To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the claims of Sirdar Balvant Ramchandra Natu, of Poona, which were sent to the Secretary of the Governor of Bombay on 25th August, 1901, have yet been considered. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The answer is in the affirmative. On the 15th July last Sirdar Balvant Ramchandra Natu was informed that, as his communication of the 25th August, 1901, purported to be a notice under the Civil Procedure Code, Sec. 424, of his intention to file a suit against the Government, no further orders were deemed necessary.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will say whether Government servants who took privilege leave in order to join the Indian Volunteer Contingent which came home for the Coronation have been informed that they will not receive any pay for the extra period of their detention at home in consequence of the King's illness; and on what grounds this decision has been arrived at. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I am not aware that any such action has been taken by the Government of India, but I will make inquiries.

To ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will state what steps have been taken with a view to the establishment of agricultural banks in the various districts of India; have any such banks yet been established; and, if so, will he say where. (Answered by Secretary Lord. George Hamilton.) The Government of India appointed a Committee to examine and report on various schemes for establishing a general system of agricultural banks. The Committee reported in the autumn of 1901, and its recommendations are under consideration by the Government of India in communication with the local governments. Agricultural banks have been experimentally started in several districts in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh; but I have no statistics on the subject, nor can I say what action has been taken to establish such banks in other provinces in advance of the general scheme.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the new regulations proposed by the railway companies with reference to the carrying of petroleum spirit or petrol, making the consignors or consignees personally responsible for all claims directly or indirectly caused through the carriage of the said goods; and whether, in view of the fact that for many years these articles have been carried without any damage or accident, he will approach the railway companies with a view to the modification of the new regulations. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have no information as to the new regulations referred to, but if my hon. friend will furnish me with particulars I will consider whether the Board of Trade can usefully approach the railway companies in the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when the issue of machine guns to regiments of the Imperial Yeomanry will be completed; and to how many regiments has the gun been already issued. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) It was not found possible to make provision in the current Estimates for the sum required for the issue of machine guns to all the Imperial Yeomanry. Up to date ten regiments have received guns, and four more are being supplied.

To ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the parchment certificate of character (Army Form B 2077) given to all soldiers who served in South Africa, whether he is aware that a rule exists that the men receiving these certificates should not permit them to leave their possession; and, seeing that the Post Office authorities have published a notice calling upon all of its staff returning from the Front to produce the certificates for the inspection of supervising officers, will he state if the men are entitled to obey this order. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) My hon. friend has been misinformed. There is no rule whatever forbidding soldiers to part with their character parchment certificate for proper purposes, and the Post Office authorities are exercising a very wise precaution in calling upon the men to produce their certificates.

To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that recently a battalion of Imperial Yeomanry infected with scarlet fever was moved into Newcastle, Natal, and no proper precautions of isolation taken; that the battalion remained infected, and communicated the fever to other corps there, while fresh troops were moved into the place; that before the battalion was isolated a considerable force of all arms was infected, with the result that Indian drafts cannot be sent away, and illness and inconvenience have been caused; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to learning what medical officers are to blame. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am aware of the outbreak of scarlet fever among the troops at Newcastle, but I have no information at present of the cause. Measures have been taken to secure proper isolation. I have no information to the effect that drafts for India have been delayed. I am causing inquiries to be made as to the origin of the fever.

TO ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in his inquiries concerning the remount farms at Clark's Siding, South Africa, he will ascertain whether £1,000 worth of potatoes were grown on those farms during the Government leases and sold to private advantage; also, whether the lessor was allowed to change extra rent for stables, houses, and other buildings which were covered by the leases. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The inquiries being made will include these points.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Earl of Lonsdale was employed by him, or by his authority, in the supervision or purchase of remounts, and in what capacity; and does the War Office intend to confine its purchases to the ranks of commissioned officers, and to reject all outside expert advice or experience. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Lord Lonsdale was employed under the authority of the Yeomanry Committee in December, 1899. It has been considered desirable mainly to employ commissioned officers in connection with remount work, but there is no intention whatever of rejecting outside advice and experience.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he would lay upon the Table of the House any information he may have received from the self-governing Colonies on the position of limited trading companies as to Parliamentary and municipal representation, with a view to showing whether such companies are entitled to vote by their directors or officers, and, if so, on what franchise; and as to the difference between municipal and Parliamentary representation; and if the lists of voters are prepared by a public or private authority; and whether revision courts are held, and by whom, for the consideration of claims to the Parliamentary and municipal electoral list. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I will give the information that I have received from the Colonies on this subject in reply to the questions suggested by the hon. Member.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to his despatch addressed to the Governor of Queensland on the 30th August, 1902, whether he can inform the House as to the steps taken by His Majesty's Government to safeguard the interests of Pacific Islanders who have become residents of Queensland, and who will be liable, under the Pacific Islands Labourers Act, to exclusion from the privileges acquired by them as subjects of the Crown. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain) The necessity of dealing carefully with the interests of Pacific Islanders who have become resident in Queensland has been strongly pressed on the Commonwealth Government, and I am confident that they will carry out the law in a liberal spirit. A Despatch from the Governor General on the subject is on its way. I may add that I am not aware that any of these labourers have become subjects of the Crown.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of issuing a warrant defining what is the correct flag to be flown on land by civilians, and what flag should be flown on public buildings and at schools in Great Britain and in the Colonies. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The questions which have been raised as to the proper use of flags have received careful consideration by the Government, but they are unable to adopt the course suggested. Nor does it appear desirable to undertake the legislation which would be necessary in order to regulate the general use by civilians, or any class of civilians, of any particular flag on land. It is a matter which is best left, as hitherto, to the guidance of custom and good taste.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if ministers of religion, who are precluded by law from serving on Town Councils, will be deprived by the Education Bill of the possibility of serving on the central educational authority. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) Clergymen of the Church of England, Priests of the Roman Catholic Church, and Nonconformist Ministers—(a) Can be members of County Councils; (b) Cannot be members of Town Councils; (c) Can be members of the Education Committee of the local education authority.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the charges, based upon sworn evidence read out in the Cape Parliament on the 28th August last by Mr. Merriman, against two British officers, stationed at Graaff Reinet, to the effect that they attempted in May last to induce a British subject, Paul Michan, by offering to withdraw certain charges against him, to give evidence of treasonable practices against Mr. Merriman and other members of the Cape Parliament; that, upon Michan's refusing to do so, he had been thrown into prison after peace had been declared; and that on the same day charges against the same officers were made in the Cape Parliament by Mr. de Waal—which he offered to substantiate upon oath—the statement made to him personally by two Cape Colonists that similar inducements to give evidence were held out to them when in prison; and will he say whether the officers in question have been given an opportunity to make any explanation as to these charges; and, if so, when and with what results.

I have no information on this subject beyond the published accounts of the proceedings in the Cape Parliament on the 28th August. A report will be called for.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know the names of these two officers? because I do.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the Report of the: Inter-Departmental Committee relative to Army schoolmasters, arrangements have yet been made for an adequate supply of teachers for Army schools; will he say whether children attending any of these schools receive denominational instruction; and, if so, will he state how that instruction is controlled.

The provision of an adequate supply of teachers depends on the creation of increased accommodation at the Duke of York's school, which is under consideration. A special examination, however, will be held in December to increase the supply of teachers. As regards the rest of the Question, ministers of any denomination belonging to places of worship to which the troops march on Sundays, or their authorised curates, are at liberty to attend at the school for an hour on one or two days a week to give religious instruction to children of their respective persuasions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Regulars, who with the Colonials were sent home from South Africa in the "Bavarian" for the Coronation, will, as well as the Colonials and Yeomanry, receive the Coronation medal.

The reply is in the negative. The Colonials were contingents duly accredited to this country to take part in the Coronation, which they subsequently did, and therefore received the medal. The Regulars and Yeomanry representative units, owing to the postponement, did not take part in the Coronation, and therefore did not receive the medal. It should be remembered that the Coronation medal is a personal gift from the King, and the War Office has no control over the distribution.

The men were duly selected, and it was not their fault that they were not present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the present position of the Army Reserve, and the effect on the numbers of the Reserve of the new proposals for the re-engagement of time-expired men.

It would be very misleading to give any figures at the present moment, as many men are on furlough and have not yet joined the Reserve. The number of men who have rejoined the colours is at present very small. I hope to have approximately accurate figures as to the condition of the Reserve at the beginning of December.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the full Reports of the medical and sanitary experts, Professor Simpson and Mr. Robert Chadwick, who recently visited Hong Kong in connection with the plague; and will he say whether it is proposed to remove some of the slum property in the Chinese quarter of the city, with a view to secure improved drainage and sufficient ventilation.

