By way of personal explanation may I be permitted to say that the only right I claim in asking these Questions is the right of conquest won in single combat here?

Order, order! The hon. Member has acted most improperly. It is a well-known rule of this House that Questions are not to be asked on behalf of another Member except at his request and on his behalf, and what the hon. Member has done is quite contrary to the usual practice and courtesies of this House.

May I respectfully say I thought that the spoils remained to the conqueror.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what will be the business for the rest of the week.

I propose to take the Education Bill at all the sittings during the remainder of the week.

said he had an Amendment further down on the Paper with regard to the question of endowment, and the hon. Member for the Abingdon Division, when he moved his Amendment at a very late hour on the previous night, intimated quite accurately that it raised the same point only in a different manner. Now he was anxious to insert a proviso to make it perfectly clear that these endowments, which were very numerous in connection with elementary schools, should not be appropriated by the managers of the schools and carried to the buildings and repairs fund, but that they should be used for educational purposes, and go in diminution of the rates and burdens thrown on the general body of taxpayers. This matter was very important in itself, and it became doubly important by reason of the decision which the Committee unfortunately came to on the previous evening with regard to paying a rent for the teacher's dwelling-house, because, in consequence a large county authority would, in future, have to hand over a very considerable sum from the rates to the managers in relief of the burden they would otherwise have to bear themselves in regard to the upkeep of their buildings. It was impossible, of course, to state exactly what the sum would amount to, but one might gather from the concessions made by the Government to the friends of the so-called denominational and voluntary schools, coupled with the present Amendment, that there was a great desire, on the Ministerial side of the House, to constitute, out of the rentals paid by the local authorities, an endowment fund which would very largely, and, in some cases, almost entirely, relieve the supporters of these denominational schools from the necessity of finding money by voluntary subscriptions, for the maintenance of the fabric. It might appear the most just and rational thing in the world that, if there were endowments attached to a denominational school, they should necessarily go in support of the fabric of the school. But it was not enough merely to state a general proposition of that kind. They had to ask themselves how, in a great number of cases the endowments came to belong to the Church of England. We unhesitatingly say that, if they examined the records of the Charity Commissioners, they would find that, in a vast number of instances, the denominations, and more especially the Church of England, had become possessed of funds which the pious founders never intended them to have. In the early days of the history of these endowments, before the Charity Commission came into existence, it was an exceedingly common thing for the Court of Chancery to assume that silence on the point in the trust deed implied an intention on the part of the founder that the charity should go to the Established Church. In the century before last enormous charities were handed over to the Church of England, although the scheme was never stamped with any denominational desire at all. And even when the Charity Commission came into existence the same process continued, and there had been numerous cases in which endowments given for purposes which had ceased to exist, and which were in no way connected with education, were handed over in support of the National school. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Abingdon Division were adopted in all these cases in which the Church of England was enabled to take possession of the endowment, simply because at the time it owned the only school in the parish, it would be enabled to appropriate it in aid of the denominational side of school management. Lookingat the broad aspect of many of these educational endowments which dated from a very remote period, they said that there were among them large funds which, from time to time, had been found to have no use at all under the original trust deeds—funds larger than any purely local funds. There was, for instance, the case of Betton's Charity, from which almost all the Church schools in the south and west of England received a small sum every year. In passing, he might observe that, in his opinion, its value was frittered away by this method of distribution. Betton was an excellent person who left a large sum for the rescue of people, especially children, who had been captured by Algerine pirates in the days when those pirates devastated the English and Irish Channels. They were not graced, he believed, at that time with the presence of the Irish Members of the House, but he was sure they would endorse his statement that the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Ireland suffered quite as much as other people from the depredations of these pirates. The fund was left for the rescue of these children equally with those of the children of Anglicans and Nonconformists. After a time, of course, the pirates disappeared, and the charity became useless, and the fund was devoted to education, and mainly distributed among Church of England schools. Why, in such a case, should funds which were never left to the Church of England be used for anything except for the benefit of the people of the district generally? He might mention a more extreme case as showing the absurdity of devoting these endowments to Church of England schools, which, after all, would be the principal beneficiaries under the Bill if it were amended as suggested by the hon. Member for the Abingdon Division. There was the famous old lady who figured in the early records of the Charity Commission, as, animated by a splendid spirit of piety, leaving a considerable sum to buy wood in order to burn heretics—Anglicans and Nonconformists, no doubt. He was informed that even that charity had somehow or other been diverted into the ever-gaping coffers of the Church of England schools. He repeated that a very large proportion of these endowments came from sources which were in no way whatever denominational, and therefore the ratepayers of the country, and not any particular denomination—Church of England or Non conformist, or Roman Catholic—ought to become the beneficiary of the charity. He sincerely hoped that after the great concession yesterday of the rental of the schoolmasters' dwellings the Government would not make any additional concession by accepting this Amendment, but that, on the contrary, if the Bill were not quite clear on the point, they would at the proper time accept an Amendment in a contrary sense, so as to make it certain that the ratepayers of our towns and country districts should reap the advantage of these funds which were left by the wisdom of our ancestors for the benefit, not of any particular denomination but of the people at large.

