To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that quantities of spurious basic slag have been imported recently into the United Kingdom; that a foreigner has been apprehended on a charge of alleged fraud in connection with these importations and committed to take his trial in London; whether he will watch these proceedings in the interest of his Department and take steps, and, if so, what steps, to prevent farmers being imposed upon by this article, sold as containing a percentage of phosphoric acid much in excess of the actual facts.(Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) My attention has been directed to the case referred to in this Question, which apparently relates to a recent prosecution at the Mansion House in which an agent living in Brussels was charged with selling under a false warranty two cargoes of inferior basic slag. The defendant was committed for trial on the 3rd inst. I shall continue to watch this case. I have directed our inspectors' attention to the prosecution in order that they may bring the matter to the notice of the local authorities they visit, and have also communicated the particulars in our possession to the Irish Department of Agriculture, as it is understood that the greater portion of the consignments in question have been sold to dealers in that country.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as promised, a circular pointing out to the police their duties in assisting publicans to keep the law has yet been issued. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I understand that the hon. Member has in mind a promise given by my right hon. friend, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, with special reference to Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1902. In pursuance of that promise, I have inserted in one of the circulars which I am about to issue on the Act a paragraph pointing out that the police should of course continue to assist licence-holders in keeping the law by warning the person in charge of the premises if they see a drunken person entering them, and by helping, at the request of the licence-holder or his agent, to expel from the premises any person who is drunk, quarrelsome, or disorderly.

To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the whole of the cast bronze scroll work lamps on London Bridge are advertised for sale; whether these lamps were made from French guns captured during the Peninsular war: and, if so, whether he will consider the propriety of securing them for use in suitable places under the control of the Department. (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) Inquiry shows that the lamps in question have been temporarily withdrawn from sale; so far as can be ascertained from the authorities concerned with the widening of the bridge, there is nothing to show that the lamps were made from French guns captured during the Peninsular war. The sale or retention of the lamps is a matter with which the City of London is concerned; the Office of Works has no jurisdiction whatever.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether specifications have yet been issued for the armour required for any of the battleships or cruisers included within the programme of the current financial year. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) Specifications are being prepared for the armour which will be required for the battleships and cruisers included in the programme of the current financial year. Specifications will shortly be issued with tenders for the armour. No specifications for armour have yet been issued.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any of the purchasing occupiers on the Dillon Estate have failed to pay instalments of their purchase money when due; and, if so, what proportion of the total number have so failed, and what action is being taken by the Congested Districts Board to recover the amounts so overdue. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) None of the tenants on this property, to whom advances have been made by the Land Commission for the purchase of their holdings, are in arrear with their payments to the Commission, except in two cases where the sum due, representing interest on the advances, amounts to 1s. 10d. The Question probably refers to the non-payment of the rent due to the Congested Districts Board. Out of the 4,191 tenants on the estate, the number who have not vet paid the rents and arrears due on 1st November, 1901, is ninety-seven. Proceedings are being taken in all these cases.

To ask the hon. Member for West Salford, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether the vacancy of All Hallows, Lombard Street, has been brought to his knowledge; and if the Commissioners will take steps to secure the appointment of the necessary Commission, under the Union of Benefices Act, to amalgamate one or more of the three parishes in Lombard Street within the City of London. (Answered by Mr. Lees Knowles.) The initial proceedings under the Union of Benefices Act have to be taken by the Bishop of London. When the proposal, with the necessary assents, reaches the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they will, I feel sure, do all in their power to facilitate an amalgamation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether loans granted to the Boers in the Harrismith district of South Africa are partly in money and partly in kind; if so, will he state what value is placed respectively on oxen and mules thus supplied; are the animals submitted to examination by a veterinary surgeon prior to the transaction being completed, and is a warranty given that they are sound.

I have asked the Governor, by telegraph, for the information desired by the hon. Member, but have not yet received his reply.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when the orders for armour were placed and the manufacture commenced of the armour which was required for the armoured cruisers of the 1901 programme.

The armour for the six new armoured cruisers of the 1901–02 programme was provisionally ordered on the 12th August last, and the orders were confirmed on the 3rd September. The manufacture of the armour was immediately commenced by the armour plate makers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is possible to circulate, before the discussion on the Indian Finance Accounts, either the whole or the earlier portion of the papers containing the observations of the Viceroy and the members of his Council on the military proposals of His Majesty's Government communicated to them and to the House of Commons in February last.

I am afraid that the despatch I have bean awaiting from India has not yet arrived, and until I get it, it would not be possible to publish the other Papers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the degree of influence now claimed by His Majesty's Government over the Yangtsze Valley.

