larger area, and therefore a wider area to draw educational experts from. There was another reason which ought to appeal to all hon. Members, and it was that this proposal would give a wider field for promotion amongst teachers, and that was a matter which was well worthy of consideration. In a small borough of 10,000 they would probably not have a scale of salaries for teachers, and they would be got as cheaply as possible. If they established large areas the education authorities would have to fix a scale upon definite progressive lines, and they would have a better chance of promotion to offer to the teachers. All those were arguments in favour of having the county as the unit of administration, and he admitted that they were not so strong when applied to a district of 20,000. There was no real distinction to be drawn in these matters between boroughs and urban district authorities. This proposal would give a better area for administration and for the promotion of teachers, and for those reasons he should support the Amendment.

said he supported this Amendment for two reasons. In the first place he did not think that a population of 10,000 was satisfactory, even for elementary education. Take as an example his own county. Amongst the small authorities was the town of Harwich, with a population of 10,019. They usually estimated that one-sixth of the population would be in public elementary schools, so that in the town of Harwich they had less, upon that calculation, than 2,000 children in the elementary schools, and only some three or four schools could make provision for that number. Was that a satisfactory area? What opportunity was there in Harwich for the teaching profession, or for establishing a higher elementary school? For elementary purposes alone, the population of 10,000 was far too small. Another reason why he supported this Amendment to keep up the level to 20,000 was because he wished to see the principle of the Bill carried through so that they would also become the authorities for secondary education, and 20,000 was quite small enough. As far as he could understand the question, the only argument brought forward in favour of the 10,000 limit was that it was a compromise. A compromise with whom? With whom had the arrangement been made? Had the Government pledged itself upon this point to the Non-County Boroughs Association?

No.

If not, why were the Government now insisting upon a particular figure of 10,000 for boroughs and yet taking 20,000 as the area for urban districts? He agreed that there were a few cases where sentimental objections had very great force. Their ancient history and the fact that they had in the past done their work well was worthy of consideration, although from his own personal knowledge he knew the right hon. Gentleman would not find upon investigation that elementary education is at all satisfactory in some of the areas which he now proposed as the authorities in the future. What was to be the position of the administrative counties with the best areas taken out? He would put this question to the hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmsford Division, who usually supported the agricultural interest in the House. What would be the position of the agricultural county of Essex with all those districts cut out? What money would that county have at its disposal for elementary education? There would be nothing but the agricultural districts left, and on them the whole rate would press for educational purposes. If the Bill was retained in its present form, it would have only one advantage, and that was an irresistible claim for the whole cost of education being placed upon the national exchequer, because, such counties as Essex could never satisfactorily discharge their duty with every available piece of wealthy rateable value taken out, and only the agricultural land to depend upon. For all those reasons he had no alternative, but to support the Amendment. He quite agreed that the account the right hon. Gentleman gave of the attitude of the Government upon this Bill was perfectly correct and fair, and nobody accused him of having pretended that this provision was anything but what it really was. But certainly be took it on the Second Reading that this was a detail for amendment. He looked upon this proposal as an attempt to secure the support of the representatives of those non-county boroughs. Had he regarded this point as vital on the Second Reading, he would have attacked it, but he looked upon it then as a detail which might be left to the judgment of the House without any guidance from the Treasury Bench. They protested against those small areas in 1896, and he believed their introduction killed the Bill of that year. He greatly feared that the Government were committing now, not as great an error, but something approaching it, as they did in 1896 by introducing these small areas and marking them out as fit authorities to exercise the powers under this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman would give them his own private opinion, he felt sure he would favour county boroughs if he could get them, and if not as near county boroughs as the necessities of the case would compel him to adopt.