said he had listened with great interest to the erudite speech of the noble Lord, which recalled to their memories, or rather, he should say, gave them information on the subject with which, he confessed, he personally was very imperfectly acquainted; but he did not really think that the speech had much bearing on the Amendment. The Government held that they must deal in a separate Clause with the whole subject of endowments. He did not think that this difficult and complicated subject could be summarily disposed of either by the Amendment of his on, friend or by the Amendment of the noble Lord, which came lower down on the Paper. He would, of course, on behalf of the Government, absolutely refuse to accept the noble Lord's Amendment which, if carried, would as he understood it prevent any endowments now used for voluntary schools from being continued to be used for that purpose. That was a quite inadmissible proposition. On the other hand, he thought that if his hon. friend's words were accepted they might lead to the erroneous conclusion that all the endowments now used for voluntary schools were to be transferred to the party concerned in their future maintenance, which would be represented by the managers, in other words, that all the endowments now used for the schools should be at the disposal of the managers for that school, and in relief of the obligations of the managers. That would be going too far on the other side. Speaking generally, he thought the equitable plan would be that where an endowment was left for what might be generally called, in an untechnical sense, the maintenance and upkeep of the school, that should be divided between the education authority and the managers, and that, so far as it went to the managers, it should, of course, go in relief of the obligations of the managers under the Bill. On the other hand, where it went to the local authority it should go in relief of the rate papers of the parish. The Government were clearly of opinion that it would never do to use these funds to diminish the general burden of the rates under the local education authority. It was, he would not say always, a parochial charity, but at all events a charity restricted in its area, and they did not propose that its benefits should go beyond that area. That portion, therefore, which would go to the education authority would be properly used for the diminution of the education rate in the area for the benefit of which it was originally left. He was not at all disturbed in his view that this was an equitable plan by the noble Lord's historical proof that the voluntary schools, and the Church schools in particular, had absorbed in the course of centuries some endowments which were originally devoted to purposes probably now entirely obsolete. The general policy he recommended the House to adopt could not be dealt with in this Clause. As regarded the Amendment to the Clause which his hon. friend had moved, he thought it would be misleading to insert the words proposed. He believed they would be interpreted as the noble Lord himself had interpreted them, as meaning that every endowment now used for aiding voluntary education in a parish should go entirely to the managers of the voluntary school in that parish. That, he thought, was going too far. Though he did not believe that the words necessarily carried that interpretation, he thought they would mislead hasty readers of the Bill. He would suggest, therefore, that the words should not be inserted. As to the question of personal liability, it was distinctly understood that there was no personal liability on the part of the managers. They could only use the funds at their disposal. They were not under any personal or individual obligation to find funds from their own resources, if other resources should fail them. He hoped he had made quite clear what the Government were aiming at. Their policy followed a middle course between two extremes. It could only be dealt with in a separate section, and he trusted the Committee would wait until that section was before them before discussing the matter in detail.

said he would like to point out that Clause 13, sub-Section 2, provided that all receipts in respect of any school maintained by a local education authority, including the annual Parliamentary grant, but excluding sums specially applicable for purposes for which provision was to be made by the managers, should be paid to that authority. The President of the Local Government Board, when in charge of the Bill, referring to the words "all receipts in respect of any school," said that every farthing of income derived from endowments would pass beyond the managers and go into the coffers of the County Council. He would like to know whether the Prime Minister authorised that statement or approved of it now. It was not creditable to the House that they should be working their way through this complicated Clause dealing with trust deeds and endowments without having a single syllable of information as to the number and character of them, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would lay before them full information as to their extent and character, and accelerate the laying of the trust deeds on the Table.

