To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the success which has attended the holding of horse shows in India, will the Government consider the expediency of holding annual agricultural shows in suitable centres with a view to encourage agriculture and educate the people in improved methods of farming. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.)The utility of agricultural shows for the purposes mentioned by the hon. Member is already recognised by the Indian Governments; they are held in the districts whenever the support and co-operation of the public can be counted on, and there is a reasonable chance of results commensurate with the labour and expense of organising them.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will consider the expediency of laying upon the Table of the House the Report of the Irrigation Commission which visited India last year. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.)The Irrigation Commission has not yet completed its inquiry. When the Report is submitted the expediency of laying it on the Table of the House will be considered.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the fact that the excess of the imports of foreign goods over the exports of British goods amounted in the six months ending 30th June, 1902, to £92,545,000, will he state what steps His Majesty's Government has taken or has in contemplation to remedy this state of matters. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am not prepared to admit that the excess of the imports of foreign goods over the exports of British goods, which has continued for many years, is in itself an evil calling for the application of a remedy by His Majesty's Government.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the action of the Inspector of the Poor of the Glasgow Parish in removing from Glasgow to Halifax a family of eight paupers named Collins, in view of the fact that the statement of Charles Collins that fee was born in Halifax was shown by the Halifax Guardians to be incorrect; if he can take any steps to prevent ratepayers of Halifax from being compelled to maintain those eight paupers in the absence of evidence of the man's birth in that parish; if he can say why the paupers were removed before the Scotch Local Government Board had replied to the protest of the Halifax Guardians, and why the appeal of the latter body was not allowed; and if, in case the guardians send the family back to Glasgow (as the man desires), he will give instructions that no prosecution of the man shall be ordered. (Answered by Mr. Graham Murray.) The pauper was removed in terms of Section 2 of the Poor Removal Act, 1862, and the Local Government Board for Scotland have no power under the Act of 1898, as the Secretary for Scotland is advised, to review the question of fact on which the Court proceeded in granting the warrant of removal. Assuming the fact to be correct, there were no grounds whatever which would have justified the Local Government Board in sustaining an appeal.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the neglect of the Bedwellty Board of Guardians to appoint a chaplain to the union workhouse, as required by the Poor Law Consolidated Order, Art. 153; and, whether, seeing that the spiritual interests of the inmates are left in the hands of the Ebbw Vale Ministers' Union, who appear to hold only occasional services, he proposes to take any steps to enforce the law, so that the inmates of the workhouse shall enjoy ministrations of religion as required by the Order. (Answered by Mr. Long.) I am aware of the circumstances referred to in the first paragraph of the Question. I am informed that the Vicar of Tredegar or one of his curates holds a service in the workhouse once a week, and that the Nonconformist ministers of Tredegar and Ebbw Vale have made arrangements for the holding of services at the workhouse every Sunday afternoon, for which purpose a rota of ministers has been drawn up. The arrangement, I am told, is that if the minister appointed to attend cannot do so he shall find a substitute, but I understand that on a recent occasion a substitute did not attend. I understand also that some of the inmates are allowed to go out on Sundays to attend church or chapel. It does not seem to me to be necessary that I should interfere in the matter.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, is he aware that on the 27th March, 1902, a letter addressed Miss M. O'Reilly, Carrickaleese, Ballyconnell, was delivered to Margaret Reilly, Carrickaleese, by a rural postman of Ballyconnell Post Office, and that when Margaret Reilly opened the letter she found it contained a money order for £12 payable to Mary Reilly, of Carrickaleese; that Margaret Reilly thereupon handed back to the rural postman the letter and order and told him it was for Mary Reilly, and that when the postman arrived at Mary Reilly's residence, in Carrickaleese, she had died about an hour previously, and that he refused to give the letter to any of her friends; and will he state whether this postman has been asked for any explanation as to what he has done with this letter; and will the postal authorities make inquiry as to whether this money order for £12 has been paid, and, if so, to whom. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)A letter addressed, "Miss M. Reilly, Carrickaleese," was, as indicated in the hon. Member's Question, delivered to a Miss Margaret Reilly, who, finding it was not for her, returned it to the postman. The letter, which was not for Mary Reilly, and did not contain a money order payable to her, was subsequently delivered to the person for whom it was intended.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has received a Report from Mr. Tower upon the British Consular Service in China; and, if so, will he state the substance of this Report, and say whether it is the intention of the Government to act upon its suggestions. (Answered by Viscount Cranborne.)A Report has been received from Mr. Tower on the Consular Service in China. The Report is a valuable one and the suggestions contained in it will be very useful to the Secretary of State, but it is not intended to publish its contents at present.

To ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that under the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1899. British trawlers are excluded from a fishing ground of about 600 square miles in the estuary of the Clyde, and from other grounds on the coast of Scotland; that these grounds are open to, and fished by, foreign trawlers, who sell their catch in English ports; and that, in order to escape from the provisions of this Act, British trawlers have been transferred to foreign flags, and now fish the said grounds under those flags; and whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps to place British trawlers on the same footing as foreign trawlers. (Answered by Mr. Graham Murray.)The Secretary for Scotland is aware of the provisions of the Act referred to, and of the difficulty occasioned by the exclusion of British vessels from areas open to foreign trawlers; he is also aware of the allegation that British trawlers have been transferred to foreign flags in order to escape from the provisions of the Act, but he is not aware that this applies to the area in the Clyde specially referred to in the Question. Any action in the matter is subject to international considerations; but the position of the Clyde area will be steadily kept in view as well as that of the other protected waters.

To ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the grants for several evening schools in the County of Norfolk for the last evening school session have not yet been paid; whether there is any special reason for this delay; and whether, having regard to the necessity of securing the equipment of the schools for the forthcoming session, he will expedite payment. (Answered; by Sir John Gorst.)There are ninety-three evening schools in the County of Norfolk; applications for payment have been received on account of eighty-four schools; payment, of the grant has been made by the Board of Education in respect of eighty-two schools and two applications are under consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that invalid soldiers and others arriving at Southampton from South Africa shall be conveyed to their destinations by the shortest route from that port, seeing that the present route, via Andover and Cheltenham, involves many hours extra travelling to those whose homes are in Ireland, Scotland, or the East of England. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Longer routes, when used, are employed for the purpose of avoiding transfer in London and to utilise through carriages, whereby change of trains and waiting at junctions is avoided. The particular route mentioned is generally used for the conveyance of parties to the North of Ireland, midland counties, and Scotland, and the railway company invariably gives a special train or through carriage for parties of twenty and upwards.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the assault committed on a black soldier by some of the Colonial troops stationed at the Alexandra Palace, on the 10th instant; and will he say whether steps have been taken to punish the offenders, and to compensate the victim for an assault which necessitated his being taken to the hospital tent. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.)This case is still under investigation.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if lie will state why the Imperial Yeomanry employed in 1899 were not given a furlough of thirty days, as was the case with the Yeomanry employed in 1900 and 1901. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) My hon. friend has been misinformed. All Imperial Yeomen on the higher rate of pay have been treated alike as regards furlough; none of them have been given thirty days.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in the greater number of Volunteer regiments the new regulations have been disregarded as regards company training, and that the majority of regiments are still carrying on company drills in drill halls as formerly; and will he see that some marked differentiation is made between the corps which have thoroughly carried out the new regulations and those which have not done so. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) No information to this effect has reached me.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the military commandant at Cradock, Cape Colony, Captain H. Wilson, appeared at a public meeting which was held there on 20th June last for the delivery of an address by Mr. Douglass (one of the Cape Ministers) against the suggested suspension of the Cape Constitution, and towards the close of the meeting made a speech in which he accused Mr. Douglass of deliberate untruth; and whether care will be taken that commandants and other military officers do not take part in public meetings of a political nature or in any way mix in the discussion of political questions. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have no information on this matter, but will make inquiry.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state when martial law and the rules and regulations based upon it will come to an end in the self-governing Colonies of the Cape and Natal. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Martial law is being held in abeyance in Cape Colony, and is only to be employed at the instigation of the Cape Government. As regards Natal the principal restrictions have been already removed. The subject of the total abolition of martial law is being carefully considered by the authorities concerned.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether persons who have been confined in the camps established by the military authorities in South Africa on grounds which may be regarded as political have now permission to leave and rejoin their families and homes; whether there is now free communication between those still in the camps and the outside world by letter and otherwise; and is the breaking up of such camps progressing as fast as circumstances permit. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodride.) The camps are being reduced as rapidly as possible, and all persons able to maintain themselves have been allowed to leave. The camps are being used as bases of supply and starting points for the repatriation of the burghers. As far as I am aware there is free communication with persons outside the camps.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether those Volunteer regiments in the London Brigades who have been ordered to train at Salisbury Plain on the 2nd August will be allowed to return on the 8th, instead of the 9th, should the Coronation take place on that day. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) If these Volunteers go into camp on Saturday, 2nd August, as proposed, they will finish the period of 144 hours required on Friday, 8th August, and can return to London on Friday night. The case of any Volunteer who does not complete the full period of 144 hours can be considered under Paragraph 577A of the Volunteer Regulations.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps the Government propose to take to re-enact the Education Act of 1901 for a further twelve months to ensure the continuance of the evening schools, science and art classes, and pupil teacher centres after the expiration of the Act of 1901; and whether its scope can be enlarged to permit of the establishment of new classes for the coining winter. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) A Bill is now before Parliament which will enable schools or classes dealt with by the legislation of last year to be continued.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, during the war in South Africa, the Government received any communication whatever from either the Governments of the Transvaal and Orange Free State which have not yet been laid on the Table of the House. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I understand that the following appears to be the only correspondence which has not been laid before Parliament:—

said the situation had materially altered since the House was last in Committee on the Bill. There was then an idea that the Amendment of the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman had promised to lay on the Table of the HOUSE would be satisfactory to hon. Members on that side of the House who took an interest in the question. That illusion, he was sorry to say, must be dispelled. The Amendment had not given a shred of satisfaction. Besides that, the subject-matter of Clause 8 would be imported by the Government Amendments into Clause 7, which would become a new Clause rather than an amended one. It would become the earliest step in the settlement of the most vital part of the Bill relating to the management of the denominational schools. They had been very anxious to come to some understanding that the interruption of Committee on the Bill should come at the end of Clause 7 in order that they might not approach that important question at a time when they would not have full opportunity for discussing it, but now the Clause had assumed new importance, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether, in the interests of the proper discussion of the Bill, and, of the temper in which it was to be discussed, the Clause should not be postponed. The proposed Amendment did not even profess to remove the impediment that stood in the way of agreement, and he asked him in all sincerity, and not from a desire to obstruct in anyway, whether, considering the short time intervening between now and August 8, and the other work to be done, the discussion on this, perhaps the most important point in the Bill, should not stand over. He held that that was a most reasonable proposal to make, and he therefore moved that the Clause be postponed.