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative; no general scheme for the removal of insanitary property in Hong Kong is at present before me.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reason has been assigned by the German Government for the forcible seizure in September, 1900, by a German force, of that portion of the Congo Free State which had been leased by King Leopold of Belgium to Great Britain in 1894, and which was subsequently abandoned by Great Britain in deference to French and German objections; and do His Majesty's Government propose to acquiesce in that seizure.

As I have already explained to my hon. friend on June 2nd last, the information we have received from the German Government does not include any mention of the incidents referred to in the Question. A delimitation of frontier in the region referred to is undoubtedly in course of being carried out. We have no reason to believe that Congolese rights over territory contiguous to our Protectorate have been affected.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether a secret treaty exists between Great Britain and Germany; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government propose at some, and, if so, at what future time, to communicate its terms to Parliament.

I am afraid I can only reply to my hon. friend to the same effect as in my answer upon the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, namely, that if there be such treaty, in the nature of the case I am precluded from communicating its terms. I hope that even if he finds this answer unsatisfactory, he will recognise that I can give no other.

The inevitable inference from this is that there is such a treaty.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have made any treaty or convention or come to any agreement with Germany relative to Portuguese possessions in South Africa; if so, have the terms of any such treaty, convention, or agreement, been communicated to Portugal; and will they be communicated to this House, and when.

My right hon. friend and predecessor replied to a similar Question by my hon. friend on 1st February, 1900. † If I assure my hon. friend that it is impossible for me to make a fuller reply than was given upon that occasion, I hope he will accept it.

May I assume from that, that since that reply, no treaty engagements have been made with Germany in regard to Portuguese possessions in South Africa?

I am afraid I must ask for notice.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now lay upon the Table copies of the Reports addressed to Sir Nicholas O'Conor during the past eighteen months by His Majesty's consular officers in Macedonia; and whether he is able to give any information as to communications addressed by the Powers to the Porte with reference to the condition of European Turkey.

is Majesty's Government will consider whether the Papers mentioned can be presented. His Majesty's Government have urged on the Porte that while adequate measures should be taken for preventing disorders, anything in the nature of excessive or indiscriminate severity should

† See (4) Debates, lxxviii., 282.

be carefully avoided. They believe that similar advice has been given by other Powers.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government propose to introduce during this session a Bill guaranteeing a Transvaal loan; and, if so, can he state the purposes to which the proceeds of that loan are proposed to be applied.

No, Sir, it is not proposed to introduce a Transvaal Loan Bill this session. When one is introduced, of course the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks will be given.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the registration duty on imported cereals is paid on the quarter or the hundred-weight.

If the hon. Member will look at the Schedule to the Finance Act, he will see that the duties on grain, etc., are calculated by the hundredweight.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that farmers are anxious. to have official returns of malting, as distinguished from grinding, barley; whether there is any objection to ordering this double return as well as the present average composed of both; and, whether the same separate returns could be given of the best wheat as well as of inferior wheat.

The suggestion made by my hon. friend is one which has frequently been considered, although I have not recently received any representations from agricultural organisations on the subject. It was found to be very difficult, as I think my hon. friend would agree, to draw any clear line of demarcation even between malting and grinding barley, and in the case of wheat there is only a mere graduation from good to inferior. The increased labour involved in the preparation of separate returns as proposed would moreover be very considerable, and legislation for the purpose of amending the Corn Returns Act would be necessary; but neither of them are insuperable objections if my hon. friend can show that the proposal is feasible and of real importance. As at present advised, I am afraid that it is not practicable for me to give effect to my hon. Friend's proposals.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to an advertisement in the Belfast News Letter of 13th September for a young lady (Presbyterian) to take full charge of telegraph (sounder instrument) and postal duties at Leenane, county Galway, will he say whether it is the rule of the Department that religious tests are not to be applied; and can he say what is the proportion of Presbyterians to Roman Catholics in the village in question.

My attention was not called to the advertisement in question till I saw the hon. and learned Member's Question. I am making inquiry on the subject, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the fact that Saturday, 25th October, has been declared a Bank Holiday in London, he will state if he has decided to give the London telegraphists the same concessions on the day in question as were granted to them on Coronation Day.

Yes, Sir, the concessions granted will be the same as on Coronation Day. Telegraphists who are required to attend for duty on Saturday next within the County of London will receive either a day's pay or a day's leave at some future time.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will state on how many occasions during the last three months the Stornoway mail steamer has been late in her arrival in Stornoway, and at Kyle and Mallaig on the return passage; will he say on how many occasions the delay has exceeded half-an-hour, and whether the penalty clause has ever been enforced; and, if not, will he explain why this has not been done.

During July, August, and September last the mail steamer from Kyle reached Stornoway more than thirty minutes late nearly every day, but on nearly every occasion the mail train from the south was late in arriving at Kyle—frequently more than half-an-hour late. In the reverse direction the contract service ends at Kyle, and the steamer reached that place late on nine occasions only during the period in question, on seven of which the lateness exceeded half-an-hour. The penalty clause in the contract has not been enforced, as it was not considered to apply to the delays in question. At the same time, I am not satisfied with the manner in which the service has recently been performed, and I had already caused a communication to be addressed to the contractor on the subject.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that a man named Graham recently died of typhus fever in the populous district of Ness, Island of Lewis, and that the body remained uncoffined for three days; will he state whether arrangements can be made for speedy interment in cases such as this; and, seeing that the only fever hospital is at Stornoway, thirty miles distant, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of arranging for this district to be provided with a place for the isolation of persons suffering from typhus and other infectious diseases.

The Local Government Board have ascertained that no person of the name of Graham has been notified as having died of typhus fever at Ness. They learn, however, that an old man named Mackay died in that district of typhus on the morning of Sunday the 14th September, that intimation of his death was conveyed to Stornoway the same evening, that on Monday morning instructions were wired to have a coffin prepared, that on Tuesday an undertaker was sent from Stornoway, twenty-six miles distant, as the local undertaker would not coffin the body, and that about two o'clock on the same day the remains were coffined under the personal supervision of the chairman of the local authority—all within fifty-six hours after the man's death. The Board are satisfied that, in the circumstances, the arrangements for interment could not have been more expeditiously carried out, and they are assured that the local authority have made arrangements for interring as speedily as possible in such cases. The question of hospital accommodation for the Lewis District is a very difficult one, and is engaging the attention of the local authority and the Local Government Board.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a trial at Temple more, on 2nd October, at which two resident magistrates took part, when a week's imprisonment with hard labour was imposed in default of payment of a 5s. fine on Mr. Thomas Maher, a district councillor, for shouting "This is Sheridan's work"; and will he say on what grounds hard labour formed portion of the sentence on Mr. Maher.

Mr. Thomas Maher was, on the 1st September, tried with ten others before a Bench consisting of two resident and five ordinary magistrates under the Towns Improvement Act for the offence of riotous and indecent behaviour in the public streets. All those charged other than Maher were acquitted; he was convicted and fined 5s., with 1s. 6d. costs, with seven days imprisonment in default of payment. Hard labour was not awarded at all, and the fine was paid on the 3rd instant.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the indecent conduct consisted of?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of the public road in the town of Hospital, County Limerick; and seeing that, since the late contract expired about four months ago, no repairs have been made to the road, and having regard to the condition of the road from Hospital to Knocklong, will he take steps to remedy the matter.

It is the duty of County and District Councils, as the case may be, to keep all public works in good condition and repair, and to take all steps necessary for that purpose. The Local Government Board has power to take action with a view to remedy any default on the part of the local authority in the matter, provided complaint is made to the Board under Section 32 of the Local Government Act, 1898.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an application by a labourer named William Creedon for a cottage and plot of land on the farm of Jeremiah Creedon, Parthanknuck, in the Ullanes electoral division of the Macroom Union, was sanctioned at a sworn inquiry held in April, 1901, and the site marked out and approved by the Engineering Inspector of the Local Government Board; I and will he explain why the house was subsequently rejected although the applicant's present abode was condemned as unfit for habitation.

The facts are not accurately stated in the first part of the Question. The Inspector disapproved of the site selected for the cottage, and the District Council was so informed. The case cannot now be re-opened, the Provisional Order having been made absolute; but it will be open to the Council to renew the application, in respect of another site, when proposing a fresh scheme.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the addition of hard labour to a sentence of imprisonment inflicted under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, carrying with it prohibition of service on any local body for five years, it is intended to continue to inflict such addition to sentences for political offences on local representatives.