The general position of His Majesty's Government with regard to the Yangtsze region has been often stated and has undergone no change. It seems scarcely possible or desirable to deal with the matter by means of Question and Answer. I propose, however, on an early date to lay Papers relating to the evacuation of Shanghai; the hon. Member will find in them information bearing upon the point which he has raised.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state what other reasons, besides the use of unnecessary violence, induced the authorities to dismiss a second constable from the Metropolitan Police Force in connection with the case of ex-Constable Rolls; and whether the second constable was implicated in corroborating the false charge brought against Wheelerbread by ex-Constable Rolls.

The second constable, when questioned by his superior officers at the police station, corroborated Rolls in a statement which was afterwards proved to be false.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that, under the International Scheme for North Sea Fisheries Investigation, the annual sum of £4,800 will be required for the maintenance of the central organisation of Copenhagen, and that Great Britain, Germany, and Russia will each contribute £1,250, and other countries £262 10s., will he indicate the names of these other countries; and will he state whether all the Powers, signatories of the North Sea Convention, were invited to contribute.

It is proposed that £262 10s. towards the maintenance of the Central Fishery Organisation at Copenhagen shall be paid by Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Norway and Finland. The Powers who were parties to the Convention were Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France and the Netherlands. France and Belgium were not invited by Sweden to take part in the first Fishery Conference at Stockholm but have since been asked to participate in the investigations. I understand that France has declined the invitation, and Belgium has the matter under consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the rate of the bounty paid by Canada on the export of pig iron and steel, and the quantity of this bounty-fed iron and steel imported into this country during the last two years.

I know of no bounties on the export of Canadian pig iron and steel. Bounties are given on the production of pig iron and of steel ingots and puddled iron bars made from such pig iron. Up to April, 1902, the rates were $3 per ton of 2,000 lbs., except on pig iron produced from foreign ores which received $2. Between 1902 and 1907 the bounties are subject to continuous reduction, and the rates at present payable are 90 per cent. of those ,quoted above. The quantity of Canadian pig iron exported to this country in the years 1900–1901 was 1,603 tons. The corresponding total for 1901–1902 is provisionally stated as 100,519 tons. The Canadian accounts do not separately distinguish the exports either of steel ingots or puddled iron bars.

Have the Government any intention of imposing countervailing duties for the protection of our manufactures against this bounty-fed iron and steel?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Committee appointed to inquire into the differences alleged to exist between masters and matrons of English workhouses on the one hand, and the nursing staffs on the other, is still pursuing its investigations; has the inquiry concluded; and, if so, what is the result; if not concluded, can he say when it is likely to be brought to a close.

The Committee appointed by me with reference to the nursing of the sick poor in workhouses have concluded their inquiry, and I understand I shall receive their Report very shortly.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether any regulations, in addition to those contained in the Revised Code of 1870 and other Codes, have been made by the Education Department with respect to the use of schools which have been aided by building grants.

By Regulations of the Board of Education such schools can only be transferred to School Boards under Section 23 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and the Board of Education refuse to pay annual grants to a School Board on account of such a school till this condition has been satisfied. Under the same Regulations a School Board may not pay any consideration (whether price or rent) for a school so transferred, except a strictly nominal one. The Regulations in the Code of 1870, to which the hon. Member refers, relate to the conditions on which building grants were made and not to the use of schools aided by such grants.

But are applicants for building grants required to give any undertaking to maintain the efficiency of the schools, and what provision is there for dealing with cases of failure to do so?

The Regulations contain certain requirements as to the maintenance of efficiency. I have not them before me just now, but if the hon. Member will give notice I will obtain the information.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the greater part of the grazing farm of Glastullich, at Lochbroom, Ross-shire, is about to be added to the deer forest of Rhidorroch; and, in view of the extension of deer forests in the Highlands, will the Government consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent land suitable for occupation by the people being converted into deer forest.

The farm of Glastullich has lately been broken up and a large portion granted by the proprietor as an extension of holdings to five neighbouring crofter townships. The Secretary for Scotland has no reason to suppose that addition of the remainder to the deer forest of Rhidorrioch will prejudicially affect the economic condition of the district, and does not contemplate legislation in the direction suggested.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland will grant the Return on the Paper relative to congested districts (Scotland). †

The Secretary for Scotland would not be prepared to grant the Return in the form suggested by the hon. Member, which would offer difficulties in preparation, owing to many of the congested districts not being conterminous with parishes and for other reasons. If the hon. Member will inform me of his object in asking for the Return, I will consider whether it is possible substantially to meet his wishes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a precisely similar Return was granted to an Irish Member now in gaol?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether the Secretary for Scotland is now prepared to add to the number of cruisers at the disposal of the Scottish Fishery Board for the protection of the interests of the line fishermen against the operations of illegal trawlers.