I cannot put the question that the Clause be postponed, because the Committee has already entered upon the discussion of, and disposed of, two Amendments to it. I will put it as a Motion to report Progress.

I have listened with great attention to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, and I really am unable to understand that there is any reason for putting off the discussion of this Clause till the other Clauses have been disposed of. Even if it had been possible to postpone the Clause, the reason falls to the ground after the ruling from the Chair. I cannot deny that the Clause as I propose to amend it, the Clause, in fact, as unamended, is one on which there has been, perhaps, more acrimonious discussion in the country than on any other. I can only express the hope—it may be a faint hope—that these discussions in the House will be of a somewhat more friendly character. I would remind the House that I have never said a single word about the Clause which could mislead any one. I was at great pains the last time we were discussing the Bill, and I was adumbrating the general policy of the Government, to make it clear that we did not propose to alter the proportions of the management in voluntary schools. It is, I suppose, that provision of the Bill which is so unsatisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman and to which he feels bound to offer strenuous opposition. I greatly regret this, but do not see that it is a reason for giving it up. I would suggest that whether the policy of the Government be right or wrong, whether the proportion of elected managers to denominational managers is the correct proportion or the incorrect proportion, no adequate ground has been shown why the debate should be postponed until the autumn. The autumn session was a burden to Members, which he was anxious to reduce as much as possible, and with that object the Committee should get on with the Bill. It would be a great misfortune if the House had to sit over Christmas and even to January—["Oh, oh,"]—as had happened before and might happen again. The interruptions from the other side of the House supplied the answer to the right hon. Gentleman, and seemed to indicate that his followers did not favour the prospect of discussing the Bill in January or February next year. That was good reason for making the best use of the opportunity for discussion now presented.

said that objections and rulings from the Chair had hitherto prevented discussion of matters dealt with in a clause subsequent to that under the notice of the Committee, but now, to suit the convenience of the Government, it was proposed to throw that principle aside. The reason assigned for this was to get rid of the question at the present sitting of the House, because it was said if it were postponed until the autumn sitting the discussion would take until Christmas. It was evident, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman contemplated a prolonged discussion.

said the right hon. Gentleman had not listened to him, or he had not clearly expressed himself. He referred to the whole Bill as likely to require a long discussion, and that was reason for the Committee proceeding with all diligence.

said the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that this was really the fighting part of the Bill. The First Lord of the Treasury had made some suggestions to them in order that the autumn session might be short.

Shorter.

said that that was the point which he had put to the Committee.

That is not my point.

said he was not desirous of misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman, so he would let that be his own point. If it were true that they were only to have today and tomorrow and no other days this week for this discussion, how many days would then remain? This was an important part of the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman was anxious that it should be rapidly proceeded with in order that the autumn sitting might be shorter. The Committee did not know how many days were to be devoted to the Bill before the adjournment. How many days were going to be appropriated to Supply? He understood that there was to be a new form of Supply. They ought to know how many days were going to be given to water, and how many to the discussion of this Clause, which everybody admitted was the most material part of the Bill to be decided before the adjournment. The opportunities which remained at the fag end of a session was not the proper time when a question of this kind ought to be dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of acrimonious discussions in the country, but did the Committee think those discussions would be any the less acrimonious when the people knew that this Clause had been smuggled through the House at the fag end of the session? Was that likely to reconcile- the people who were dissatis fled with, this arrangement? Therefore if the Government desired this question to be discussed, and he assumed that the right hon. Gentleman desired this, then they ought to be told how many days they meant to allow for the discussion of this Clause. That was a thing which they had a right to ask, and if they did not obtain this information, the proposal of his right hon. friend was a reasonable one, and quite in accordance with the usual practice in this House.

said he did not know whether he should be in order in raising the point to which he desired to draw the attention of the Chairman, or whether he ought to wait until the First Lord of the Treasury's Amendment was reached. He wished to ask whether the Amendments placed upon the Paper by the First Lord of the Treasury were in order if moved as Amendments to Clause 7? The only part of Clause 7 which would stand if this Amendment were adopted would be—

"All public elementary schoo's shall be manage in the case of schools provided by the local authority."

I must defer my decision until we reach the Amendment.

said that it was around this Clause that the struggles' in the country would arise, He had had no opportunity of consulting his own constituents in regard to this new proposal, which was practically a new clause, and it ought to be postponed until they had had an opportunity of consulting their friends in the country and their constituents. It was wrong and unjust to force this through the Committee by sheer weight of numbers without any opportunity of listening to reason. Upon these grounds he thought it was reasonable to ask that this Clause should be postponed.