said he desired to say a word against the Amendment on the ground that he thought all boroughs might be entrusted with at least primary education. He knew of one borough with a small population, which, from the first, had used the whisky money with excellent educational results, where that work would under this Bill be more or less destroyed. His hon. friend who had just sat down said he thought 20,000 should be the limit with the view of giving secondary as well as primary education. The Report of the Royal Commission distinctly had down that the areas for secondary instruction should be larger than for primary and elementary instruction, was distinctly a local matter. It had not been sufficiently realised that borough and urban life was distinctive in its character. A borough was generally more or less a manufacturing place, while the surrounding country was generally agricultural. His hon. friend the Member for North Camber-well had stated that the proposal in the Bill would have the effect of taking the rating plum away from the country districts, but the truth was that the educational work done in the boroughs was inevitably participated in by the surrounding district, and no differential charge was made in the boroughs for the education of children who came from the country districts. In dealing with these matters their object should be never to destroy but to build upon the existing work. He appreciated the work of the School Boards, and far be it from him to say a word against that work, but when a change was to be made in pursuance of a policy which some of them approved, that work should not be dissipated by the adoption of methods which would have that effect.

The speech of my hon. friend who has just sat down has come to me, I confess, like a refreshing breeze. Probably the reason of its refreshing quality is that he expressed the views which I have myself formed on the subject, and that is always a first necessary qualification of a pleasant speech. The hon. Gentleman has said, and I agree with him, that we should preserve as far as possible the existing educational machinery.

The existing work.

For primary education that exists in those localities, however small they may be; and, therefore, because that was my strong feeling, I voted for the Amendment yesterday which proposed to except all those small communities. Having been disappointed in obtaining that, we have before us on the Paper an Amendment that the limit should be 5,000 instead of 10,000. I was prepared to support that Amendment as the next best thing; but now another hon. Member has stepped in and moved to omit the word "ten "in order to insert "twenty." I should be sorry to omit the word "ten" with the view of inserting "twenty," and, on the whole, I think I had better look upon "ten" as my sheet anchor. As the Government are prepared to give us ten, out of fear of twenty, and lest a worse thing should happen to us, I think I may support the Government in this matter.

said the Committee would do well to take "ten," which was now in the Bill, and rely on the provision in the clause whereby, if local circumstances made any change desirable, it could be negotiated between the County Council and the Borough Council.

asked whether he was to understand that, in the event of the proposal of the Government being carried, as against the Amendment now before the Committee, they would not be able to move further Amendments on the proposal.

If the Committee decide in favour of ten, that will be the decision of the Committee.

Should I be in order in moving an Amendment to the Amendment?

I do not see how that is possible. The question is that the word "ten" stand part of the Bill. When the hon. Member has got rid of "ten" it will be open to him to move to insert another figure.

said they should not have much opportunity of getting rid of "ten" if the Government were still in favour of it. There was one point on which he would support the Government. He wanted to keep the boroughs in the matter of education as vigorous as possible. The hon. Member opposite had said that in boroughs of 10,000 inhabitants they did not have good education. He begged to differ from him. In his" own constituency there were excellent educational institutions, and the inspector's reports which he had in his possession testified to the satisfactory condition of education in the boroughs. He would follow the leader of the Opposition, and support the Government in this matter.

said he represented a constituency which would be closely affected by the Amendment. He should like to congratulate the Leader of the House on his opposition to it. He was glad the Vice-President had resisted the eloquent appeal which had been made to him to take part in this debate. They always enjoyed listening to him, but on this occasion, well—knowing how consistent he always was, and remembering the line he took in 1896, he was afraid that if he had spoken he would have accepted the Amendment. Boroughs, including small ones, had a complete and separate entity, and as such they were entitled to manage their own affairs. They elected their own local men to do so, and it was wished they had more power to have truer representative Government in this particular matter. County bodies having too large an area, did not know the wants of every local borough.

said that the point he wished to raise by the Amendment he now proposed to move was whether there was any sound reason to draw a distinction between education in urban and rural districts. Many of the urban districts were, in substance, suburbs of large towns. The district represented by his hon. friend near him was not a borough, but had all the characteristics of a great town, and except that it had no mayor, aldermen, or councillors, it was in effect a borough. There were some urban districts that had been constituted boroughs by local Acts of Parliament. While it was easy to distinguish, as a matter of law, between an urban and a rural district, it was quite clear that if one went from one part of the country to the other it would be impossible to tell where the urban districts ceased and the rural districts began. Why should a hard and fast line be drawn between the rural and the urban districts? He asked himself very often what could be the reason. He knew, of course, in regard to a largo part of England a rural district would hardly have a population of 20,000. But if a rural district in England or Wales had such a population, why were they to be treated in a different way to that in which they would be treated if they came under the technical term of "urban district?" The Government had deserted the principle which he thought underlay the Bill, and it was for them to justify this arbitary distinction.