The funds at the disposal of the Fishery Board do not at present admit of any addition to their fleet of cruisers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative candidate for Orkney and Shetland bitterly complains of the inadequate number of cruisers round the coast?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken to sell to the tenants, under the fortieth section of the Land Act of 1896, the property owned by Colonel Finch at Coonagh, near Limerick City; and in what state do the negotiations now stand.

The Order of the Land Judge declaring the tenants of this property to be the purchasers of their holdings, was lodged with the Land Commission on Wednesday last. The sales will be closed in a few days.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1888, to have the maintenance and education of the deaf and dumb and blind in Ireland made an Imperial charge, and not a tax on the Irish ratepayers.

I must refer to my reply to the similar Question addressed to me on the 10th July last by the hon. Member for the College Green Division of Dublin.†

But this is an original Question, and I do not claim any copyright in my Questions.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on pay days in Custom House, Dublin, nuns are allowed to go from desk to desk begging alms; and whether he intends putting a stop to the practice.

I am informed that the alleged practice does not exist in any of the Departments located in the Custom House. It appears, however, that in the Department of the Collector of Customs the nuns of the Order of the Little Sisters of the Poor have visited the Office from time to time to receive alms voluntarily contributed to their charity, but that they have never solicited alms, nor have they acted in the manner suggested in the Question. I understand that an official formerly employed in this Department is at present under the care of these nuns.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the employees complain of this practice?

When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to re-enact the penal laws in Ireland against priests and nuns?

I am not aware of what the hon. Member for South Belfast alleges. I understand that there is no solicitation for alms.

Then is the question to be left in its present position?

As at present advised, I do not propose to intervene.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

† See (4) Debates cx., 1378.

Eleven constables, of whom ten are Roman Catholics and one is a Protestant.

Is it proposed to split up the barracks into religious compartments?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that District Inspector Tyson, of the Royal Irish Constabulary Depot, recently delivered a speech to the men under his charge denouncing freemasonry; and whether such speeches from a public officer will be allowed in future.

Mr. Tyson has been a freemason for thirty years. He made no such speech.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state if he is prepared to give a day for the discussion of Irish affairs, in view of the new circumstances which have arisen affecting that country.

No, Sir, I have nothing to add to the answer which I have given on several occasions to similar Questions.

I wish to bring back those poor "Exiles of Erin" to the Nationalist Benches. Last night there were more than enough outside on the shelf to defeat the Government, and I want to bring them back.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether it is worth while to continue printing every day the Amendments to the London Water Bill, seeing that that measure is not to be taken until the Education Bill has passed through Committee.

Very well, I will not put it down for the present.

Will the right hon. Gentleman relieve our anxiety on the subject as soon as he can? It is a very troublesome question.

I am afraid I cannot make it less troublesome.

moved an Amendment providing that the Board of Education should "without unnecessary delay" determine in case of dispute whether a school was necessary or not. He said he had taken the words which he proposed to insert from the Scottish Education Act, but he might remind the Committee that in the English Act of 1870 the phrase used was "with due despatch."

said that on the preceding night an Amendment to which some hon. Members attached great importance—it was one in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, and dealt with the question of time—was excluded from discussion by the application of the closure. He thought it very essential that the House should have an opportunity of discussing and dividing upon the question.

said he had adopted the Scotch form, not because it was preferable, but because it seemed that anything in connection with the Scottish Act found greater favour in certain quarters.

said that surely the Committee were not going to insert words in an Act of Parliament which would suggest that a Government Department could be guilty of unnecessary delay.

Government Departments are.

said he would have thought the word "forthwith" would have been sufficient.