said he did not know whether 1 the Committee realised the number of days which were available. They were going to have two days discussion on the Education Bill this week. On Tuesday evening it was probable that private Bills would be allowed to cut into the evening sitting. This was a part of the Education Bill which he thought everybody was anxious should not be curtailed, for it would not tell in favour of the smooth working of the Bill or tend to its quick passage into law if there was any sense of injustice felt on the part of the people who were opposed to it. There were eight whole Parliamentary days and two half-days before the adjournment. Of those days five were definitely given up to Supply. He wished to know if the Government intended to go on with the Water Bill. If so, it might be assumed that two half-days would be given to the London Water Bill, and that the remaining three Parliamentary days would be given to the Supplementary Estimates before the House. Of course it would be necessary to have some discussion on the resolution to adjourn. For the discussion of this absolutely vital point of the whole Bill, which was being brought up in a much more detailed form than originally proposed, they were going to have at the very outside three days discussion. He thought it was very doubtful whether a full Parliamentary discussion could be given in three days. The alternative was that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would have to have all night sittings, or else he would have to closure the representatives of Nonconformity, which, he thought, was a prospect even he would not entertain.

said that the First Lord of the Treasury took up the cheers from certain quarters of the House as a sufficient argument for rejecting the proposal of his right hon. friend. He thought the right hon. Gentleman misinterpreted the cheers. The cheersindicated pretty clearly that in the face of the Amendment put on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman, and in the face of the situation foreshadowed in the country, it would be inevitable that this Bill should be debated at great length during the autumn session as well as on the present occasion if the First Lord of the Treasury persisted in rejecting this Motion today. There had been the strongest expression of opinion with regard to the Amendments by leading Nonconformists already. They had foreshadowed almost interneeine war on this question, He had road with deep interest a letter in the press from the Rev. F. B. Meyer, in which he said that the Amendments proposed by the right hon. Gentleman filled him with despair, and that if he stood by them there was nothing before Free Churchmen but a long and bitter struggle. Another leading Nonconformist had described these Amendments as a studied insult to the Free Churches. They were at the very crisis of this Bill, where the strongest animosities were aroused. It was clear that the suggestion. of the First Lord of the Treasury would not bring them within view of a peaceful solution of these questions. They rather opened the door to more acrimonious discussion. Upon the proper and wise solution of these questions would depend the educational progress of the country for months and years, and he asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would not be well advised to postpone this Clause until it had received fuller discussion in the country.

said there was really not time left to consider the Clause properly before the adjournment. If the right hon. Gentleman deducted the days which were to be devoted to Estimates, and Supplementary Estimates, the time to be given to the Irish Local Government Bill, the time he probably wished to give to the London Water Bill, and the time which must be given to the Appropriation Bill, how could he expect to be able to dispose of this Clause? If they were to do justice to the numerous points of importance raised by the, Clause, they could not dispose of it in four days except by use of the closure. He was perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to employ the closure in a matter of this kind. If the Clause could not be rarried before the adjournment, the eight hon. Gentleman would be obliged to drop the discussion in the middle of the Clause. Surely no time would be saved by pressing it now, for if the right hon. Gentleman had to leave the Clause half finished. Besides the controversial questions which would arise on the Amendments, there were other points raised by other Amendments. There was a most important Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Somerset, in regard to the grouping of schools so that managers might be appointed for each group. That would require a great deal of consideration. He must say he thought that matter would be better dealt with as a new Clause, than by an Amendment which was practically a new Clause. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would shorten the autumn session or diminish the strain upon the House by refusing to postpone the Clause now. The difference of one or two days which the right hon. Gentleman thought would be gained now would not be felt when he came to the autumn session. It would be better to get the Clause through in the autumn session without acrimony, than to press it through now.

expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would listen to the appeal which had been addressed to him. The right hon. Gentleman had practically taken out of Clause 8 a most controversial sub-section, and put it into Clause 7 alter elaborating it. He now proposed to press the Clause through before the adjournment, He could not do that unless he meant to put pressure on the House, and that would be exceedingly unfair and disastrous in the present state of the controversy. If they were going to have a late autumn sitting he thought they ought to rise early at this stage. This, after all, was the crux of the Bill. Upon the way this Clause issued from the Committee would depend the whole attitude of the great Nonconformist bodies of this country towards the Bill, and after all they were not to be ignored. They were in a minority in this House because it was a House which was not elected upon this issue. This had never been a fair and square issue before the electorate. He felt perfectly certain, if the issue now raised in Clause 7 had been put to the country at the last election, the complexion of the House of Commons, which had an overwhelming majority supporting the right hon. Gentleman, was not the one it would have borne at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman was using the majority obtained on another issue to force the Bill upon the nation. The people of the country had hardly had time to consider the Bill. Why did the right hon. Gentleman take out the obnoxious subsection in Clause 8 and put it into Clause 7? It was not because it was better drafting. There was only one reason. He wanted this thing settled before the recess, because he thought it would influence the agitation which was now going on against the Bill. The hon. Member did not think that was fair. He believed it would have exactly the opposite result from that anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman. He had a letter from a man who had not taken a prominent part in agitation on the platform, but he was one of the most powerful in the Nonconformist ranks, and he had come to the conclusion that the Government had made up its mind not to meet the reasonable objections of Nonconformists. That man wanted to make it clear at the outset that, whether the Bill of the Government got through or not, they were simply at the beginning of the controversy so far as the free churches were concerned. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to carry this through now in order to make it clear to the free churches of the country that this was his ultimatum? If so, he thought it was a pretty serious state of things. It would mean two or three months of the bitterest agitation which the right hon. Gentleman had ever had to face. He believed that thousands of electors who voted for hon. Members opposite would not do it again. As one who was anxious that some sort of Bill should be evolved out of the present chaos, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be better in the interest of education to arrive at some compromise by which they could obtain a fair workable measure. That was the alternative. The right hon. Gentleman would force on an agitation of which he did not see the end. He did not know the power and determination of the Nonconformists in regard to this matter. They might call it fanaticism if they liked, but fanaticism was a very dangerous thing to arouse, and no real friend of education would like to see it roused in connection with this or any other Bill. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better to avoid all this agitation, and give the two or three months of the recess to the purpose of thrashing this matter out. What would the right hon. Gentleman gain? He might gain an extra day next week, but the only result would be that he would force this section through Committee under circumstances which would exasperate bitterness, because there would be a feeling in the country that there was no freedom of debate, and, what was worse, the right hon. Gentleman would only get half the section through, and the whole controversy would be renewed when the other half came to be considered. There were some departmental Bills that might, in the meantime, be got out of the way, and even some other Clauses in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was stirring up, without real knowledge, the forces at work in this business. They had discussed this matter with considerable equanimity in the Committee hitherto. The discussions did not represent a tithe of the real animosity outside. What surprised Nonconformist ministers who visited the Chamber was the spirit in which the Bill was discussed, and these said that hon. Members had not got the earnestness of the men who sent them there. If the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to this appeal, he would do the Bill no good and do education no good.