said he did not think his hon. friend, in whoso absence and at whose request he had taken charge of the Amendment, would desire to press it after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. But he would like to ask the Attorney General if he were satisfied that the words "provided by them" allowed the managers to make use of any moneys which might eventually come into their possession, such as endowments, rents, donations, or subscriptions. If the hon. and learned Gentleman could give him that assurance, he thought he might ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

said he thought it was quite clear that these words would enable the managers to defray the cost of repairs or improvements out of any funds which might be at their disposal from whatever source.

thought it would be difficult to reconcile that with the words of the sub-Section to which he had referred.

said it was quite clear Clause 13 did not meet the point, but as the Prime Minister had promised a new scheme, they could hardly discuss the matter now. He wished, however, to utter one word of protest on the part of parishes which had very large endowments. It would not be fair to the parishes or groups of parishes for which these endowments had been provided that the endowments should become purely national or county gifts. These funds were given before there was any public assistance to education, and they were the gifts of the patriotic inhabitants who desired to benefit a parish or group of parishes. To ensure that they were not lost to that parish or group of parishes, an important change in the Bill was required, and when it was submitted they could discuss it.

said they were not proposing to discuss the whole question, but there could be no impropriety in calling attention at that stage to the fact that this was one of the most important questions in the Bill. There were a great many endowments, many of which had gone into the hands of the secondary schools, and they had been misapplied in this sense, that they had not given any greater benefit to the parish than they would have received without it, because the money had been appropriated to the relief of the wealthier inhabitants of that liability they would otherwise have been under for rates or voluntary subscriptions, and the poor for whose benefit the charities were really left had not been helped at all. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended, on behalf of the Government, to lay before the Committee a Clause.

Yes.

said he thought he might assent, subject to certain qualifications, to the proposition that these endowments should be applied, not to the relief of the county ratepayers, but the local ratepayers. But he took exception to the contention that the managers were proper objects for the benefit of these charitable funds. He repeated that these charities were given for the education of the people, and they ought not to be appropriated in order to relieve the managers of their obligation, either in a personal capacity or as representing a body of the subscribers, to maintain the school. They were not given to relieve them of obligations which would otherwise have fallen upon them. He desired at the present moment to enter a caveat against any scheme which would, in defiance of what he thought was the policy of the law, in defiance of the intention of the pious founders, and in defiance of the bargain suggested by this Bill, apply those charity funds to the relief of the pockets of those who ought to pay.

said the question of the endowments was a very difficult one, because they had been left under different circumstances and for different reasons. There were some endowments which had been left for education in connection with a particular denomination. In dealing with these it seemed to him that they should properly be given to the managers, because there was no doubt about the intention of the founders. There was another class of endowments which had been left for the benefit of the education of the poor generally in the parish. There he thought they were left for education simply, and for that reason he did not think they should go to the managers. They ought to go to the local authority for the parish in some such way as that indicated by the First Lord. Then there was a third class which had been diverted by the Charity Commissioners to a particular local elementary school. Since the passing of the Endowed Schools Acts and the Elementary Education Act of 1870, it had been the custom of the Charity Commissioners in nearly all cases to make such diversion to secondary education. Roughly speaking, there were very few such cases since 1869 or 1870. The suggestion he would make was that some body, such as the Board of Education or the Charity Commissioners, probably the Board of Education, should have power to go into every single endowment in order to ascertain the purpose for which it was originally left, and how it had since been applied, and to decide whether it should be paid over to the managers in future or to the county authority for the maintenance of a school in that particular parish. Unless they did that he did not see how they would arrive at any fair or satisfactory solution of the case. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the endowments were being misapplied. When they were left the State did not supply education at all, and unless these endowments had been left there would have been no school for the people.

said he was speaking from the experience he had thirty-five years ago when he was Assistant Commissioner examining into the condition of those endowed schools. What he then found was—he did not say misapplication in the sense that there was anything criminal—that there were a great many rural parishes in which there were these old endowed schools. Where there was one of these parishes, the local people, the local magnates, who would otherwise have subscribed to establish a National, or perhaps a British school were relieved of the necessity of subscribing. Therefore they were able to be relieved of burdens which their neighbours in the adjoining parishes were bearing.