The disqualification is statutory in Ireland, as in England, under the Local Government Acts applicable to the two countries. Sentences within the limits prescribed by the Criminal Law and Procedure Act of 1887 are imposed by resident magistrates subject to revision on appeal by County Court judges. Those who act in either of these judicial capacities impose sentences in accordance with the gravity of each particular offence proved to have been committed. I decline to accept the suggestion that they harbour any intentions of a general character.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases this effect of imposing hard labour has been pointed out to the magistrates?

Order, order!

Have not two removable magistrates actually announced that they did not know this was the law of Ireland?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the new rules which he has issued for regulating the execution of capital sentences in Ireland, the rule which requires that the executioners shall remain in the prison after the execution, and until permission is given them to leave, is intended to give power to the sheriff, the coroner, or the governor, or to any other person, and, if so, to whom, to detain the executioners for attendance at the inquest should their presence be required by the coroner; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that executioners on two occasions in Cork disregarded the summons of the coroner to appear and give evidence, he will see that powers are given the coroners to detain executioners and compel them to give evidence if required.

These rules are identical in all respects with the rules which obtain in this country. I see no reason for enlarging their scope. The coroner is the only person who can compel an executioner to appear at an inquest, but, under paragraph 5 of the rules, he can be held at the disposal of the coroner by the prison governor.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say if he proposes to hang many Irish Members?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in two cases in Cork, although the coroner desired the attendance of the executioner, the sheriff had sent him away to England, and he refused to come back? Seeing that the law has not been carried out, and that there is no record of how the convicts died, will the right hon. Gentleman at least give us some guarantee that unfortunate people are not executed with undue severity?

I do not think there is any need to make a special rule for Irish coroners which does not apply to English coroners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to hold a sworn inquiry into the case of Mr. O'Flanagan, J. P., Chairman of the District Council of Cordfin, who was recently sentenced to four months imprisonment with hard labour under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, and who is now an inmate of a lunatic asylum.

I have no objection to a sworn inquiry into the prison discipline of Limerick Prison, or the sanitation of that prison, or the medical treatment which Mr. O'Flanagan received, whether in prison prior to his falling ill, or in the county infirmary, where symptoms of typhoid were developed, provided that the hon. and gallant Member will indicate whether he desires the inquiry to be directed to any or all of these questions, or to others. I should, however, say that I have a report from Dr. Woodhouse, the Medical Member of the General Prisons Board, dated September 18th, which deals with the circumstances of Mr. O'Flanagan's illness and its melancholy consequences, and also a report of an inquiry in August by the Medical Inspector of the Local Government Board on the outbreak of typhoid fever in the city of Limerick. I am prepared to lay these on the Table of the House, since the hon. and gallant Member may consider, on reading them, that a case for further inquiry does not arise. I have no objection to a further sworn inquiry.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the extreme gravity of this case, and the great excitement it has caused in the neighbourhood from which Mr. O'Flanagan comes, he will have the inquiry held without delay?

And will the Press be admitted?

All the facts are contained in the two reports I have referred to. I have said I have no objection to a sworn inquiry if one is desired.

But will it be held without delay?

I must first have a specific statement of the points on which inquiry is desired. I have suggested four of them, but if the hon. Member has others in mind perhaps he will put a Question down and I will consider it.

We want the whole case inquired into, the circumstances connected with the outbreak of typhoid, the prison treatment of the man, his condition at the time he was received, and in fact everything connected with it.

I have said that I have not the slightest objection.

What about publicity?

Will the inquiry be open to the Press and the public?

I am not aware of that. I will do my best to secure the utmost publicity in regard to the circumstances of this case, a publicity which I should welcome, as a great deal of prejudice has been aroused which I should like to see dispelled.

Who is to hold the inquiry?

Order, order. The Question has been fully answered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many Members of this House were sentenced to terms of imprisonment with hard labour, by Courts sitting under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act of 1887 between July in that year and September, 1892. How many Members have been sentenced to hard labour by such courts from November, 1901, to the present time. How many persons have been sentenced by such courts to further terms of imprisonment in default of giving bail to be of good behaviour between 1887 and November, 1892, and of these how many were Members of this House. And how many persons have been sentenced to further terms in default of bail since November, 1901, and of these how many were Members of this House.

Parliamentary Paper No. 158 of 1889 shows that up to May 16th of that year two Members of this House, Mr. Thomas Condon (East Tipperary) and Mr. Edward Harrington were sentenced to two months imprisonment with hard labour (7th February, 1889) and six months with hard labour (31st December, 1888) respectively. A third Member, Dr. Tanner, was sentenced to hard labour on July 29th, 1889. I have, on my present information, no reason to believe that hard labour was imposed on any hon. Member at a later date. From November, 1901, to the present time, six hon. Members have been sentenced to hard labour by the Court of First Instance, in two cases the hard labour was remitted on appeal. The appeals in the other four cases are pending. In reply to the third paragraph, the number of persons sentenced to further terms of imprisonment, in default of giving bail, between 1887 and 1892, was 106, of whom two (Mr. William O'Brien, Cork City, August 26th, 1889, and Mr. Gilhooly, Cork West, same date) were Members of this House. Since November, 1901, thirty persons have been sentenced to further terms in default of bail, and of these five are Members of Parliament. In the case of one Member the further term was remitted on appeal.

Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to his figures of 1,601 given the other day?

Yes, applicable to all persons, including Members of Parliament.

In view of the fact that it happened that all the removable magistrates began exactly at the same time to give hard labour, will the right hon. Gentleman state on what date he issued instructions to them to do so?

I hope hon. Members will allow Questions to proceed. That Question does not arise out of the Question on the Paper, and notice must be given of it.

Sir, may I, as a matter of personal explanation, beg leave to say that I utterly repudiate the suggestion that I gave any such instructions? [NATIONALIST cries: "It is true."

What about your agent?

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the discrepancy—[MINISTERIAL cries of "Order."]

Order order! The Question on the Paper has been fully answered. If the hon. Member wishes for further particulars, he can put down a Question on the subject. I quite understand that this subject excites deep interest among hon. Members below the gangway, but still I hope that they will remember the Rule that Questions must be relevant to, and arise out of, the Question on the Paper.

Mr. Speaker, kindly allow me to put my Question, and if it is not in order, I will bow to your ruling.

After what I have said, I will trust that the hon. Member will not put a Question which does not really arise.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the discrepancy between the number of Members of this House asked to give bail in addition to the sentence of hard labour imposed on them in the period from 1887 to 1892, and the period from November last to the present time?

That is an argument arising upon the answer; it is asking for an explanation of the facts, or what the hon. Member thinks are the facts.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the agreement arrived at between the British and Canadian Governments, whereby a subsidy of £225,000 a year for ten years (£75,000 a year from the British Government and £150,000 a year from the Canadian Government) is to be given for the purpose of subsidising a line of steamers running between Liverpool and Canada, and seeing that Blacksod Bay, in the West of Ireland, is the nearest point in the United Kingdom to Canada, he will use his influence with the Government with a view to making Blacksod Bay a port of call for, at least, the mails between Canada and Great Britain.

No such agreement has been concluded.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the inspector who visited the Rae Estate, Killorglin, county Kerry, has yet made his report; and whether he can state what is the cause of the delay in the sale of this estate.

The report has been made to the Land Commissioners, who are now considering the report to be made by them to the Land Judge.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland where is Sergeant Sullivan, who was tried for perjury, now stationed; and what is his present rank in the Royal Irish Constabulary.

At Dunshaughlin, Co. Meath, with the rank of sergeant.

Is it a promotion? What grade of sergeant is he in at present?

The hon. Member will see that does not arise. The Question was where is he stationed, and what is his rank.

Yes, Sir; but I understand that there are three grades of sergeant, and I want to know which is Sullivan's grade. Is it the same as when he was charged with perjury in the West of Ireland, or has he been promoted?

If the hon. Member wants knowledge as to the distinctions in rank, he must put down a Question.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will promote Sullivan to the position of removable magistrate, for which he is eminently qualified?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is yet in a position to say if he will provide time for the discussion of the grave state of Ireland asked for by the Irish Members; and, if so, when.

Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene, with a view of facilitating the action of the right hon. Gentleman. I had the opportunity of stating on Monday what my view of this matter is, and I said that I cordially supported the claim of the Irish Members. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand him, on this Irish question, which is not, of course, exclusively, but certainly supremely Irish, declines to give a day for discussion on the mere request of the Irish Members, and will only give it if a Scotchman or an Englishman asks him for it. As I am possessed of that qualification [Cries of "Which?"] I am glad to join in making the request.