said he supported the appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman on practical grounds. The first was time. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had accurately estimated the shortness of the time before him to deal with this gigantic task in Clause 7. Assuming that the Adjournment took place on the Friday before the Coronation, there were only available ten Parliamentary days. Now, of those ten days eight were practically appropriated outside this Bill, and outside legislation altogether. There were three days taken next week for Supply and three days this week for the Irish Estimates and financial relations. Then they should not approach the Appropriation Bill in a temper of resentment. That was a Bill, which could not reasonably be closured, and the debate upon it might extend over two days. Last year the Second Reading occupied one day and the Third Reading one day. Putting aside all other questions that might arise, he was sure that after this week the right hon. Gentleman could not get more than two available days for the Education Bill. The next point was that urged with great force and eloquence by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there were a great number of people in this country and on both sides of the House who, although disappointed with the proposals in the Bill, were anxious for a reasonable compromise. He was satisfied that if the right hon. Gentleman would only mark time, moderate men on both sides might put their heads together, and a solution would be found which would obviate the destruction of that popular control which should accompany the expenditure of public money and at the same time protect the legitimate claims of the denominational schools. But he was convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman forced this question on to a decision in the next two or three days, he would sweep away all possibility of a compromise. It would amount to a declaration of war, and he did not think that that would be wise in the interests of the contending parties in the country or of education. That was a step which should not be taken until every other means had been exhausted. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to go on with Clause 7 so far as it dealt with School Board schools and the schools to be provided by the new education authority. The right hon. Gentleman should leave the fighting question over altogether till the autumn. There would be a good deal to say on both sides of the House on questions, of considerable difficulty in this Clause, which were evidently not present to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. He could not see how this Clause was to be worked in large towns like Wolverhampton, where he was Chairman of the School Board, so far as the School Board Schools were concerned. There was plenty of debatable matter in Clause 7 without approaching this contentious question. For these reasons, and in the interests of peace and a wise settlement of the question, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to arrive at some modus vivendi by which consideration of Clause 7 might be postponed.

said that before he came to the larger question of subsidies which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, he might say with regard to the actual time at their disposal, that even on the right hon. Gentleman's own calculation it appeared that four days were left, during the present session for the discussion of the Education Bill, and that was the exact time which it was suggested by the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen might appropriately be taken up by the discussion on this question.

said there were the new Estimates.

said he himself anticipated with some confidence that they would not have less than four days for the discussion in connection with this clause.

said he would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the fact that he had definitely promised a day for discussing the question connected with the shipping combination.