proposed to cancel all the words of the Clause after the statement that the Board of Education should, without unnecessary delay, determine in case of dispute whether a school was necessary or not. He said the Clause provided that the Board of Education should decide under such conditions that it was inconceivable that their decision should be other than favourable to the existing managers of schools or other persons, as against the I local education authority. It was difficult in dealing with the Bill not to believe that the want of good faith so frequently disclosed was intentional; of course he was ready to recognise that the conditions imposed on the Board of Education were not really understood at the time they were inserted in the Clause, but as he had said, it was difficult to believe it, because when they came to consider the conditions one by one, they found that the hands of the Board were absolutely tied in coming to a conclusion between the local education authority and the managers. The first condition was that the Board of Education should have regard to the interest of secular instruction. That looked fair, but as a matter of fact, although the local education authority might urge that the interests of secular instruction would be damaged by a new non-provided school, the denominational managers would be able to contend that secular instruction would not be damaged by their school, as the local education authority had absolute control of secular instruction, and it was, therefore, immaterial from the point of view of secular instruction whether the new school was a voluntary or provided school. This first condition was, therefore, the merest pretence, and no one could conceive that the Board would, in such a case as he had suggested, give its decision in favour of the local education authority. The second point was that regard was to be paid to the wishes of the parents, who were the parties who were to go before the Board of Education. On the one side, they would have ten parents from the district served by the school put forward, probably by some society who paid their expenses, but who would speak at any rate as parents living in the district; while, on the other side, there would be the local education authority, with its head offices possibly forty miles away from the locality, and very likely the representative of the district on the authority unable to attend. Would not the judgment of the Board of Education oil this point go in favour of the ten parents or the managers as against a local education authority whose contact with parish concerns, it could be argued, was less close, and who could not put forward any better argument than the general public convenience? The third and last condition alone was obviously sufficient to put the local education authority out of Court. It was that the Board was also to have regard to the economy of the rates. Once again, who were the parties to go before the Board of Education? On the one side, there was the local education authority which was to levy the rates for the building and maintenance of the school; on the other hand, the managers of the existing school, or ten parents who would come forward with the guarantee that they would find the building. It was clear that in that case there must be economy of rates, and the decision would go against the local authority. That was not all. The author of the Bill—and he could not believe that the First Lord of the Treasury had realised the fact—had put in a final sub-Section which still further limited the discretion of the Board of Education. It was to the effect that wherever a number of persons had built a school and got thirty children to attend it, the Board was bound to recognise the institution as a public elementary school, and the local education authority could not appeal against that, provided the school was actually in existence. The right of appeal was only given when the school building was not ready. The humour of the Clause did not end there. It would be observed that the subsequent Clause did not provide any penalty if the local education authority did not act in conformity with the orders of the Board of Education, and the managers or other persons were placed in this position: If they could build their school and get thirty children to attend it for the three months that were to elapse before any appeal was to be made to the Board of Education, the local education authority was at once put out of court. An Amendment had accordingly been put down giving the Board compulsory power in the matter as against the local education authority, but not, he complained, as against the managers of an existing school or other persons. In practice the proposals of the Government would be used in certain districts to prevent the local education authority from doing its duty by making provision for elementary education in its area, while on those who objected, the managers of existing schools or other persons, there would be no enforcable duty of making good the deficiency.

said the hon. Gentleman suffered from the malady which he observed had attacked a great many of the critics of the Bill, who thought it was some marvellously subtle contrivance devised by wicked and unscrupulous persons, who, under the cover of very plain and apparently innocent provisions, were really bringing into operation a marvellous engine for the destruction of all that hon. Gentlemen opposite held dear. The disease appeared to have attacked a large number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and was a very vigorous and apparently infectious malady, but he really could not see that it ought to find an exciting cause in the words to which the hon. Gentleman objected. The hon. Gentleman thought these three provisions in Clause 10 at once so plausible and so wicked that only a surgical operation which would leave nothing hut the first two lines of the Clause would satisfy him. They had laid down that the Board of Education, in determining a controversy as to whether a school was or was not necessary, should have regard to three conditions—the interest of secular instruction, the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children, and the economy of the rates. What other conditions could they possibly have put in? He was perfectly unable to understand the hon. Gentleman's point with regard to secular instruction. They heard yesterday speeches from many Hon. Gentlemen opposite complaining that the provisions of the Bill would tend to the multiplication of small schools, and that this would be injurious to the interests of secular education. Now they had put into Clause 10 a provision that the Board of Education should have regard to the interests of secular education, and they were at once denounced as unscrupulous Machiavelian legislators. It appeared to him that they had attempted to meet, and had met, the very objection of which they heard so much yesterday, and the hon. Gentleman, in common consistency, ought now to support the Government. Why were they to imagine that the Board of Education were incapable of discovering what the general views might be in the district where a new school was to be erected? Why were they to assume that the inspectors sent down by the Board of Education would be incapable of discovering the general views of the district and of corning to a rational conclusion on this not very recondite matter Then as to the provision that the Board of Education should have regard to the economy of the rates, he should have thought that was a condition that would have appealed to every hon. Gentleman on the other side. It was true it might be argued, with great and genuine force, that if the rates concerned were the rates of the whole area for which the local authority provided, that authority itself would be the best judge, until, at all events, a loan was asked for, and while the expenditure was merely out of the annual rates. But they were here concerned with a rate which fell, not on the education authority as a whole, and not on the whole area which the authority controlled, but probably with one that concerned only a relatively small portion of that area. It was quite fair, therefore, that the burden to be thrown on the ratepayers should be one of the considerations, though not the most important or vital, which ought not to be lost sight of by the Board of Education. It seemed to him that these conditions were not only desirable, but necessary. Their number certainly ought not to be diminished, for they covered the whole ground. The hon. Gentleman argued that, while a general power was given to the Education Department to compel the local authorities to do their duty under this. Act and the Act of 1870, there was no corresponding power to compel the managers of voluntary schools to do their duty. He quite agreed that it would be an abuse if persons, while saying they were ready to build a school, and that what was wanted in the district was a school suited in the main to those of their own denomination, should defer from month to month, or from year to year, under cover of that perhaps perfectly just contention, the carrying out of an obligation which the interests of the district required should be carried out without any undue delay. He thought, however, that a provision in regard to this matter need not be inserted in an Act, as power already existed in the Department. He therefore submitted that the Clause as it stood was not open to the strictures of the hon. Gentleman.