The right hon. Gentleman does indeed appear to have facilitated my answer to the hon. Gentleman. He is mistaken, however, in supposing that I refused a day to the Irish Members because they were Irish Members, or that I am prepared to give it to the right hon. Gentleman because he happens to be a Scotchman. I give it to the right hon. Gentleman because he speaks, as I understand him, as Leader of the Opposition, and on behalf, not of a section of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but of those hon. Gentlemen as a whole, as a body in this House. The right hon. Gentleman desires that there should be a Motion put down on the Paper and discussed, which of course from the very nature of the case would be a Vote of Censure, and under those circumstances I am ready, as I have always expressed myself ready, to give the opportunity which the right hon. Gentleman desires. I suppose, perhaps, a week's notice should be given, and this day week would be a convenient day. A Vote of Censure is sufficiently important not to be taken without some notice, and subject to anything the right hon. Gentleman may have to say I shall propose to devote this day week to the Resolution he desires to move.

May I be allowed to say that while, of course, we accept the time the right hon. Gentleman is going to give us, we do not concede our right, as representatives of Ireland, to claim to get time for the discussion of the affairs of that country.

The hon. Gentleman seems to think that there is some special disability in this matter attaching to Irish Members. I can assure him he has entirely misinterpreted everything that I have said and thought on the subject. I should equally have declined to give a day to any section of hon. Gentlemen opposite unless it had been understood——

We are a distinct Party; we are no section. We represent a nation.

We are a Party; we are not a section.

For the word "section" I would substitute the word "fraction." I should equally have declined to give a day to any fraction of hon. Gentlemen opposite unless it had been supported by the official Opposition. I give it because it has been asked for by the Leader of the Opposition, who proposes to move a Vote of Censure.

No. All I do is—I might almost say, at the instigation and the solicitation of the right hon. Gentleman—to join in asking for a day for the discussion of this matter. The Motion properly and naturally comes from the representatives of Ireland. With regard to fixing a particular day, will the right hon. Gentleman reserve the matter for a final decision?

I will certainly reserve it, but there seems to be a little ambiguity and difficulty introduced into the discussion by the last remark of the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, it would not be proper for me to dictate who is to move the Resolution. That is a matter entirely to be settled by the Opposition themselves. But it must be distinctly understood that the right hon. Gentleman does not simply come forward as an amicus curiœ, merely because he wants to see a discussion take place; it must be understood that the Motion is arranged under his auspices; that it is in the nature of a condemnation of the Government; and that it is officially supported by the right hon. Gentleman.

What I have asked for, and continue to ask for, is that an opportunity should be afforded to the Irish Members to challenge the administration of affairs in Ireland, and to the Government to make a statement of the reasons which have led them to adopt the steps which they are now following in Ireland. Then the House can pronounce its opinion upon the subject.

I really think the right hon. Gentleman had better make up his mind.

You had better make up yours.

This is not a debating society.

I think it would be for everybody's convenience that there should be a clear issue on this point, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot go further—if he really cannot take the full plunge this afternoon—I think we had better defer this.

The right hon. Gentleman, departing, I think, somewhat from his usual courtesy, taxed me with not having made up my mind, when I have not altered my statement or opinion from the first. What I have done I have described to the House. The right hon. Gentleman having stated that he would not give this day, which I think ought to be given, at the instance of the Irish Members, I am willing to do them and the House and the public and the good government of Ireland the service of joining in asking for a day. The Motion will be an Irish Motion, and it will be for the House to pronounce its opinion upon it.

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the last thing I wanted to do was to show discourtesy to him, and if anything I have said can be so interpreted I was quite unconscious of it, and I at once withdraw and apologise. But may I again repeat exactly what I feel the circumstances to be? It is, so far as the Government and this side of the House are concerned, a matter of complete indifference whether the Resolution, for which, if it be a Vote of Censure, I am prepared to give time, is moved by an Irish Member or by the right hon. Gentleman himself, or any one on the Front Bench. If I may offer an opinion, I think it possible that the most convenient course would be that an Irish Member should move it, as being especially acquainted with that side of the case. But that is no affair of mine. What is an affair of mine—and the right hon. Gentleman will see that I am really doing this in the interests of what I regard as the general principles of Parliamentary practice—is that it should be understood that, whoever moves the Motion, it should be adopted by the Opposition as a whole, not by every individual, of course, but by the Opposition as a whole, that it is in the nature of a direct condemnation of the conduct of the Government, and that it is supported officially by right hon. Gentlemen on that Bench.

I only wish to say that I entirely repudiate, on behalf of my hon. friends, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that we must submit our Motion to the censorship, the revision, or the approval of any Party in this House, and I am perfectly sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will put forward no such preposterous and insulting demand. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has apologised for any discourtesy as unintentional in his language towards the Leader of the Opposition. May I say that he has, I think, quite unintentionally, employed towards us, and, which is more important, our country, most insulting language. We claim to be a nation, and we regard the use of such words as "section" or "faction," as a deliberate insult to a nation whose civilisation, I may say, preceded and may also succeed that of this country.

I appear to be very unfortunate in my expressions. I think the hon. Gentleman will see, if he will permit me to explain, that the very last meaning my words were susceptible of was the suggestion of insult to himself, his friends, or his country. I was trying to describe what I conceived to be the proper course for the Opposition as a whole. Talking of the Opposition as a whole, I described the representatives from Ireland as a section. [NATIONALIST cries: "You said 'faction'"] whereupon the hon. Member for Cork interrupted me with great vehemence and repudiated the phrase "section." Thereupon I cast about me for a more neutral phrase, and I used a word which, at all events in my school days, I never thought had a political, religious, or specially national reference. The word was "fraction" [NATIONALIST cries: "You said 'faction.'"] Ever since I have been connected with fractions at school I have thought the word purely neutral in its reference. I used it on this occasion because it simply connotes the fact that eighty Irish Gentlemen are only a certain portion of the total number of the Opposition, which amounts, I think, to about 260. The date of the civilisation of Ireland, which I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman preceded that of this barbaric country, really docs not invalidate the fact that eighty is only a fraction of 260. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing but that pure statement of fact was intended to be implied by what I said.

I said I did not think the right hon. Gentleman intended discourtesy; I only said that his language must be regarded by us as insulting language which could not be allowed to pass without protest. But I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman what is really a much more important matter than his language—are we or are we not, after this tangled conversation, to understand that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to the representatives of Ireland a day for the discussion of the exercise of coercion in their country?

I hoped that I had been lucid in my explanation, and that there was hardly anything to be added. I am perfectly ready to give a day to the Opposition for the discussion of a Motion condemnatory of the Government's Irish policy. I did not ask that that Motion should be placed in the hands of an English Member, or even seen by an English Member, or subjected to revision by the right hon. Gentleman, or to any of the processes to which the hon. Gentleman appears to object; all I say is that it must be put on the Paper as a Motion of the Opposition as a whole, and intended to be supported by them as a whole.

I may recall to the right hon. Gentleman the familiar lines:—

"The Spanish fleet thou canst not see—because It is not yet in sight."

This Motion is not in sight. I do not know what Motion may be made by the Irish Members; and he invites those sitting in this part of the House to pledge themselves to support a Motion of the terms of which they are totally ignorant. No, Sir, I stand by what I have said already. We think it is the duty of the Government to give this day. We think it is scandalous that it should be refused; and we shall form our opinion upon the case made out by the Irish Members and the Government respectively.

May I suggest that it is about time to drop the subject? If we are not going to get a day given to us, it is just possible that we may be able to take it.

The hon. gentleman is perfectly at liberty to do anything consistent with the Rules of the House. As regards the observations from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, would not the best course be, in these circumstances, to wait till the Resolution is put down on the Paper, and then he can inform me and the House of the view which he takes?

I must remind the House that there is no Question before it.

Then I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he has observed that the President of the United States of America has addressed a message of sympathy to the United Irish League Convention at Boston, and whether, in view of the future relations between this country and America, he can make any announcement that this country is not indisposed to learn wisdom as to Irish affairs from President Roosevelt, as the head of a great friendly nation—the greatest nation in the world.

rose.

Order, order! This discussion must cease.

I must press for an answer today.

I followed the hon. Member's Question. It is not a Question that was in order or could have been put on the Paper. It is not a Question asking for information.

On the question of order, Mr. Speaker, allow me to submit that a message by the President of the United States—[Interruption]—you are not going to closure the President of the United States here. [Renewed interruption.] I submit that this message——

I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to let me at least hear what the hon. Gentleman is going to say.

Thank you, Sir. I was about to submit to you that this message of the President of the United States of America is an international fact of the first importance to the future of this country, and that it would not be a friendly thing to the head of a great nation like the Americans that his message should be treated as if the disposition were to avenge his insult to the Chief Secretary and to his "removables" in Ireland.