said he did not anticipate there would be a whole day I required for the discussion of that subject. Coming to the larger question raised by the right hon. Gentlemen, to listen to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, one might really suppose that the Government were acting in a harsh and tyrannical manner, and that they and those outside for whom they spoke had real reason to complain of the procedure the Government had adopted He must absolutely repudiate any such view. If there was any grievance, it was on the part of the Government, and not on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was told that he had put down an entirely new clause on the Paper. It was not a new clause as touching the real matter at issue between those for whom the hon. Member for Carnarvon spoke and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side. The Bill as originally introduced, as it was defended, as it originally passed the Second Heading and was discussed in this House, always contained, and was intended to contain, a provision by which a majority of managers should be given denominational control under the new system. As he had said, that might be a good plan or a bad plan, but it was the plan of the Bill from the beginning, and it was absolutely unmodified by the expansion which the clause had undergone during the last few days. He admitted that the expansion left untouched the question of the relative numbers of managers of denominational schools, and in every other respect it was a concession. [Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, "No."] It would tax the ingenuity even of hon. Gentlemen opposite to prove that it was not a concession in regard to the character and number of the elected members. Then they were told that the Government ought to have left the matter as it originally was in Clause 8, and not to have dealt with it in Clause 7. He might have been very well content to take that course if it had not been the obvious intention of the Committee to raise it on Clause 7. They had only to look through the Amendments standing in the name of the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen and other hon. Members opposite to see that they had intended to deal with Clause 7 exactly as the Government now proposed to do. These hon. Gentleman had taken Clause 7 as the text and canvas on which they were going to embody their own particular scheme. It was obviously quite impossible to have avoided this discussion on Clause 7. Hon. Members opposite talked as if some tremendous attempt were going to be made to unduly curtail debate on this clause; but he thought the Committee would admit that they had shown a large measure of toleration in discussion. He was always having hopes dangled before him of a. compromise being arrived at on the Bill by reasonable men on both sides. There had been plenty of time for these wise men to come together, as there was absolutely no change in the essence of the clause since the Bill was introduced before Easter. He presumed all these peacemakers had been at work since that time. He said with the profoundest regret, if it were any satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman opposite, that, with a, full consciousness of all the difficulties which were likely to befall them in the matter, it was perfectly clear that the militant Nonconformists, whom the hon. Gentleman so efficiently spoke for, would be content with nothing except what was called popular control and management of denominational schools. For the Government to give that up, would be not merely to violate all their principles and pledges, and to betray those who sent them to this House, but would be to do something which seemed to him monstrously and utterly unjust. Being monstrously and utterly unjust, so far from bringing that peace to the community which was promised by hon. Gentlemen opposite, he confessed that, evil as might be the present condition of affairs, much though they might have to endure from sharp divisions of opinion among themselves, he earnestly and firmly believed that that evil was as nothing to the evil they I would have to endure if they wore to recede from what had always been a central principle of the Bill. He regretted that, in such circumstances, the Government were not met with greater generosity by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon. Gentlemen differed from the Government conscientiously, and, so far as that particular clause was concerned at all events, strenuously and vehemently; but that was no reason why they should not proceed with all the good humour, temper, moderation, and wisdom they could command; continue the discussion during the days still remaining in the course of the present portion of the session—which, after all, would not be a very lengthened period—with all these excellent Parliamentary gifts and virtues; and, if possible, complete the discussion on a clause which he quite admitted was one of the most difficult portions of the Bill.

said that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to him to be most unfortunate. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the view of his hon. friend was monstrously and utterly unjust; but they were just as much inclined to describe the position of the right hon. Gentleman as monstrously and utterly unjust. Surely, in the circumstances, the Government were unwise in not taking a broader view of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Amendment as a concession to the views of the Opposition; but they regarded the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman as an aggravation rather than a concession; and that being the case, they were surely entitled to ask that the matter should not be decided at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman would not deny that, as far as they were concerned, the discussion had been carried on in perfect good temper; and, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, it would be a great

said that no doubt the object of the right hon. Gentleman in putting the Amendment down was that the clause might be passed before the House adjourned, but if hon. Gentlemen would look at the Amendment they would see that there were two pages of Amendments before the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, many of which would be discussed, although they might be ultimately superseded by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. To proceed would, in the circumstances, be waste of time. Then there were five pages of Amendments after the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. Therefore it would be practically impossible to dispose of the Clause before the adjournment, and its postponement would be an advantage to the Bill generally.

said the Amendment he proposed to move involved an important principle, first of all as to whether the managers' appointments were to be permissive or compulsory, and whether the managers were to be delegates of the local authority, or whether they were to have an independent position. It was perfectly clear, from the Act of 1870, that the appointment of managers was to be permissive; it was quite clear that the School Boards under that Act were to have absolute power over the managers. They could appoint and remove them, and lay down rules for the guidance of their policy, and if they did not carry out those rules the School Board could remove them. Those were the lines on which the School Boards had hitherto proceeded; they had not in all cases appointed managers to manage the schools, because in some cases they had managed the schools direct; but wherever they had appointed managers, they had reserved to themselves the right to dismiss their managers if they did not conform to the rules laid down, and in some cases they had lost no time in exercising their powers. The Bill as it at present stood made the appointment compulsory, but he thought the discretion which was possessed by the School Boards should be given also to the new local education authority. As the clause stood, it would take away from the new education authority the control they ought to have, and set up another authority. If this great trust was to be imposed upon the local education authorities, entire confidence ought to be placed in their discretion. The principle of the Amendment, if adopted, could easily be worked, either with the clause as it now stood or with the alterations proposed by the Government. In any case, the rating authority ought to be the governing authority. As regarded the denominational schools, the Amendment had no application whatever, as they stood on a different footing; but in common fairness the local authorities ought to have full control over their own schools, and therefore he moved the Amendment standing in his name.

entirely concurred in his hon. friend's desire that the new authority should be, and remain, supreme in its control over education in all classes of elementary schools, and he would be sorry to think that anything in the Bill as at present drafted militated against that view. It seemed to be supposed that the managers would stand in a position of permanent opposition, to the authority by whom they were appointed. That, however, was not his anticipation. He agreed that they should hold office during the pleasure of the education authority, and that no collision should be possible or permissible; but at the same time he did not think the Amendment or the principle laid down by the hon Member could be accepted. He would be sorry to see it left open to any education authority, especially that of a great county area, to have no local representatives or managers at all in connection with the schools. Therefore, while sympathising with the object of his hon. friend, he suggested it would be adequately met by the Bill as framed.