suggested that only the first two lines of the Clause, providing "that the Board of Education shall determine in case of dispute whether a school is necessary or not," were necessary; all the rest was verbiage. But it seemed to have been determined that the new education authority should have practically no voice in connection with any new schools. The County Councils, which were to conduct the education of the country, were being put into a position so contemptible and humiliating that he could not conceive any self-respecting body accepting the task upon such terms, and they could not be surprised if many of these bodies could not undertake the responsibility. Let the Committee look at the conditions in Clause 10. They had declared that the local education authority were to be supreme in respect of secular education. Supposing the local education authority said a new provided school was necessary for secular education, how were they to maintain secular education if that question was sent to the Board of Education to be determined against them? The same might be said of every one of these conditions. They would see that the local education authority were a miserable, subordinate body, who had to have the whole of their actions in secular education, in rates, and in everything else at the disposal of the Board of Education. His hon. and learned friend had taken some trouble to prove that these conditions would compel the Board of Education to determine against a provided school and in favour of a denominational school. He need not have been at that trouble. Those who had listened to the discussions and had seen the animus with which this Bill had been prepared might take it for granted that this matter would go to an arbitration in which the arbitrator had already decided. He confessed that the reference of this Section to the authors of the Bill, and those who would have to administer it, showed the way the decision was likely to go. The first thing was free secular education, and if there was any colour or pretence that the control of secular education was going to be given to the local education authority, the first condition must and ought to be that the decision as to new schools for secular education should be left to the local authority alone. It should not be over-ruled by any one who could say, "Our opinion is that denominational schools are better than provided schools for providing secular education." Consider the next condition, having regard to the wishes of the parents. One of the great merits of this Bill was that it was to be administered by the local authority. Who was the best judge of the wishes of the parents in a particular locality, the Board at Whitehall or the local authority? Who possessed the best means of judging? Why was the Board of Education at Whitehall to be a netter judge of the wishes of the parents in a particular locality than the local education authority or the County Council? The County Council was put into a most contemptible position. They might be challenged on every point. They were not to be the people who were to judge whether a school was necessary or not in their own district. What would be the value of an educational authority which was not capable of forming an opinion as to whether a school was necessary or not? Then, with regard to the question of rates. Was the Secretary to the Board of Education a better judge of the question of rates than the local County Council or local education authority? It would surprise some local County Council and Borough Councils to hear that. If the hon. Gentleman had to listen to two people, one of whom proposed to build a school without any charge to the rates and the other to build a school with a charge to the rates, he would of course always decide in favour of the school which was not to be a charge on the rates. If the hon. Gentleman had to go into the question of rates he could come to no other conclusion. The First Lord of the Treasury felt that somehow or other County Councils and Borough Councils had something to do with the rates. Whether that was a recent discovery on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury he did not know. The right hon. Gentleman had tried to get out of the stringency of that difficulty by saying that the charge on the rates for building the school would be a local charge; but that the charge for the maintenance of each of these schools would be a general charge; therefore his answer to that objection had utterly and entirely failed. Then, the last condition:

"A school actually in existence shall not be considered unnecessary in which the number of scholars in average attendance as computed by the Board of Education is not less than thirty."

said, first of all, sanction would have to be obtained under Clause 9, and after that, if the school was established, the attendance dwindled down to below thirty, it would be unnecessary.