The hon. Member is entitled to consider the matter important, but it is not the subject-matter of a Question at Question time.

I beg, then, to ask leave of the House to move the adjournment for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—videlicet, the important question as to the future relations between this country and the United States raised by the message of President Roosevelt to the convention of the United Irish League in Boston.

I am precluded by the Standing Orders from accepting that Motion for the Adjournment. I am prohibited from accepting any Motion which is not a definite matter of urgent public importance. The relations between this country and the United States of America are not a definite matter. They might cover an immensely wide field of argument. If the hon. Member were to look at the precedents he would find that Motions of that description have always been refused from the Chair under the Standing Order.

May I respectfully put it to you that the Motion does not deal with the general relations of this country and the United States, but with a definite matter?

I have just decided that point, and I have no doubt as to the correctness of my view. I cannot allow the subject to be re-opened. I assure the hon. Member I am always ready to accept any Motion from any quarter of the House which is in conformity with the Standing Order.

The fault is none of yours, Mr. Speaker, but I hope it will be noted in America that American opinion and Irish opinion are closured and gagged in this House.

formally moved—

"In page 3, line 7, after 'conditions,' to insert 'are complied with.'"

had on the Paper the following Amendment—

"In page 3, line 7, at end, insert—(a) The managers or trustees of any school which, by its trust deed, is to be used for the purposes of instruction as an elementary school shall transfer the school buildings to the local education authority either by way of lease for a term of years renewable for ever or absolutely, pursuant to Section 23 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and shall not be entitled to receive any consideration for such transfer other than a nominal rent by way of acknowledgment in case such buildings are transferred by lease. Provided that such managers or trustees may reserve, out of such transfer, to trustees to be nominated by them for that purpose, the use of the school buildings when the same are not being used for school purposes, and may provide for the giving of any religious instruction, over and above that which may be given by the teachers, either before the opening or after the close, or both before the opening and after the close, of the ordinary school hours under the direction either of the last hereinbefore mentioned trustees or of such person or persons as the last-mentioned trustees may from time to time appoint."

said that this Amendment was not in order, because it would negative what has gone before. The local education authority are to maintain the schools on certain conditions, but the first condition the right hon. Gentleman proposes to insert is that the schools should cease to exist.

said that the Amendment need not necessarily carry that interpretation. He was dealing simply with the question of the property in the schools, and the Amendment did not raise the question which the Chairman seemed to apprehend.

said that the phrase "provided by" was accepted, subject to a definition to be inserted later.

said he desired, on a point of order, to submit that the Amendment was inconsistent with words which had been already passed. They were now dealing with schools not provided by the local authority, and the effect of the Amendment, which referred specifically to Section 23 of the Act of 1870, would be to make such schools provided schools.

said he did not think that the Attorney General could justify the point he had taken. There was nothing in the Amendment which affected the trust under which the property was held by the trustees. It was really a question as to where the legal estate in the schools should be vested; and, therefore, he submitted that the Amendment was in order.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, because the Amendment states that any school, which by its trust deed is to be used for the purposes of instruction as an elementary school, shall be used for other purposes. It seems to me as if I had undertaken to keep something alive on certain conditions, and that the first condition I proposed was that it should be killed.

said that the Amendment would not have that effect. It provided that the buildings should continue to be held under the trust, but in the particular manner indicated. There was nothing more in the Amendment than was in Section 23 of the Act of 1870.

I think it would convert non-provided schools into provided schools.

asked if the Amendment would not be in order if it read that the managers "shall, if the local authority think fit." That would give the local authority power to exercise an option, and if the option were not exercised the Amendment would be necessary.

said he would be prepared to accept that Amendment to his Amendment.

I think that would be a very fine difference. It seems to me it would be ridiculous, when defining the conditions under which a school is to be kept alive, to propose as the first condition that it should cease to exist.

said he saw that point, and accepted the ruling of the Chair with reference to it. The Amendment of his right hon. friend, according to the ruling of the Chair, was, in effect, that the schools should be extinguished; but the proposal he (Mr. Lloyd-George) proposed to submit was an entirely different one. It was simply to give to the local authority the option of taking over the schools, not that the schools should be extinguished. In that case the provision would be necessary in order to conduct the schools not taken over.

said that if the Amendment were accepted, it would give the local authority the option of not maintaining, but destroying, the non-provided schools.

said that his Amendment intended that non-provided schools should be maintained. The Amendment which he desired to move only related to the building—it related to nothing but the building. Consequently, what the Committee had already determined with regard to provided schools did not touch this point.

I think that if there is to be an option in the local education authority the option ought to be inserted after the words "local education authority." We had a discussion as to whether there should be an option or not when the discussion took place on the question to leave out "shall" and insert "may," and the Committee decided that there should be no option.

said the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for the Otley Division which he proposed to move dealt with an important point, and ought to have the consideration of the House. It was—

"In page 3, line 7, at end insert—(a) If the managers of any such school shall not fulfil the conditions which must be fulfilled in order that the annual Parliamentary grant may be obtained, the liability of the local education authority to maintain such school shall cease, and such school shall no longer be deemed to be a public elementary school."

But, before moving that Amendment, he desired to ask, upon a point of order, whether the raising of this question here would prevent the subsequent discussion which might take place upon an Amendment, which was put down upon the Paper to come in at the end of the Clause, as to the general penalties to be imposed for failing to comply with any of the conditions in Clause 8. He raised that point of order because he did not wish to exclude the discussion on sub-Section 2.

Which Amendment is the hon. Gentleman referring to?

said he referred to the last Amendment but one on page 42 of the White Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rossendale, namely—

"In page 3, line 35, at end, add—(4) If the persons providing the school make default in performing the duties imposed upon them by sub-section (1) (d) of this section, the local authority may, with the consent of the Board of Education, undertake the discharge of such duties, and shall be entitled thereafter, so long as they shall think fit, to use the school buildings and premises for the purposes of a public elementary school, paying nevertheless for such use to the persons providing the school a fair rent, to be determined in case of dispute by the Board of Education, and the school shall thenceforth be deemed to have been provided by the local education authority."

It is quite clear that it would be useless to have the discussion twice over, but I must leave the hon. Member to decide whether he takes the discussion now or later. So far as the point of order goes, I see no objection to moving that if certain things are not conditions they shall be made so.

said the Committee had already passed words providing that the liability to maintain existed only so long as these conditions were complied with.

called attention to the fact that he also had an Amendment down on page 38 of the Paper dealing with the same matter.

said that, as the Amendment proposed to be moved by his hon. friend the Member for Rugby stood in his name, he would like to say that, as he understood, the conditions which had been discussed on a previous occasion were not quite the same as those in the Amendment which he had put down, but related rather to the conditions to be observed for obtaining the Parliamentary grant.

explained that this matter also was dealt with, because the Committee passed the words "public elementary schools," and under the Act of 1870 a school ceased to be a public elementary school if the conditions necessary to obtain the grant were not observed.

That is the law as it at present exists. If a school docs not fulfil the conditions necessary in order to obtain the Parliamentary grant it ceases to be a public elementary school; therefore the Amendment is unnecessary.

submitted that the present position was that if a school violated the conditions necessary for obtaining the Parliamentary grant it did not get the grant. What happened then was that the local authority was still liable to maintain it, and the fine was upon the ratepayers, who lost the grant but had still to maintain the school.

said the words of the Section already passed made it obligatory for the local authority to maintain public elementary schools. If the conditions were not observed the school ceased to be a public elementary school.

said the school would not cease to be a public elementary school simply because it lost its grant.

said his Amendment carried the question much further. It provided that if a school did not obtain its grant it should still be maintained by the local authority, and so become a school provided by the authority.

That does not arise out of this Amendment. This Amendment does not alter the present state of the law, and if it does not alter the present state of the law it appears to be unnecessary. The first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Sowerby Division ought to come up as a separate question. The second Amendment has been already determined by Clause 7. The next Amendment on the Paper has also been determined by Amendment made. Then, there is an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rugby to insert, at the end of line 7,

"(a) The managers of the school shall make provision to the satisfaction of the local education authority for religious instruction based upon reading of the Bible: provided that no religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught or used."

The Committee has already decided that the local authorities have no control over religious instruction.

asked would it be in order for the hon. Member to move the second part of the Amendment. The first part had been disposed of but not the second, and he submitted that it would be in order to move the second part.

The local education authority would have to decide whether any "religious catechism or religious formulary" was used. That would give the control. It ought not to be inserted here.

said it had nowhere been decided that there should not be control over religious instruction.