was unable to accede to the suggestion that rural districts with a population of 20,000 should be given the same powers as were given to urban districts. He said it was perfectly true that in the endeavour to make a distinction between the urban and rural districts, they were confronted with many difficulties. They were told the rural districts should have the same facilities, rights, and privileges, as urban districts. But though the population of urban districts varied in many ways in its character, those districts were centres of urban life. Rural districts were more often than not composed of scattered villages which had not the community of interest in local life and government that the urban districts had. He did not think the Amendment would be found practicable if adopted. Another objection was that it would destroy the work of the County Councils.

thought there were many cases in which there was no difference between an urban and a rural district. In the case of Croydon, for instance, which was a rural district, that was a larger and more important district than many urban districts. And no doubt there were many other rural districts in the same position which would be damnified by this Bill. The population of the Croydon rural district was 40,000. As the Committee well knew, there were an enormous number of Urban District Councils for districts of under 20,000 population who were doing good work, who would now have their powers and privileges taken from them. But the argument used by the Government on this occasion was precisely the same as that used by them on other occasions in exactly opposite directions. It was one of the difficulties of the Committee that they did not know how to meet the Government. Another difficulty was that the Government would not tell the Committee whether the Act was to be adoptive or not. If it were to be adoptive, that would take away a great many of the objections now urged against the Amendment. If it was to be permissive, there could be no objection to giving rural districts of over 20,000 population power to become their own education authority, and he thought such an opportunity should be given to rural districts like Croydon and others. It had been said by the right hon. Gentleman that this would take the work away from the County Councils, but it was quite exceptional to find persons like the hon. Gentleman opposite, who was willing to become the Educational Minister for Somersetshire, to take over this work. Why should this work be forced on the County Councils when there was another body willing to undertake it? The Rural District Councils Association approved the Amendment. It would in some cases be very hard that a body should be obliged to become an Urban District Council in order to be entitled to act as an authority under this Bill. He believed that the majority of County Councils did not desire the enormous amount of work it was proposed to force upon them.

supported the Amendment, although he was not in full sympathy with all its objects. He supported it because it asserted once more the principle of something like local control over elementary schools, and a retention of the local interest in the management and the administration of the schools in their particular areas. He objected strongly to the whole administrative and constructive part of this Bill, and submitted that the scheme would be unworkable unless there was some form of local control. He was strongly of opinion that the local authorities should, so far as possible, not be isolated, but ought to be fused in a stronger co-ordination. In the rural districts there should be directly elected local authorities everywhere, but there should be correlated with the central authority dealing with education as a whole in the county. He thought the progress of education would be little or nothing unless something of this kind was done. He supported the Amendment.

said he also wished to support the Amendment, not because he was in favour of breaking up the country into small areas, but because he thought it was grossly unfair that under the scheme the rural districts should not have the same facilities given to them as the urban districts. There was much mistrust of education in the rural districts, because the people thought their children were not taught anything likely to be of use to them. He was apprehensive that if the urban district authority were made the only authority for education, that authority would do nothing to mend the matter; but if the rural district authorities retained control, they would so direct and mould the school as to create an atmosphere of usefulnesss. They would find out what the people required, and what was a help to them, and make the time spent by the children on education a great help to them rather than the useless waste of time they now considered it was. The rural districts were quite as eager for education as the urban districts. The complaint of the rural districts was not against education, but against the kind of education they got, and if the Amendment was accepted, it would remove this evil to some extent. He emphatically denied the suggestion that there was no corporate local life in the rural districts. He believed it was just as vigorous as in the urban districts.