Would it be a school actually in existence?

said, as he understood, the right hon. Gentleman was alluding to schools established after the passing of the Act. They could only be established under the sanction provided by Clause, 9, and subject to inquiry, if demanded, by the Board of Education. If it passed that test, a school so set up would remain a necessary school so long as it contained thirty scholars.

said then "established" meant thirty scholars, and did not mean a school actually in existence. In future, when thirty scholars were got together there would be a power to compel County Councils and local education authorities to maintain the school. He did not know under the circumstances whether the powers placed in the County Councils under this Bill were such that they could conscientiously undertake to administer it. In the West Riding of Yorkshire the local authorities had had already stated that they did not consider, under the conditions of the Bill, that they could conduct the education of the county. The Attorney General looked forward, with the ardour of his profession, to the mandamus with which he would be charged under this Bill. But the question went further. Why not mandamus the other party? There was no answer at all to that. The only penalty put into the Act was to withdraw the grant, but that did not prevent the obligation to maintain the school. The proposal was that the rates should be withdrawn as well.

said if the conditions were not observed the right of maintenance ceased.

asked how in the world were they going to mandamus one set of parties and not another? Were they not also persons who came under the law? Parliament ordered them to do a particular thing; if they did not do it the grant might be withdrawn. But if they were ordered to do a thing on these conditions, why were they not to be compelled to do it? It was not very important to labour the point, because he regarded the mandamus as a farce. If such powers were necessary the scheme of education would be at an end. He agreed with these Amendments. They were Amendments which determined the question of whether a school was necessary or not, and if the Government chose to say that a question of that kind should not be left with the education authority, then he ventured to say they would condemn the Bill, and that the education authority would be worthless for the purpose for which it was brought into being.

supported the Amendment, because the words it proposed to omit were, in his opinion, absolutely unnecessary. Not only would some of the conditions not work, but they placed upon the Board of Education something in the nature of a direction which surely was not necessary in a body to be vested with judicial authority. The Board were to have regard to the interests of secular instruction. But the Clause concerned new schools, and it already been provided that the local authority should have all control of secular instruction. What, then, was the use of repeating a provision already passed by the Committee? Then the Board were to have regard to the wishes of the parents. Where were they to find the parents of the children who might possibly attend a school not yet built? It was really ridiculous to make such a provision. As to having regard to the economy of the rates, who could tell better than the elected representatives of the ratepayers how money should be spent? And who, being elected by the ratepayers, would dare to waste the ratepayers' money? The best safeguard for the economy of the rates was the control of the ratepayers. The conditions were therefore absolutely unnecessary, and the desire of the Government would be secured by the words—

"The Board of Education should determine in case of dispute whether a school is necessary or not."

desired to enter a last, but, he feared, a futile, protest against this new-fangled scheme of providing school accommodation. He was a constitutionalist, and was unable to accommodate himself to the rapid and enormous changes the present. "Constitutional Government" were making in this matter. In the past, the one ground on which additional accommodation had been provided was the existence of a deficiency of school places, and that was the only safe basis on which to go. The entirely new scheme now proposed was bound in the long run to he disastrous. The Board were to have regard to the interest of secular instruction. He did nut understand that at all. Was it suggested that in a village there were to he provided several kinds of secular instruction? No one in his senses would imagine that a great variety of forms of secular instruction could he provided to meet special needs. He imagined that this new provision was simply their old friend "necessary or not" in another form. But if that was the case, why not say so? Then, the Board were to have regard to the wishes of the parents. That was all moonshine. If they had regard to the wishes of a persistent, but he was glad to say a small, minority of the parents in the matter of school accommodation, the authority would never provide any school at all. It was impossible to have regard to the wishes of the parents in that way. All that could be done was, after the necessary accommodation had been provided, to meet the needs of the parents, if practicable, with regard to religious instruction—perhaps under the Scottish system. The whole purport of the provision under discussion was to provide separate schools in response to the demand for different classes of religious instruction. Such a scheme was financially disastrous and educationally grotesque. Small schools could not be organised, the money of the ratepayers would be wasted, and the children would not get the education which they could get if they attended a comparatively large school. The third point was as to the economy of the rates. He was not particularly anxious about the rates. He would like to put the rates and theology on one side, and get on with the question of education pure and simple. But he viewed with some cynicism this provision coming from the Board of Education in the Homeland of the great British Empire. The recent declaration of the Premier of West Australia that as long as they had a single penny in their coffers they would spend it on the education of their people was in sharp contrast with this overwhelming desire for the economy of the rates. What would be said of a Secretary of State for War who, on finding the Army furnished with obsolete guns, refused to remedy the defect on the ground that regard must be had to the economy of the taxes? That was a perfectly parallel position, as national education was as much a line of national defence as the Army. The policy of the Clause was extremely short-sighted. A clear incentive was given to the use of denominational buildings wherever they existed, in order to relieve the locality of the capital charges for the building of a new school. The religious bodies of the country, having such buildings, had only to get the necessary attendance and claim to be put on the rates, and there for all time would be a school with the fetters of denominationalism around the education of the children. The clear intention of this provision was to secure that being done, and he protested against it. Apart from the existing parochial buildings, which with slight alterations could be used for schools, there were about £800,000 a year in voluntary subscriptions. At a generous estimate the repairs mould cost £250,000, leaving over half a million of money at once applicable to the provision of buildings, which might be used for school purposes, and by instructing the Board to have regard to the economy of the rates, the Government were switching off education from the broad lines of nationalism to the narrow and devious ways of sectarianism. This new-fangled scheme of school accommodation being denominational rather than national, would be fatal to national progress and national education. The question of rate-aid, and popular control would settle itself, but this Clause fettered denominationalism of the narrowest kind around the education of the country, and therefore he strongly opposed it.