That question was raised and debated on a Motion made to leave out the word "secular."

said that that would be complete control over religious instruction. What was proposed here was partial control.

The debate was taken upon the question whether religious and secular instruction were both to be under the control of the local authority.

said he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, because he thought sub-Section (a) raised the point upon which they came to close quarters as to what was the position of the managers under this Bill. The number of managers was settled by Clause 7, but there was no definition there of the things they had power to do and what they had not power to do. That was intended to be settled by Clause 8, but the structure of the Bill had been altered by the reconstruction of Clause 7. As the Clause originally stood there was a reference to the position of the managers under the Act of 1870, but that had now disappeared from the Bill, and therefore there was no indication that the managers under the Bill were in any respect in the situation of the managers under the Act of 1870. The Act of 1870 gave no particular powers to the managers, who were usually the proprietors of the schools, and they were only in the position of private persons who earned grants by the fulfilment of the conditions proposed. The situation was now altogether altered. The managers admittedly were not managers in the sense that was understood under the Act of 1870, and it was to be regretted that the word "managers" should have been applied in this case. These persons were a totally different class of persons, with different attributes and different duties altogether. What the Committee desired to know exactly was, what were the powers of these managers, and what were their duties, and whether they had any powers or duties except those contained in Section 8. The practical working of the Bill, especially in the rural districts, would depend entirely upon the managers. Anyone who considered the character and situation of the rural schools was bound to see that the management must be conducted by the people on the spot. The education authority would meet in the county town, many miles from most of the rural schools. The Committee who were to be the legislative authority of the County Council would also in all probability meet in the county town; they could not be distributed among the thousands of rural parishes. The direction of the business of the schools would therefore have to be done by the managers. What he wanted to know was in whose hands that management was to be. With reference to the provided schools, it was entirely in the hands of the education authority, as that authority would appoint its own managers and masters. But in half the schools of England, according to the Bill, the management was not to be in the hands of persons appointed by the education authority. In his speech at Manchester, the First Lord of the Treasury, referring to the existing state of education, asked what any foreign nation would think of such a system. They would, of course, object to any system under which half the elementary schools in the country were private concerns, but they would be even more astonished that when the Government were setting up a national system of public education they did not give the education authority the right to appoint the managers and teachers in the schools. That, however, was the system proposed by the Bill. In half the elementary schools in the country the education authority, so far from having any general control, was so constituted that, in regard to religious education, it was to have no control at all. A statutory majority of the managers, appointed entirely outside the national education authority, was to deal with the question of religious education, and the education authority, both in its entirety and through its representative upon the management, was to have nothing to say in the matter. Sub-Clause (a) dealt with the managers and secular education, and the Committee were told that in regard to secular education the managers were to be under the control of the education authority. But how would the scheme actually work? The education authority was to have one representative out of six on the management. The remaining five were not to be under its control at all, and yet the education authority was said to have sole control of the secular education. The first question he desired to ask was, as the education authority was to have no right of interference with religious education, what right or authority were the private managers to have over secular education? What was to be their function in the matter? The Attorney General had said the managers would act as a whole. If they acted as a whole they would place the education authority in a statutory minority. Was it intended that the managers, who were in no respect under the appointment of the education authority, should interfere with secular education? That was really a critical question when they came to consider the meaning of the assertion that the control of secular education was in the hands of the education authority, and it was one upon which everybody wanted to be informed. This authority was not derived from anything that formerly existed, because in former times these were private venture schools, receiving certain grants on certain conditions, but in all other respects entirely their own masters. That, professedly, was not to be the case in future. There was to be a national system under a central education authority. The only way in which the education authority could have complete control was through its own agents or representatives. That control was impossible if the work was to be carried on through agents, with regard to whom the education authority had no executive power or power of dismissal. That complete control ought to be in the hands of managers representing the education authority, whereas it was obvious on the face of the Bill itself that the control was in the hands of persons not representative of the authority. But let the Committee consider how the scheme would work. The education authority would give instructions to its representatives on the management to propose certain things in regard to secular education. Suppose the management by its majority refused to accept those directions, by what right could that statutory majority dispute the instructions? By sub-Section 2 any dispute between the managers and the authority was to be referred to the Board of Education, so that the right of the managers to dispute the directions was assumed. But if the sole control of secular education was to be in the education authority, what right had those who were not representatives of that authority to interfere in the matter at all? Secular education was the main business of the school, religious education being confined to a very limited portion of school hours. If in regard to that secular education the local authority was to have undisputed and indisputable control, what were the other managers to do during the greater part of the day? What voice or authority were they to have? If the Bill intended to give the sole control to the education authority, the other managers had no business or authority whatever during the main portion of school hours. That was the religious education with which they did not allow the education authority to interfere. By what right were those persons to interfere in secular education which the Government said was to be entirely at the disposal and under the control of the education authority, and therefore their representatives and agents? The other managers were not the agents of the education authority at all. It was said that they were to carry out the instructions given to them, but those instructions ought to be carried out by the persons who were the usual channel of instruction. This involved the daily work of the secular education of the school, upon which questions would arise and must arise. He was aware that the First Lord of the Treasury had put down an Amendment in the following terms—

"Where the managers of a school fail to carry out any direction of the local education authority under this section as to the secular instruction to be given in the school, that authority shall, in addition to their other powers, have the power themselves to carry out the direction in question as if they were the managers."

The only way in which the education authority could carry out such a direction would be for them to carry it out themselves, as if they were the managers. How were they to carry out such a direction except by an agent or a representative of their own? Who was to determine whether the managers of the school had failed to carry out that direction? How was that going to be ascertained? Was this Amendment to supersede sub-Section 2, because that sub-Section allowed a dispute to be raised upon the question of whether the directions were or were not right which were given by the education authority to the managers, and that was to go to the Education Department at Whitehall. What right had the managers to raise the question at all? If the education authority was supreme, then the directions of the representative of that authority ought to be unquestioned. When this Bill was first launched, it was said that the education authority would have sole control, and that they would be able to bring public opinion to bear as against the action of the majority of the managers, but calling public opinion to bear against the executive was not having sole control. Therefore, the whole conception of this proposal was contrary to the idea of control being given to the education authority. He had put this Amendment down in order that they might have a clear statement from the Government of what they considered to be the rights, if any, of intervention or interference on the part of any of those managers, except the representative of the Education Department with regard to secular education. There was another point which he thought had not yet received a satisfactory explanation, and that was how far the Education Department under their Code would still govern secular education in those schools. They had not yet had a clear statement upon that point. The late representative of the Education Department in this House said it was a very good thing that each education authority should form its own opinion as to the subjects to be taught. If that were so, he should like to have a clear answer upon it. In answer to an observation reminding the right hon. Gentleman of a statement he made in a speech at Bradford, he said that he wanted the education authority to have a variety in their subjects, but the Education Department would fix the standard. But supposing that the education authority fixed a very low list of subjects, was the Education Department in London to interfere with regard to the subjects taught as well as in the standards to be applied to the subjects? That was a very important matter, upon which they had not yet had any information. He wanted to know whether the authority of the representative of the education authority was to be as exclusive in respect of secular education as the authority of the denominational managers in respect of religious education? With regard to secular education, was the main business of the schools to be conducted solely under the direction of the education authority? That seemed to him to be the only condition which fulfilled the statement made by the Government which enabled them to have entire control in secular matters. Upon this Amendment he thought they ought to arrive at some conclusion on that subject, and he specially wished to know the effect under sub-Section 2 of this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman had studied sub-Section 2, and he had begun to see some difficulty in it which had induced him to put down his Amendment on page 40. He must have seen that if sub-Section 2 meant what it said, it allowed the managers, or a majority of the managers, to question upon every subject the instructions of the education authority and report to Whitehall. They had been told that this only referred to questions of secular education which trenched upon religious education. That was a very large subject. He had always regarded with the highest respect and admiration the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Education Department, but he was the child of the champion of denominationalism, and before he sat on the Front Bench he was a convinced denominationalist. That would be a great advantage to the denominational managers in matters of this kind. There was the further question of the instructions of the Education Department with regard to secular education. That was a question upon which they ought to have a distinct declaration. It seemed to him that such a proceeding as he had alluded to was absolutely inconsistent with the declaration in Clause 5 of the Bill that the education authority was to be responsible for and have control of all secular education in public elementary schools. If the Government intended that the majority of the denominational managers was to have any voice whatever in the secular instruction and management of the school, it would be an absolute contravention of the declaration in Clause 5, and the instruction to them to carry out directions of the local education authority meant nothing at all. He moved the Amendment in order that the Committee might test the validity of the assertion, that the absolute control of secular education would be left to the education authority.