said that very often a rich man instead of giving an annual subscription had capitalised his subscription by way of an endowment. Surely it was perfectly fair in that case that the interest of the endowment should go for the benefit, either of the subscribers or ratepayers as the case might be. He did not think there was very much difference between Members of the Committee on this question. He made this suggestion, because he felt that it was a matter that must be dealt with later on when the First Lord submitted his proposal.

said there were two questions raised here, firstly, what endowments were to be paid to the local authority, and secondly, what use was to be made by the local authority of the money after it had been paid over. The first question was already decided by sub-Section 2 of Clause 13, and they ought not to go back upon that provision. On the second point he thought they were all agreed. When the endowment had been paid to the local authority, they should be paid out by the local authority of the particular parish for the use of which the endowment was given. The Government would not be dealing fairly if they proposed another Clause to go back on the provision made in sub-Section 2 of Clause 13.

May I venture to suggest to the Committee that we ought not now to discuss this? I stated that I should indicate the scheme of the Government, but if any endeavour to meet the mind of the Committee on a subject like this is to be followed by a long discussion, not on the Amendment but on a matter not absolutely germane to the Amendment, I shall be obliged to cut off the information I give to the House to limits which I think would be convenient to the House.

said that formerly there had been an unsatisfactory system of dealing with disputed points in regard to endowments, that, namely, of bringing them up for decision by a more or less Party vote after twelve o'clock in a jaded House. He hoped the First Lord would make provision in the new scheme which would obviate the injustice which had occasionally happened under the existing practice.

Of course the question of personal liability to the builder must in every ease depend on the terms of the contract. There are many cases in which a committee is formed for a declared purpose. They might be considered to have pledged their personal liability, and to have taken the chance of getting the funds by subscription or elsewhere to defray it. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it would not be reasonable to put in "foundation managers," because the intention is that the managers should execute the repairs out of funds provided by them for the purpose as a whole.

said the explanation was not entirely satisfactory. It would be possible for the four foundation managers to enter into a contract for which the whole six would be liable, and in that way liability would be cast on the shoulders of the two elected members. That would be a serious thing for a poor man acting as one of the elected managers.

objected to the introduction of the words proposed by the Amendment on the ground that he desired the managers here and everywhere to act as a whole. The obligation to keep the school in repair was placed on the whole of the managers, and he believed it was the intention of the Government that the two public managers should have as much voice in the matter as the four foundation managers.

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.

said he certainly would.

said he would express no comment on the announcement of the intentions of the hon. Gentleman except to say that it was obviously absurd to lay down that in every school—whatever its circumstances, whether it was large or small, new or old, whether it belonged to the State or not—the managers must spend the same amount per child in average attendance.

said he had no special fascination for the sum of 7s. Let the Prime Minister fix a minimum of 5s. if he liked, but his argument was that there should be a minimum sum below which the managers should not be allowed to go.

said he could not see how anything could be gained in enforcing the managers to spend money if it was not required.

pointed out that there appeared to be some misapprehension in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, for there was nothing in the Amendment to compel managers to spend not less than 7s. per pupil. The Amendment merely enforced the provision, and not the expenditure, of the money.

said that that made it almost worse. Was the hon. Gentleman by the greatest effort of imagination to put himself into the position of insisting that the managers were to spend at the rate of 7s. per child per annum, whether it was wanted or not?

said he quite agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury that such a proposition would be impracticable. But, on the other hand, it was essential that the Government should see that the provisions of Clause 18 were carried out. He did not think that the proposal that the managers were to keep the buildings in a proper state of repair and sanitation was likely to be carried out. As a matter of fact, the money spent on repairs in many schools was entirely inadequate, as was shown by the return giving the particulars of such money spent on every school in the kingdom. In one school, with an average attendance of fifty children, the total amount of money spent on fuel, light, cleaning, rent, and taxes, etc., was 1s. 6d. per child; and when they took that off the contribution there was nothing left for repairs. And that was not an old school. The same argument applied to many schools in the country of which he could give details. A good standard had been set up in the Code recently issued in regard to sanitation rules. And, by the way, he would like to know how, for some mysterious reason, these rules had been dropped out of this year's Code. He suggested that the Government should undertake that the moment this Bill became law, the Board of Education should send out as a matter of information to the local education authorities throughout the country, a memorandum as to what they considered to be a reasonable standard of sanitation, cleansing, lighting, fuel, etc.