was sorry to hear the First Lord's reply) because experience had shown that many School Boards had managed their schools admirably without the intervention of managers. That was almost universally the case with regard to the School Boards of the smaller areas, such as those with 10,000 inhabitants, which, under this Bill, would be autonomous for purposes of elementary education. The Vice-President would doubtless tell the First Lord that the School Boards of such urban districts were quite able, and found it more expeditious and economical, to manage their schools directly. He believed that, oven in such places as Liverpool, Leeds, and Sheffield, the School Boards had managed the schools directly, with most excellent results, and he sincerely hoped the power would be given to the now authorities to appoint managers or not, as they thought host. London, with its 1,500 school departments and half a million children, was on an entirely different footing. Obviously, the School Board could not manage each school, and had had to appoint managers. But even then they had insisted on the managers being directly under the School Board, and prepared a code of regulations outside of which the managers could not go. He hoped a similar policy would be pursued under the Bill. He admitted there was a difficulty with regard to county areas, and that schools in the remote districts could not be fairly managed from the county centre. In such cases local managers were necessary, but in the urban districts the authority should have the right either to appoint managers or to manage schools directly, as they thought best.

feared that the First Lord hardly realised all that was covered by the Amendment. He had dealt with the matter only from the point of view of the county areas, whereas the supporters of the Amendment had in view the urban districts, and particularly the non-county boroughs with small populations, in which it would be absurd to require the appointment of managers. The practice of School Boards was not to appoint managers. It was only in London and two or three of the larger places that that course had been adopted. The practice of the School Board was to appoint a School Management Committee, by which all details affecting the individual schools were dealt with. He quite agreed that in the county areas it was desirable to have managers, but in the small urban districts it was not only undesirable from the point of view of ordinary administration, but it was also placing another buffer between the ratepayers and the schools. The absurdity of the proposal was perhaps the best argument that could be brought against it. In a town of 12,000 inhabitants, about one-sixth of the population would be in the public elementary schools, and those 2,000 children would, as a rule, be accommodated in three schools. Was it necessary to compel the local authority to appoint eighteen managers for those schools? It would be really absurd to have three sets of six managers, plus the urban local authority, plus the County Council for secondary education — all exercising control over those unfortunate, schools. He earnestly hoped this question would be reconsidered as it affected the urban districts. In the county areas, where the central management was remote from the school, it was necessary to have somebody on the spot to see that the regulations were carried into effect. The present Amendment was possibly not the best that could be devised, and he suggested that the object could be secured by the substitution of "may" for "shall" in the first line of the Amendment to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

said the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to appreciate the importance of the Amendment. The only answer he had given was that it was but reasonable that in the county local managers should be appointed, and that the County Council or its Committee should not undertake the whole work. That was quite obvious, but surely the right hon. Gentleman remembered that Clause 1 provided that the Council of a borough with 10,000 inhabitants, or of an urban district with 20,000, should be the local education authority for the purposes of Clause 3. Could any reason be suggested for the appointment of local managers in a borough of 10,000 inhabitants? No gain could possibly result from the adoption of such a course, as it would be perfectly easy for the local education authority itself to control and supervise the whole of the elementary education in the area. The case was all the stronger when he considered the existing law. By Clause 6, the powers and duties of the School Board were transferred to the new authority, and under the existing law, the School Board had power to appoint managers if it thought fit to do so. Why should this power, which the School Board had hitherto had, be withdrawn from the new authority? It was very desirable to have unity of management in these smaller areas; and why—to take the case instanced by the hon. Member for North West Ham—should it be necessary to have three different sets of managers when it would be much better and simpler for the local authority to manage the schools directly? The management would be more efficient. This point appeared in a stronger light when they considered economy, for one of the greatest difficulties would arise from the uneconomical management of the school. It was pointed out in a letter in The Times by Mr. Edward Buxton, who was at one time the Chairman of the Essex School Board, that one of the greatest difficulties would be: when a board of managers incurred expenses they would have no motive in keeping them down. Surely, as far as they could they ought not only to keep the managers in close touch with the local authorities, but they should also group the schools. In the case of counties they would have to group the schools, but in the boroughs and the smaller urban districts they had the grouping power already, and they were going wilfully to depart from it by imposing the obligation to appoint managers where there was no necessity for it. As was said by the hon. Member for West Ham, they wanted to distinguish large areas from small areas. He understood the hon. Member forth Exchange Division said that that plan worked well at Liverpool and Wolverhampton, and what reason was there to depart from it? He contended that in the case of the smaller boroughs and urban districts the power ought not to be withdrawn. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should introduce an Amendment which would distinguish between the cases in which managers ought to be appointed from amongst themselves, and cases where it was to be left to the local authority to appoint managers or not, as they thought fit.

said he wished to make two observations, one on the form and the other on the substance of this Amendment. This proposal would make it absolutely impossible to go on with the Amendment which the Government had put down on the Paper. The thing was inadmissible in its present shape. As regarded the substance, no doubt an Amendment could be introduced embodying the view of the hon. Member at a later stage in conformity with the general framework of the Clause as the Government now proposed to adopt it. He would respectfully point out to his hon. friend the Member for West Ham that he thought his Amendment was unnecessary. In any case, it ought not to be discussed now.

said the general rule had been not to appoint these Committees. Moreover, where these local Committees had been appointed in boroughs they had not been appointed for single schools, but for a group of three or four schools, and their powers had been so reduced that they had become merely visitors of the schools; so that practically, with regard to the School Boards in boroughs, they had been adverse to what was proposed in the Bill. The local authority, in the case of a borough discovering that it had too much work to do could, under Clause 15 of the Education Act, delegate its powers to a Committee. He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would make it clear that he was willing to accept this as an optional and not as a compulsory power.