The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was largely directed towards extracting information from the Government on a point which I honestly thought had been explained, and admirably explained, over and over again. I am not fortunate in my attempts to make the right hon. Gentleman understand the position of the Government, but I will make one more effort, to the very best of my ability, to give a clear and popular account of the position in which I think this manager question stands. Let it be remembered that the Government, in taking up the problem of education, found a system based on the Act of 1870, under which Act there are two kinds of managers. There are tire managers of the board schools and the managers of the voluntary schools. These two sets of managers had separate powers and occupied different positions. The managers of the board schools were the creatures of the School Board, could be removed by the School Board, and had to carry out the directions of the School Board. On the other hand, the managers of the voluntary schools had, subject to the Education Department, not only the management but the control of their schools. Well, we had to deal with the two different classes of managers we found in existence. As regards the managers of the School Boards, we have left them practically as we found them, putting in the place of the School Board the education authority; but the managers of the provided schools will bear the same relation to the education authority as the managers under the School Boards now bear to those School Boards. Very well, so much for the managers of the provided schools. Now I come to the other description of managers—the managers of the voluntary schools. Their powers which we found in existence we have not left unchanged by this Bill. On the contrary, we have excised from some of those powers certain very great responsibilities, and we have excised from further powers certain large fragments. We have left to them the appointment of teachers, as the House knows, because we regard that as essential to the denominational character of the school, which we mean to preserve. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like that arrangement. They desire not to preserve the denominational character of the school, but I am not going to enter into that at present. We think it ought to be preserved, and we think a convenient way of preserving it is to leave one essential—the appointment of the teachers—to those managers, and to see that among the managers there shall be a majority representative of the denomination. But we have taken away from the managers in the first place the right to be a homogeneous body representing the denomination, because we have provided that two of their number shall not necessarily represent the denomination at all, but shall, on the contrary, represent either the major or the minor local authority. We have, in the second place, taken away from them the control of secular education, and it is on that, apparently, that the right hon. Gentleman's mind is so deeply exercised. If I rightly apprehend him, he feels two great difficulties on that subject. One is the reference to Whitehall, which he appears to think is given under sub-Section 2, and which causes him the greatest anxiety—anxiety so great that I do not think he has addressed us once on any topic in connection with the Bill without referring to it. His other anxiety is lest the control we have avowedly given to the education authority over secular education should, though strongly given in words, be ineffective in fact, and it is in these circumstances that the education authority have to act through a body of managers, of whom a majority would represent the denomination. The difficulty as regards the reference to Whitehall will, I venture to think, be more properly dealt with when we come to sub-Section 2, instead of in this preliminary discussion. Let me repeat now what I stated before, that without going into minutiae and refinements, the broad principle we desire to see adopted with regard to secular education, is that the education authority shall be the sole controlling power, subject, in the first place, to the minimum requirements laid down by Whitehall, which, I presume, the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to abolish, and which I think no Gentleman on that side of the House who supports him wishes to abolish. In the second place, the appeal to Whitehall is not on the subject of the control of secular education, but on any dispute as to whether a thing is secular education or not.

That is not in the Clause.

It is in. I am, in response to the right hon. Gentleman, giving the view of the Government. I am endeavouring to give a general view of our intentions. We desire within the sphere of secular education that the education authority shall be supreme, but it is evident that, as you preserve the denominational character of the school—and we mean to preserve that, it is part of our policy—there might conceivably be a collision between the managers and the education authority in which the managers would say, "We are quite willing to obey the education authority in regard to matters of secular education, but this is going beyond their province, and they are trespassing into the region of religious education." Hon. Gentlemen may object to that view, but I think that that may happen, and we think that the House cannot leave it there. We think you cannot make the education authority judge in its own case as to the exact limitation of power, and you must, therefore, give it to some third party, and we say that you should give it to the Education Department. Therefore, I hope I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that the reference to the Education Department is not as to the manner in which the education authority is controlling secular education, but only as to whether the controlling authority, as regards secular education, is or is not trespassing beyond its legal function. Then I come to the second difficulty. The second difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman, if I may respectfully say so, is the only one which seems to be distinctly and clearly germane to the Amendment put on the Paper. It is as to whether those managers, being by hypothesis, as regards two thirds of their number, representative, not of the education authority but of the denomination, will prove the proper instrument or machine for carrying out the directions of the education authority as regards secular education. Well, I do not think the danger is a real or practical danger, but if it be, I venture to say that it will be absolutely provided for by the Amendment I have put on the Paper, and to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I think that is a much better method of dealing with it than the one he has proposed.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was to be a substitute for sub-Section 2.

It wants a much more lucid power of expression than I have to make my statements clear to the right hon. Gentleman. I have explained that sub-Section 2 is not intended to interfere with the power of the education authority as regards secular education at all. Therefore, my Amendment on page 40 has nothing whatever to do with sub-Section 2. It is not a substitute for it, but is in addition to it, and it is, in my opinion, a better way of meeting the difficulty than that of the right hon. Gentleman. While I do not describe the precise methods by which the education authority is to carry out its views, the right hon. Gentleman, if I understand him rightly, says that it is to be done by means of two managers who do not necessarily belong to the denomination.

Two managers who are appointed by the education authority.

They are not appointed necessarily by the education authority.

My Amendment is that they are to be "managers representing the education authority."

That is not the most convenient way. I daresay it would produce a great deal more friction. I venture to think that my way of dealing with the matter is the better way, but I will defer the discussion of it until I move the Amendment.

said that the First Lord had given what he said was a popular sketch of this Clause and of his proposed Amendment. When he listened to the right hon. Gentleman the impression which was on his mind was "What an extraordinary, ridiculous, cumbrous, inconvenient system! He could not conceive a system which, in working, would be more certain to lead to friction, difficulties and delays. The right hon. Gentleman began by telling the Committee that there were two sets of managers—the managers of the School Boards, and the independent managers of the voluntary schools. As regarded the School Board managers the change which the right hon. Gentleman had made was enormously for the worse, because the School Board system was perfectly convenient in towns where the School Board was at hand, and could keep the managers under its hand, and pull them up if they were doing wrong. That was not a system which could be put in force where the managers were at a great distance, and where the education authority could not keep them under its direction in the same way as in a town. Therefore, as regarded provided schools the change was clearly for the worse. Then, when they came to the non-provided schools, the right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that the arrangement he proposed was adopted in order to secure denominational control, and therefore the managers were to retain the appointment of the teachers. What did that mean? It meant that they were to have a second set of managers who were neither to be independent nor dependent—monstrous creatures combining something of both independence and dependence. They were to split up education and make a difference between religious and secular instruction, and appoint a set of managers with power over the one and not over the other—a set of managers who by the very terms of their appointment must be divided into two hostile factions. They would be a semi-independent body with dependence in name on the local authority at a distance, but they would be practically independent, not only because one part of their functions had been withdrawn from the local authority, but because it would be impossible for the local authority to exercise effective control over them. Now surely the simple course would have been to do one of two things—either to have the managers entirely independent or else a smaller area should have been chosen. Either they could have taken an area in which they would have had an independent body of managers, such as in the existing areas, or else have made the managers absolutely dependent on the central authority for all purposes. There was a large range of questions which lay on the borderland of secular and religious instruction, and the Clause, as proposed to be amended, provided for friction between the two sets of authorities. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to his Amendment, which it would be out of order to discuss at present, but that Amendment did not appear to him to meet the difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman only said that if the managers did not obey the local authority they would be superseded. But what machinery was there in the Bill to do that? The local authority would have to act through these managers—that was, to tell the managers who were already disobedient to obey the orders which they disobeyed, or that the local authority would carry out the orders themselves. Who were "they"? They were managers in office at a distance, it might be, of forty miles from the education authority which had no direct power to compel them to carry out their orders. He thought, in the whole circumstances, the suggestion of his right hon. friend, that the local authority was to depute managers as their agents to compel the other managers to carry out their orders, was a perfectly practical suggestion. The difficulty was one which the right hon. Gentleman had not faced. It was a difficulty inherent in the nature of the case, and inherent in an attempt to set up an authority which was to be at the same time independent and dependent. The right hon. Gentleman said that they must not make the education authority the judge in their own case. What did that imply? It implied that the managers were not to be under the control of the education authority.

said ho had never denied or concealed that the Government meant the managers to have control over religious education, which was outside the sphere of the education authority. There were two spheres of education—religious and secular.