said that the demand of the hon. Gentleman was a reasonable one and he would undertake that it would be satisfied.

said that the point of his right hon. friend had not been met. There could be no doubt that a large number of local authorities would insist on repairs to the school premises being carried out, and that the managers would say that they had no funds to do so. It would therefore take years to carry them out. He thought there was substance in the Amendment, and that if something were not done to compel the managers to provide the funds for repairs these would have to be carried out by the local education authority.

said it was very desirable that there should be some guarantee that the repairs would be carried out by the managers. A large number of the schools were not at present in proper repair; and, therefore, he thought they wore justified in regarding, with some amount of suspicion, the mere words which declare that the schools should be kept in repair. He was not quite sure, however, whether his hon. friend's Amendment would meet the difficulty. The great difficulty was to know exactly what was meant by the word "repairs." On the face of it, the word seemed very simple; but there had been such litigation over it, that he was not quite sure it was clear what responsibility would be cast on the managers. It would be better to strengthen the Bill in the direction of making it clear what "repairs" would mean, rather than have the guarantee which was proposed. Would any part of the duty of keeping the building in good order be cast on the local authority? Would painting or papering for instance? That was the direction in which they should proceed; but the point could be bettor raised on a subsequent Amendment.

said he agreed that the matter could be more conveniently discussed on a later Amendment.

in moving an Amendment to provide that the managers should insure the school buildings against fire, said the buildings might very easily be burned; and at present the managers in many cases neglected to insure them. Unless the Amendment were accepted, a very heavy liability might be thrown on many rural parishes. If a school which was not insured was burned down, the local authority would have to provide a new school, almost entirely at the expense of the persons living in the parish. The Bill was being discussed almost solely from the point of view of the theologian and the educationalist; and the heavy burden which would be placed on the local taxpayers was forgotten. The Bill should be considered not only from the standpoint of the large towns, where a man only paid rates on his house, but also from the standpoint of the rural districts where a man paid rates on his entire income. If a school were burned down in a small parish, it might result in an excessively heavy rate being imposed on the ratepayers.

said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. It rested with the managers to insure the schools; and they could not impose on them by Act of Parliament an obligation to do that which related to their own business. If the managers desired the voluntary schools to be kept up then they would insure them against fire. If they did not insure schools, and they were burned down, the result would be that they would be succeeded by provided schools. That might be a good or a bad thing; but surely it was a little childish to suggest that managers should be compelled, by Act of Parliament, to do that which was entirely within their own province.

said he wished to know if the cost of the insurance would fall on the rater. If it did, it would be a heavy burden. If the managers did not insure, would the local authority be saddled with the expense. That was the important point. As far as he was concerned, he was not anxious that the non-provided schools should be insured, because if they were not, they would, in the event of being burned down, be replaced by provided schools. What he wished to know was, would the education authority be expected to insure the non-provided schools?

said that people did not usually insure buildings not belonging to them.

said he desired to move an Amendment providing that the managers should discharge all liabilities incurred in connection with the school existing at the passing of the Act. At present a very large number of denominational schools were in debt; and that was a fact which would have to be faced in connection with the passing of the Bill. In August last the First Lord of the Treasury informed him that the local authority would have nothing to do with any such liabilities, and he now moved his Amendment in order that words might be incorporated in the Bill which would make that perfectly clear. He would put a concrete question to the Attorney General. If the local authority was not to be responsible for these liabilities after the passing of the Bill who would be responsible for them? Further, he wished to know if the additional managers to be elected would be responsible with the existing managers? He thought the Amendment should be accepted in order to avoid friction. There was no doubt in the mind of the Government about the matter; why, therefore, should it not be made plain in the Bill? Again, if the Attorney General would refer to Section 1 of the second schedule, he would see that the liabilities of the school attendance committees were to be transferred to the County Councils. He wished to know how that would affect the existing law, which laid down that the expenses of the attendance committees should be met by the guardians.