said that the last time the Board of Education, of which he was a member, had to decide this question they decided it in the very way which the hon. Member for North Camberwell had described as impossible. In a village on the outskirts of Leeds there was a deficiency of school accommodation which the vicar wished to supply by building an additional voluntary school, and the School Board of Leeds by building a board school. The parish was a rich one, the rector was an extremely able educationalist, and, as far as the interests of education were concerned, there was nothing to choose between the two proposals. The sole ground on which the matter was decided was the wishes of the parents who would be served by the school. There was no difficulty in finding those parents, because they lived in the houses of the village in which the school was to be built. Inquiry was made and it was easily ascertained that the people wished to have a board school. That being the general opinion of the parents, the decision of the Board of Education was that the deficiency should be supplied by the School Board of Leeds, and not by the vicar.

said his strong objection to this proposal of the Government was that it tied the hands of the Department and hampered them in giving proper consideration as to whether a school ought to be provided or not. He gathered from the Prime Minister's speech that these three instructions were the obvious ones and exhausted all the instructions that could be given to the Department, and other matters could not arise. Surely all who had had experience of education questions knew that these three matters did not exhaust the instructions, and there were other matters which ought to be taken into consideration which would arise in the creation of a new school. The main question was whether the accommodation was required or not, and in taking that into account they should consider other things that might arise in connection with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman said the Opposition seemed to look upon these matters with grave suspicion, and for his own part he did look upon them with suspicion. None of the speeches from the other side had put forward any reason for leaving this matter to the discretion of the Department. The real reason for putting in this proviso was to give the Department an excuse for deciding in favour of denominational schools. The object of putting in these limitations seemed to be to hamper any future Government which might succeed the present Government in dealing with this question. He could not see any other grounds for this proposal and he strongly opposed it on the ground that in this matter the Education Department ought to have absolute and full discretion and should not be hampered in deciding what future accommodation ought to be provided.

said that the one point of interest in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University was that he openly admitted that in the case he quoted the Department absolutely excluded the consideration of the economy of the rates, and had argued that, in this case, the Department had secured effectually a just solution of the wants of the locality by deciding the matter without taking that question into consideration. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was thus one of the very strongest arguments for leaving the Board of Education an absolutely free hand and not restricting them by this requirement. He had regarded this Bill from beginning to end with a profound conviction that it was intended to supply unlimited funds and unrestricted power to the clerical party to enable thorn to get and keep in their hands the educational machinery of the country. They were now reduced to the ridiculous position, that this omnipotent authority, which was to re-organise the education of the country was to set about its duty bound hand and foot; and not only were they to have an equal balance given to the denominational competitors in regard to the right to make provision of schools, but when they came to arbitrate as to whether this authority was really to be entitled to provide schools for the community—the local education authority, which any one with aspirations for a national system would wish to see given the fullest right to provide, or their private sectarian competitors — then they had the Board of Education launched upon them with its hands and feet tied and fettered and limited by the restrictions the very absence of which they now knew had enabled the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University to perform not long ago an act of justice. These two Clauses completely fettered and paralysed the education authority. Then, again, he wish to put this question. Part of Section 18 of the Act of 1870 was embodied in this Bill, and the words included were—

"That a School Board shall from time to time provide such additional school accommodation as is in their opinion necessary in order to supply a sufficient amount of public school accommodation for the district."