said he denied that these spheres could be separated as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. The teachers were to give both religious and secular instruction, and it would be perfectly impossible to prevent questions arising constantly in which the two spheres would collide, and in which the managers would defy the local education authority. The control of the education authority would not be an effective control, and that was the reason why, from the first, he had felt that the plan of the right hon. Gentleman could not be a final settlement. It would be impossible for the education authority to give the kind of control which was needed. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the religious question as the only question in which difficulty could arise, he forgot all the other items of Clause 8. Controversies would arise about the accounts, with regard to repairs and many other points; and, therefore, by providing, under sub-Section 2, an appeal on all questions—because its terms were perfectly general—they were encouraging the managers to set up their authority against the local education authority. Therefore he could not receive either Clause 8 as it stood, or as amended by the right hon. Gentlemen, as meeting the difficulty. He believed that when they came to sub-Section 2 they should find that the difficulties would be greatest in regard to the financial part of the work, because the managers would have no motive of economy. If all the managers were to be appointed by the education authority, they could choose men who would carry out economic administration; but the majority would be independent, and not liable to be dismissed like School Board managers. Therefore, there was neither one security nor the other. He knew that that was very largely in the minds of the County Councils. He had received many communications pointing out that the greatest difficulty in the Bill would be the impossibility of enforcing economic administration on the managers. It was quite impossible that a proper control over expenditure would be effective. The only way that could be done was to make the managers absolutely dependent on the education authority, and until that was done the system proposed in this Clause would remain a standing difficulty and an obstacle to the proper working of the Bill.

said that he had made an explanation which went beyond the rigid limits of the Amendment, but he hoped that that would not be taken as an excuse for discussing the whole matter.

said he wished to ask the leave of the Committee to make a few remarks on what had fallen from the Leader of the House, in what the right hon. Gentleman called his popular exposition of the working of the Bill. The words of sub-Section 2 raised the question of how the control of education was to be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman was no doubt perfectly clear as regarded what was in his own mind, but he was not clear as to what was in the Bill; and that was one of the great difficulties hon. Members were in, and which led to anticipations of future confusion. The right hon. Gentleman in his popular exposition spoke of the managers as if they were in some degree the present managers, rather than a new body. What were they now? In the ordinary rural parish in a county in the South of England these gentlemen were acting under trust deeds which made them necessarily communicant members of the Church of England. They were four in number including the Chairman, but, under the Bill in the agricultural counties, they would be strengthened to five communicants of the Church of England by the election of one by the County Council. The appointment of the head master of the school was left in the hands of the managers—which meant really the Chairman. Up to the present time the managers had never been called together, and the Chairman and the head master conducted the whole business of the school. The managers were only called in to sign the accounts of the school. How then was the county authority to be maintained? The finances of these schools were not of a character for which the county authority would like to be responsible, and they would have to be closely scrutinized? But how was the authority of the education authority to be exercised? In the ordinary rural county when a conflict came it would be between the majority of five managers, who were communicant members of the Church of England, and the representative of the Parish Council. The right hon. Gentleman assumed in his popular exposition that, while he gave the appointment of the teachers to the majority of the managers, in every other matter the education authority would be supreme; but they did not find words to that effect in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman arbitrarily told the Committee that his opinion was perfectly clear that, for example, the county authority would have the choice of the books to be used in the school, and yet the managers, and not the county authority, were to have the choice of the teachers. But that was not in the Bill itself. The right hon. Gentleman had so clearly expressed his view as to the limitation being expressed in the sub-Section which had been asked for on the previous day, that it was impossible to say which power was a part of secular control and which was not. It was a difficult matter to discuss, and he would not anticipate the discussion. Obviously, the question of finance was the greatest difficulty that would arise.

said a large number of the schools now managed by the School Boards were leased to them for short periods. The moment the School Boards were swept away, those buildings would revert to the educational bodies which built them. His point was that those buildings for some time past had been maintained, and their furniture and fittings would have been provided, by the local authority. Upon the question of the administration of these adjuncts to education, a dispute might arise, which dispute would be settled by the four denominational managers appointed under the Bill. He thought such a dispute ought to be settled not by the representatives of the denominational managers, but by the local authority who had had to provide the school. In the small country School Board area in which he resided there was a great apprehension as to what would occur when these schools, which had been filled up and maintained by the School Board, were handed over to the control of the denominational owners.

That point does not seem to arise here.

thought it arose on that part of the Amendment that, in the event of any disputes arising they should be settled by the representatives of the local authority. He wished them to have the authority.

That point is not covered by this Amendment; it will require an Amendment dealing with that class of schools.

said that nothing could be clearer than the statement of the Prime Minister as to the intention of the Government, but he desired to emphasise what had been said by his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, that the intention of the Government was not put into the Bill. Everybody knew that when the Bill became an Act it would be construed from what appeared on the face of the Act itself, and no one was allowed to go behind it and look into the statements of the right hon. Gentleman to see what was intended. There were two ways in which the matter might be dealt with. The first was by limiting the power and authority to be given to the education authority and giving greater powers to the managers; the second, and he submitted the better way, would be to give uncontrolled power to the education authority, and carve out of that the powers to be given to the managers. The powers of control over the denominational schools were in the hands of trustees, and the intention was that the trustees should no longer bind the new statutory body if it was a new statutory body subordinate to the education authority. If that was so it ought to be made plain in the Act what the powers of the new statutory body were to be. That was done in the Act of 1870, and it should be borne in mind that in Clause 7, as altered, there was no reference to the Act of 1870, although there was a reference to it in the clause as originally drawn. He did not know whether this new statutory body, the new managers of the "not provided" schools, were to have any of the powers which managers had under the Act of 1870. In that Act there were powers given to the managers of the denominational schools to require a public inquiry when the Education Department said there was not accommodation enough for the education of the children. Did that power vest in this new statutory body? He did not know, but if it did it ought to appear in the Bill. They also had powers in certain cases to acquire land under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. Were all these powers to be vested in this new statutory body? He did not know. It had been stated that they did, but the Bill did not say so. It would be quite as open to the Prime Minister to say they had to fix the salaries of the teachers. Nothing was said about that, but it was well known that the intention of the Government was that the local authority should fix the salaries of the teachers, and therefore that would not come within the power of this new statutory body. Nothing had been said about the appointment of the teachers. If they were to have the control of the appointment of the teachers, it would appear to follow that they should also control the salary of the teachers; but the fact of the Prime Minister having stated the intention of the Government showed that the powers of I this new statutory body were absolutely undefined. The Government having created this body had not defined its powers. According to the provisions of the Bill it was open to anybody to argue that they had or had not the appointment of the teachers or the fixing of their salaries, and it was therefore necessary that these powers should be defined.

maintained that there ought to be a clear understanding of the principle on which they were going to proceed. He thought there ought to be a complete transfer of all the schools to the new authority. At present the Bill left the matter absolutely vague. The draftsmen of the Bill ought to let the Committee know clearly what the authority was. If these schools and managers were to occupy their present position, except so far as the position was modified by the modifications of the Statute, it would be necessary to discuss at length every point with regard to the rights of managers. If on the other hand it was proposed to transfer these properties to the local education authority, then the attention of the Committee could be devoted to the Clause which it would be necessary to insert in the Bill to preserve the right of a denomination to deal with the school simply for the purpose of giving denominational teaching.

said the Committee could not discuss in detail the matters which the Prime Minister had touched upon, but there were one or two particular questions upon which they were entitled to get an answer. The Committee were on the threshold of the position of the managers in their relation to the education authority, and they ought to know what were the views of the Government. From the statement of the Prime Minister they presumably did know, but the right hon. Gentleman's statements were not upheld by the Bill as drafted. He was sorry to think that the Prime Minister had gone back upon a statement he made yesterday, and rather suggested now that there should be an appeal not only on the question of ultra vires but also upon such matters as repairs and structural altera-ations. That showed that the Prime Minister had not clearly thought out in his own mind what the relations were to be between the managers and the local education authority. As far as secular instruction was concerned, would the control of the local education authority over the managers be as complete as the control of the same authority over the managers of board schools?

If I understand the question, the hon. Member asks me whether the education authority will have the same complete control over secular education in the non-provided as in the provided schools. I answer in the affirmative. If he asks me whether the control is the same in both cases, it clearly is not, because they cannot dismiss the foundation managers.

said that that was a point they could not now discuss. He wanted to know whether the managers were merely the agents of the education authority in the case of secular education. Supposing the education authority were not satisfied with the staff of the denominational managers, could they order them to recast the staff?

Yes.

And if they refuse, the new Amendment of the Prime Minister will come into operation, and the managers can be suppressed.

So far as I understand the question, the education authority can say "We think your teachers are inefficient."