I do not see what bearing that has on the hon. Member's Amendment, which deals with the liabilities of managers.

said that the point he wished to make was that the Government should make it clear in the Bill that the local authority would not be responsible for existing liabilities.

said the Amendment of the hon. Member was based on a misapprehension. The hon. Member appeared to think that the local education authority took over the school building and by so doing stood in the place of the school managers, taking over all the assets and becoming responsible for all expenditure. That was not so. The local education authority was only bound to maintain the school. The debts incurred by managers in the past would have to be discharged by the managers who took their place. The hon. Member asked who would pay their debts if the managers did not. He (Sir William Anson) might as well ask who would pay his own personal debts if he did not pay them. He could only say he did not know. He only knew that the local education authority would not relieve the managers of their liabilities.

did not think the hon. Gentleman had seen the important part of this Amendment. As he understood the Amendment, it sought to ensure that they should begin the new condition of things with a clean slate; that in return for the privileges which were to be given to the managers there should be handed over to the State a school with a mortgage on it, but a free school; that the managers should provide it, and ought to provide it, free of charge. A similar condition had, he believed, been insisted on by the Education, Department itself in dealing with building grants. When building grants were given, the fundamental condition was that the ownership of the land was to be provided by trust deed. He had often asked for those deeds, but had never succeeded in getting them; but he believed that when they did see them they would find that those deeds provided that the buildings should be absolutely unencumbered. This Amendment practically suggested the same thing with regard to the schools.

pointed out that if there was a mortgage over the school the mortgagee might foreclose, and when he took possession of the school what would be the position? Or supposing the gentleman who owned the school had an execution put in, whether in secular or religious hours, what would be the position? It would be a very inconvenient thing to have a man in possession.

Under those circumstances they would cease to be non-provided schools, if their proceedings are interrupted by the action of the managers.

said the managers ought not to be placed in a position of that kind. They desired to have the schools placed in a position that was quite clear, so that the local education authority might feel secure. If the parties who were the proprietors of the school could call upon the local education authority to carry on the education in the school, it was necessary that the local education authority should have some security.

said he thought the object of this Amendment was sufficiently indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen when he used the words ''handed over." These schools were not provided for the local authority, they were lent to the local authority. The result was that, if these schools were broken up because they were not maintained by the managers who represented the trustees, then the county would have to provide schools in their place. It was absurd to talk of going into the question of the financial condition of these schools, which did not belong to the county. Every argument of the Opposition all through the Bill had been based upon the assumption that these schools belonged to the county, every Amendment had been made with the object of placing the local authorities in a position to deal with these schools as they pleased, and they could not do it. The Government were indebted to the Church for the saving of a large expense, and in return for that they were obliged to make certain conditions.

understood from the speech just previously made that the County Councils would have nothing to do with any of the financial arrangements of the schools. Supposing the opposite point were taken, and instead of having any financial control the County Councils had been so careful as to have no control whatever. If the school got a balance of a grant left over, would that go into the public exchequer of the county or to the managers of the school? He only desired to put the question.

That Question does not, I think, arise on this Amendment.

asked, supposing there was a sum of money due from the old managers, whether that liability would, as he assumed it must, be transferred to the new school managers under this Bill. If it was a liability incurred purely on account of the trust, and that liability was transferred to the new trustees, ho would like to know could any one distrain on the school assets—on the furniture, books, or apparatus of the school—for the purpose of discharging the liability incurred in connection with the trust itself.

The law would remain as it is. You cannot seize one man's property for the debts of another.

pointed out that this was a trust liability; the liability could not remain where it was. The creditor surely could follow the trust assets.

said he did not propose to follow the hon. and

contended that if the liability incurred was in connection with the trust, or if it was in connection with the school—it was the same thing—the creditor could follow the books, furniture and apparatus if the money was not paid. What he desired to know was, would he be able to do so in the future, Would he be able to distrain for a liability incurred before the passing of this Bill, because if that were so this Amendment certainly ought to be adopted.

said that the Amendment standing in his name dealt with one of those matters which the Prime Minister regarded as details, but which gave rise to much controversy in the country. He had several times been asked who, under the new conditions, would pay the caretaker. The duties of this official would be largely concerned with the use of the school on Sundays and for parochial purposes, and it was desirable that it should be clearly laid down whether the managers or the local authority were responsible for his salary. If the local authority paid, would they also appoint? If the managers paid, would they be able to apply the usual teat as to the man being a frequent and early communicant? It was only reasonable that the caretaker should go along with the free use of the building, and the words he proposed to insert would make it quite clear.

said the hon. Gentleman was quite right in his conjecture that he would regard this as a rather trifling matter. He did not know why the Amendment should deal only with the caretaker. Why should not the man who swept the chimneys also be brought in? These points must clearly be matters of arrangement between the local authority and the managers.

said the local authority had only got the use of the school during certain hours of the day. What happened afterwards was no concern of the local authority.

asked permission to withdraw his Amendment.