"The duty of a local education authority under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1902, to provide a sufficient amount of public school accommodation, shall include the duty to provide a sufficient amount of public school accommodation, without payment of fees, in every part of their area."

Yes, the new schools.

Where was the difficulty in a rich company raising funds, and either using old buildings or building new schools, without giving any notice or applying to the local authority or the Board of Education and carrying those schools on for six months under the conditions laid down in the Act of 1870, for public elementary schools with a Conscience Clause time table and expressed willingness to receive an inspector, etc.? Where was there anything in the Act to prevent schools of that kind being run for a few months by private individuals or a company and then claiming to come in on the rates and compete with the schools of the local education authority? Such schools could come to the Education Department and say "We have an average attendance of more than thirty and we claim to be quartered permanently upon the rates and the grant list."

Under Clause 9, the Board of Education would have a controlling power as to whether such schools should be public elementary schools or not.

contended that there was no difficulty in starting a school, for they could do this by inviting people to send thirty children. His point was that if any body of men were to do that, that school, according to the wording of this Clause, would be entitled to say, "We are a public elementary school." Therefore they had to face this evil in its most naked and outrageous form. Practically by this Clause the sectarian demand to start schools was placed on an absolute level in the first place with the local authority, and after they had restricted the rights of the local authority, the Board of Education were prevented from judging with a free hand between the two parties. Finally the bogus and mushroom schools started all over the country might set up claims for permanent support from the rates. It was a disgrace to education, and a disgrace to fair play as between one side and another in this matter.

understood that the Government, in its allusion in this Clause to a "necessary school" only intended it to refer to a public elementary school, but according to the wording, it might equally refer to an unauthorised school. He was sure the Government did not wish the Clause to be ambiguous.

said there could be no harm in inserting "public elementary" before the word "school" but it was not necessary, because the only schools in regard to which that Clause had any force were public elementary schools.

urged that the same thing occurred yesterday on a Clause. There was a misleading expression in that Clause, and he thought the Government would alter it, but when it came to the point they had no opportunity of amending it. The Committee should have a promise from the Government that they would introduce the words "public elementary."

thought the words were already quite unnecessary, and if they were introduced in one place in this Clause and not in another earlier in the Clause it might leave in doubt as to what the meaning of "school" in the first instance was. The Clause began by saying that the Board of Education should determine whether a school was necessary or not. There the word was "school" and the question could only arise in the case of public elementary schools.

said the word "school," at the beginning was not used in the same sense as at the end. At the beginning it was not a public elementary school that was referred to, and the Board of Education was deciding there whether a school should become a public elementary school.

I do not agree with that.

said the Board of Education was to determine whether a school had become a public elementary school or not.

said that under Clause 8 the local education authority could say that a particular public elementary school was not necessary, and ensure that the word in Clause 10 related to the provision of new schools.

said the Attorney General had been good enough to refer to Clause 8. The first words of that Clause referred to a "public elementary school" and he thought it would be better that these words should be introduced here also. There was no kind of sliding scale in the considerations that were to determine the Board of Education in the decision of an appeal. Wishes of the parents, secular instruction, and economy of the rates—they were all placed on an equal footing. As to the last consideration, respecting the rates, there was no option. The decision must be in favour of the denominational school. As to the wishes of the parents, how were they going to be ascertained? Was there going to be a public inquiry, or was the clergyman to get up a petition and hand it in? The inspector who went down to inquire, as a rule, had preconceived notions with regard to these things. There were two different opinions with regard to education. One was, that the most important thing was secular instruction. The second was that of the gentleman who got up the petition; and they would say they did not want to give their children this dangerous weapon of reading and writing, as Canon Lyttleton had described it; what they wanted was to give them religious doctrine which taught them to be "humble and lowly to all their betters," and explained to them that their betters were the canons and prebendaries and curates of the Church. That was their opinion of education. A large number of these inspectors were clergymen themselves, and they were the very gentlemen who for years and years had tolerated insanitary dwellings, purely and simply in the interests of sectarian education. ["Oh, oh."] Was it not the case that those inspectors had the superintendence of the health and education of the children, and that they had done that in the interest of the denominational schools? [Cries of "Oh," and "Divide."] Hon. Members opposite were exceedingly impatient. When they were getting their Bill through at motor-car speed, surely they might tolerate a few regulations on the speed. Did they mean to say that the toleration of insanitary schools was not detrimental to education

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause from the first word "to," in page 4, line 12, to the word "but," in line 14, both inclusive, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."