said that surely the hon. Gentleman opposite would not be sanguine enough to believe that those who supported the Second Reading of this Bill would accept any such Amendment as this. The acceptance of the Amendment would simply rend the Bill to pieces and make it an absurdity. The whole drift of the Amendment was in the direction of School Boards, and he was glad the Government had refused to accept it.

said the process of absurdity had already been completed. He felt it would serve the Government very well right if the Amendment were carried. It would make the Bill an absurdity, of course, but not much more absurd than it was at present in giving autonomy to municipal boroughs of 10,000 and refusing it to villages of 20,000. These villages had not been put in, not for educational reasons, but because there was no large organised backing behind their claim for autonomy. If there had been, the Committee would have found the same treatment meted out to them as was being meted out by this Bill to the urban districts. At the same time, he was bound to point out to his hon. friend that his Amendment was financially impossible. They could not have a rural area of 20,000 population which would have such a rateable value as would enable it, with a reasonable rate, to meet its elementary school needs. He must therefore oppose the Amendment.

said what they had to consider was whether the authorities which this Amendment proposed were useful authorities. He was bound to say he had not been convinced, even by the arguments of ids hon. friend the Member for South Somersetshire that they were bodies or areas which were suitable for this work.

pointed out that if the Bill was carried as it stood the western portion of Glamorganshire would be practically disfranchised so far as having any effective representation was concerned. Cardiff, where all the Committees were held, was forty or fifty miles away from his constituency, there were 50,000 or 60,000 inhabitants in the district, and the train accommodation was such that it was a day's journey to Cardiff. Under these circumstances there would not be any representation in the sense of of taking an active interest in the administration of education. Nearly a I these districts had School Boards. They had not Urban District Councils, because they had not applied for the powers, but I they were go ahead progressive places, and carried on a great deal of useful work. The School Board areas were too small, but the Government were now going to the other extreme, and education would practically be thrown into the hands of the officials of the County Council, inasmuch, as in consequence of the district being so large, it would be impossible to get representatives from the small scattered parts to attend at the central place.

said he should vote for the Amendment because he had always believed in School Boards, and the nearest approach to them they would now be able to get would be the Rural District Council when it became the education authority. He agreed that gentlemen at present elected to those bodies had not much to do. But if they were given the power of managing the schools in their districts they would have much more to do, and the elections from that time forth would take place very much in the same way and on the same principle as at present prevailed in regard to School Board elections. He did not believe that any authority under the Bill would ever be nearly as useful as even a country School Board, but in the hope of getting something as nearly useful as possible as the old School Boards he should support the Amendment.

thought the fact that rural School Board areas were usually restricted to a single parish had tremendously hampered the work of the rural School Boards. He did not say that the work of the rural School Boards had been universally satisfactory. He was prepared to admit that there was no worse education authority than a rural School Board composed entirely of small farmers, who hated only one thing more than education and that was a rate. He knew of a rural School Board, which, when threatened with the withdrawal of the grant unless their schools were made more efficient, said privately amongst themselves, after the Inspector's visit "Let us wait until the grant is actually withdrawn, and then we will be able to see how little we need do to improve the education and get the grant." But while there could be no general argument in favour of rural School Boards, there, were many such Boards which, especially when elected in comparatively large parishes and by labourers who took an interest in education, had done work every whit as good as that done in the big towns. Was it wise of the Government to kill the educational efficiency they already had in these rural districts? Ought they not rather to encourage it? When these localities passed under the control of the County Councils the difficulty would be that in the great agricultural districts there would not be that local control which was so essential to the success of education. A much more effective control would be exercised if the Government gave the rural District Councils a direct interest in the work. At present these councils had very little work to do; what they had was largely of a routine character and it would be an advantage to give them something which would stir them up. The Amendment as it stood was doubtless a difficult one to accept, because it needed much more to make it really effective. But the Government ought to have taken these poor rural districts into consideration when framing the Bill. One of the problems in rural districts was to find education for the higher standards. In an ordinary village with 100 children, there would not be more than three or four in the sixth and seventh standards, and there was no possible chance of those children getting the sort of competitive examination to be obtained in a big school. If parishes could be combined, and the children carried from the village to the school, as was done in America, really effective education in the higher standards might be given. The Government had not attempted to make any arrangement of educational machinery which would give a really effective area for rural districts, and enable them to get managers or I committees who would have a real interest in the education of their respective districts.