said that the addition of a very few words would leave it optional in the case of boroughs and urban districts where the authority was the only elected authority, and would leave, it still compulsory in the case of counties. He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would insist upon keeping in the Clause the compulsory appointment of managers in the case of counties. The right hon. Gentleman said that no collision was possible or permissible between the local authority and the managers, but considering the composition of the bodies of the managers of voluntary schools, he failed to see the force of that argument.

thought the First Lord of the Treasury had not fully considered the differences between one place and another. His method might be applicable to the relation of the County Council to a large number of the areas under the County Council, but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, from the construction of his own Bill, that the ultimate form in which this question of management would present itself would not only be limited to those urban districts over 20,000, but they would probably have to contemplate a state of things in which a very large number of authorities for small areas would become the local authority for elementary education. Therefore, this question was not limited in the form put by the First Lord of the Treasury, and the plan suggested was a wholly inadequate way of dealing with it. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to put before the Committee a more complete and elastic solution of the immediate difficulty they had to face.

said his hon. friend had raised a very important issue by the Amendment. He thought the right hon. Gentleman did not meet the point put to him from this side of the House. That point was that when they came to his own Amendment they would have to consider a proposal that the education authority "shall have a body of managers." What those who were supporting the present Amendment wanted the right hon. Gentleman to tell them was whether he would substitute "may" for "shall." The real difficulty would be in the small districts, and especially in the case of small School Boards where there was no need for managers at all. He instanced the case of Chiswick, where there were four schools and a School Board of nine members. They did not want managers there to see after the schools, at all. If in such a case there were managers for each school, there would be no end of friction and a large amount of trouble. In the case of a county, it would be necessary to have some sort of management over the schools.

without giving a pledge, undertook to consider whether in small boroughs the appointment of managers should not be compulsory.

asked whether, in a district having, say, 12,000 inhabitants and four schools, the town council would be compelled to appoint six managers for each, making twenty-four in all. Would a County Council for a whole county be bound to appoint managers for each school throughout the county, or could they group town, villages, or districts? It appeared to him the words of the Clause meant that each school should have managers of its own. He further asked the Attorney General to state whether the object the Government had in view would not be met by such words as "where the local authority think necessary."

said it would certainly not be necessary to have four distinct sets of managers; the authority would appoint six members as a managing body, and these would manage the four schools. With regard to the second question put by the hon. Member, he said there was a Clause touching it standing in the name of his right hon. friend, and he thought it better that he should refrain from discussing it at the present time.

was satisfied that School Boards would not, as a rule, if they had to recommence their work, appoint managers; they would effect their object by the appointment of inspectors. Experience had shown that the local inspector came into collision with the school managers, who were far too apt to look to their own single school rather than to the whole of the schools under the Board. An expenditure desired by the managers of one school might be small for one school, but it became a large expenditure for the whole of the schools. In that way local managers did not promote economy. If they were to have separate sets of managers for each school, it would mean in the County of Norfolk that they would require 3,000 managers. He did not think that number could be found who would be willing to give the time necessary for management.

thought that it would be desirable to give the local authority discretion by such words as "may, if they think fit, and shall, if required to do so by the Board of Education, appoint a Board of managers."

expressed himself satisfied with the promise given by the First Lord of the Treasury, and desired to withdraw his Amendment.

felt that something more definite should be said before the Amendment was withdrawn. It seemed to him that the proposal of the Bill was an extraordinary clumsy way of doing what was done now, without difficulty of friction, to the satisfaction of the Education Department and of the schools themselves. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that obviously the borough or urban local authority would have the power to appoint a Board of managers, and that it might consist of members of the local education authority. The First Lord did not seem to see the point raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. What happened at the present moment was that where a School Board did not appoint a Board of managers to a school, the School Board was practically its own managers. Surely it was a very clumsy way of dealing with this question—both from the point of view of the local authority and the schools themselves?—that the local education authority should pick out six members of their own body, each six members to be managers of, say, six different schools in the area. The right hon. Gentleman should give a more satisfactory explanation of his own proposal.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not divide on this Amendment, as it would prejudge the whole question, and would not be in the interest of the hon. Gentleman's own case. He was clearly of opinion that this was not the proper place to deal with the question at all.

said he quite saw that it would be disadvantageous to negative this Amendment, because afterwards nothing could be done upon it. But the point they wished to put before the right hon. Gentleman was that there were many cases where no managers would be appointed—where it was not desirable that managers should be appointed; but that the local education authority should do as the School Boards now did, and be the managers themselves. The right hon. Gentleman should give an undertaking to meet that point.

said he could not agree to that, because it would be inconsistent with his own Amendment.

said the question was whether the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that, when he came to his Amendment, he would deal with this point. His own supporters told him that there were cases where it was very undesirable that there should be a compulsory appointment of managers. On all hands it was admitted that there ought to be this liberty.

said his difficulty in regard to this Amendment was that it would not read with the Clause at all, and that it raised the whole question at the wrong time. He must say—having listened to the debate, and being prepared to support the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment at the right time— that, from a purely educational point of view, it would be inadvisable to force the issue now to a decision, and so prevent the raising of the question in another shape at the proper time. The best course would be to close the discussion now, and raise the question on the First Lord's Amendment.

said that the proposal of the Amendment would shorten the debate, otherwise the question would have to be raised over again.