The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Islington, deals with a question which has already been disposed of. It has already been decided to hand over the school free of any charge, and therefore the Amendment is not in order. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden also raises a question which has been disposed of.

said the Amendment he wished to move was to the effect that the managers should supply all the educational appliances for the carrying on of the school. Many of the voluntary schools were badly equipped, and the apparatus at present provided by them was very much behind what was required now to carry on efficient work. It was quite clear that as the control of secular education had been handed over to the local education authority, they would insist upon voluntary schools bringing up their apparatus into line with the other schools of the country. His Amendment provided that, in a case of that kind, the managers should be responsible for the expense necessary to equip the school. The ownership of those schools would remain with the trustees, except when being used for the purposes of secular education. He begged to move his Amendment.

said he hoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment, because they were now dealing with the question of the building.

said that in the case of desks they would be used not merely for secidar education, but also for Sunday school purposes, and for what the Prime Minister had called social purposes, by the Church managers for denominational purposes. Surely these ought to be supplied by the managers. There was nothing in the Bill to indicate who had to supply these things.

said the managers had to keep up the building, but as regarded the furniture required, that would be supplied by the local education authority. If the furniture was to be used for other purposes, then the expense could be divided amongst them. This Amendment would throw upon the managers the burden of providing, all the educational appliances.

said there was hot a single Word in the Bill to indicate that. The local education authority had to maintain the staff and provide the salaries and books, but there was nothing in the Bill about providing the furniture. The Attorney General said they could divide the cost of the furniture amongst them if they wished. Could the local education authority say to the managers—"We will not allow you to use the desks for the purposes of a Sunday school." If they could not do this, then they could not impose any charge.

said the local education authority had to provide the furniture for secular instruction. They could remove their furniture if they liked, but no doubt they would leave it there. This Amendment would throw upon the managers the burden of providing the whole of the furniture, which was to be mainly used for secular education.

contended that that was precisely what the voluntary schools did at the present time, and the Attorney General now thought it was a gross and iniquitous thing that they should be asked to continue to provide the furniture. The hon. and learned Gentleman had skilfully evaded the question he put to him. If the managers refused to pay for the use of the furniture they could continue to use it unless the local authority took it away. It was a preposterous suggestion to say that the local authority could cart away the furniture. The local education authority were to take over the whole charge of maintaining the school for sectarian purposes; last night the Committee passed a resolution enabling the managers to make a profit out of the school-house; and now they were being asked at the expense of the State to equip Sunday schools and provide furniture for the richest denomination in the land.

thought the answer given by the Attorney General showed that there were still one or two points which wanted clearing up. He said that the furniture, books and apparatus would be the property of the local authority. Did he mean that in the case of all these schools the local authority would have to purchase the existing apparatus from the present managers? If that were so it meant that they were giving another very large endowment to the schools. It could not be argued that the local authority were to come into possession of simply an empty house and would have to provide all the books and apparatus. Everybody thought that the schools were going to be taken over as a going concern. He should like some information upon this point because it was very germane to the Amendment under consideration. The managers would have to repair the building, but would they have to put the furniture and apparatus into a proper state of repair? Was it the idea of the Government that the local education authority would simply come into the possession of an empty building and have to buy all the books and apparatus from the existing managers of the schools?

said that as regards the furniture in the schools there was nothing in the Bill about transfer to the local education authority, but he should think himself that in most cases the managers would allow the old furniture to go on being used. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that there was nothing too bad to be imputed to the managers of the voluntary schools.

said that the more they avoided imputations on each side the better. This was a matter that ought to be settled in case there should be friction. Would it not be better to deal with it in the Bill? It could not be beyond the resources of the Attorney General to find words which would meet the point and be accepted by each side defining the legal rights of the local authority.