was sorry the Bill did not make it possible to group together small villages for the purposes of forming a good educational authority. The rural District Councils, as a rule, were not the kind of body to which one would like to entrust the education of rural districts, their strongest feeling being that they must keep down the rates. He hoped that, in the course of the discussion on that Bill, there might be an opportunity afforded for bringing into the authority for educational purposes local representatives such as members of Parish Councils. The rural districts consisted of areas separated from one another, and in themselves were not very well suited to the work. They were areas in which local government had received a very small impetus in a progressive sense. He should be sorry to leave to those bodies a question of such vital interest as education. While he could not support this Amendment, he hoped they would have the rural district areas placed on a better footing.

said he represented a large agricultural Division, and he disagreed with some of the remarks made on the Opposition side of the House in reference to the administrative work of rural School Boards. In his Division there were some eight or ten School Boards managed by farmers who were excellent men of great administrative ability, and he could assure the. Committee that it was often an intellectual treat to address and be present at meetings in the little progressive villages. He disagreed also with what had been said by some preceding speakers, as to the inefficiency of education in small villages. The public spirit of the villages in parts of Lincolnshire to which he alluded, where the education had for the last thirty years been in the hands of the School Board, was clearly distinct from villages where the education during that long period had been under the control of one or two voluntary school managers. While he regretted that there was no power for grouping the villages together he should vote for the Amendment, on the ground that a rural District Council was in its constitution the nearest approach that they could get under the Bill to the body which had hitherto, particularly in his own division, managed the educational interests in some of the villages so admirably, viz., the rural School Boards.

, drew attention to his own county, which contained a population of 500,000 with two county boroughs, and one borough above 10,000, which would be taken out of the population. Therefore the County Council had to administer over an area extending perhaps seventy miles, and containing 150 School Boards and 350 voluntary schools. His contention was that it would be utterly impossible to administer with anything like efficiency the educational wants of so large an area. They were not told in the Bill whether there were to be more than one education authority for the whole county. Of course, if the educational authorities were to be multiplied in the form of district authorities the difficulty would be partially removed, although even then the County Council itself would have to deal with the confirmation of the acts of the educational authority. But he felt that the work in the hands of the County Council, unless it were centred in much smaller bodies, would be quite impossible for them to deal with. It was said that the district councillors were not well suited for the work of education. With that he largely agreed, but he submitted that they were very much the same individuals who composed the County Councils in many instances; and, therefore, if one was un-suited for carrying on educational work it was also a charge brought against the other. But if the District Councils were made education authorities, they might perhaps have different persons on them—people more interested in education, and he saw in this a means of getting representatives from different classes from those who at present composed the County Councils. The direct representatives of the working classes, whose children mainly attended these schools, were not likely to get upon the education authorities which would be formed under the Bill, whereas in the District Council they might possibly get some representatives on those bodies. While there were many difficulties from the education point of view, there was very much to be said for a change in the Bill such as was now proposed, and even if it "ere inconsistent with some further parts of the Bill, if it were felt to be a I desirable change, then the Bill could be made consistent with the Amendment.

, in supporting the Amendment, said he had never been able to see why one district had been put down as an urban district and another as a rural district. There was simply a hard and fast line. The Local Government Board, under the public Health Act of 1875, had a right to give the powers of urban districts to rural districts where desired; they were constantly giving that right and it was very seldom that the Local Government Board refused to grant urban districts that right when they asked for it. That was a sufficient reason for voting for the Amendment. They had urged that the proper plan would be to take their country districts generally and say what should be the educational districts without reference to what the boundaries were now. He desired to give some instances from the county of Glamorgan to show that he was entirely sound in his argument in support of the Amendment. There was the urban district of Neath with a considerable population and the rural district of Neath with a population of 27,000. Everybody who knew that district knew that there was no proper distinction that could be made between the Neath rural district and Neath urban