said ho did not think there was any obscurity whatever about the point. The managers were to provide the buildings, and the furniture would remain the property of the managers, or trustees, or whosoever in whom it was vested. If they agreed to allow the local authority to use it they might do so, and if they chose to make the local authority buy the furniture they might do so. As regards any new furniture, that, of course, must be provided by the local education authority, for they were to maintain the school. There was nothing to put the managers under any obligation except with regard to the buildings. The law was clear. He thought sometimes quite as much mischief was done by an overplus of legislation, as by a want of legislation.

asked if it was to be understood that it would be in the power of the managers to carry away the furniture, the benches, maps, globes, ink bottles, and everything else which were now in the school and used for educational purposes, and then to say to the local authority that if they wanted those things they must pay for them.

said the right hon. Gentleman had drawn a lurid picture of what might happen. Of course, if the managers chose to do that, they could.

said it was perfectly true that they did not want an overplus of legislation, but legislation was to keep people in order who were not going to be reasonable, and what they complained of in this case was that something of this kind might happen. There would be a lot of old furniture, partly bought out of public grants, in a school, and if the managers chose to be unreasonable, it could be removed into the parish room. Then the school would be entirely fitted up again by the public authority, and the new desks and other furniture which the public authority had provided could be used in the evening by the very people who were keeping the old furniture.

said he thought a protest should be made on the Government side of the House against the view stated by the Attorney General. If it was in the power of the managers throughout the country to refuse the use of the furniture now in the schools the position would be an in tolerable one. He thought that would be very unfair and unjust, and that it would do a great injury to the reputation of the denominational schools. Therefore if the position was as stated by the AttorneyGeneral—and he had no doubt the lion, and learned Gentleman was correct—some words should be introduced in the Bill that the furniture and apparatus now in use in these schools should be at the disposal of the local authority in future.

said that if those interested in the voluntary schools desired that some such words should be inserted in the Bill the Government would certainly have no objection. The legal position was as he had stated it, and he believed that owing to the action of the voluntary school managers no such discredit would be brought on the schools as his hon. friend apprehended. Could the Committee imagine for a moment that there would be any of those scenes which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had conjured up? He believed that in the actual working of the Bill none of those vagaries would arise. He thought the real danger sometimes was occasioned by being too fussy in these matters and in conjuring up objections instead of leaving people to act according to their own instincts of what was right.

said he wished to support the appeal made by his right hon. friend the Member for the Tewkesbury Division from the ratepayers' point of view and in the interest of the Bill itself. He could not conceive a worse start for a Bill of this description in a county than that the county authority should have to begin by paying a very large sum out of the rates of the first year for the purchase of a large portion of the existing furniture. The Attorney General said that a large number of the managers would take a liberal view, but, after all, the county authority would not be able to stand on liberality alone. They would have to consider the ratepayers, and also how they could deal fairly with all the managers. The question was whether or not they were bound in law to pay for the furniture. He could not think in the interest of the Bill itself, or in the interest of the voluntary schools, the county authority should have to start with a large burden caused by having to purchase the existing furniture.

said the managers would be acting in breach of duty if they did not as trustees demand the price of the furniture if the law had not laid down anything contrary to the view stated by the Attorney General. Therefore it seemed to be absolutely necessary to have the law so framed that no opportunity would be afforded for any dispute to arise.

said he thought the proper course to pursue was to postpone the discussion until a new Amendment could be brought forward at a later stage.

said that what was wanted was that the Government should introduce an Amendment which would meet the views of all those who had spoken, and he asked the Attorney General to give a promise to that effect.

said that two things were perfectly clear—first, that the Amendment now before the Committee would not meet the desire of every Member who had spoken, and second, that this was not the place to insert words dealing with the matter, because they were now dealing with the buildings. In accordance with what seemed to be the general wish of the Committee the Government would most carefully consider the point and see whether words could not be introduced which would give effect to that desire, although personally he did not think an Amendment was necessary.

said he wished to point out that there was a large portion of the contents of the schoolrooms which was not movable furniture at all, but fixtures screwed to the floor, or otherwise.

said that many of the school managers had very heavy debts, and if they had a right to claim compensation for furniture there would be a great temptation for them to do so in order to clear off their debts.

said that after the promise the Attorney General had given, he would withdraw his Amendment.