To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the medal to be given for the conveyance of troops Is to be confined to the masters of chartered ships and refused to the masters of mail steamers, which have sometimes carried as many as 2,000 men in a single trip. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The reply to the Question is in the affirmative. The intention is to confine the issue of the medal to troop transports on time charter, which are entirely at the disposal of the Government for service in any direction, and the master and officers of which are for the time being practically the servants of the Crown.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give an analysis of Granity Creek coal as supplied to the China Squadron, i.e., the percentages it contains of fixed carbon, hydro-carbon, water, and ash; and also its evaporative power computed by the multiple most generally used. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) I am unable to give the information asked for in the first part of the hon. Member's Question, as it is not immediately available. It is not considered desirable in the public interest to give the details as to evaporative power.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in order to carry out more effectually the Compulsory Clauses of the Education Acts, the Government will assent to the insertion in the Education Bill of a Clause providing that in the ease of attendance officers devoting the whole of their time to the enforcing of such Acts they shall only be liable to dismissal from their office with the sanction and approval of the Board of Education. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Such a provision would appear to lie outside the scope of the present Education Bill.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as the House has been deprived by the Order of the House of the 13th instant of the opportunity of considering the provision in Clause 13 of the Education Bill, requiring that the accounts of municipal cities and boroughs shall be made up and audited so far as education accounts are concerned by auditors of the Local Government Board instead of, as in the case of other municipal accounts, by auditors appointed under the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act or special local Acts, he will afford, on the Report Stage of the Bill, an opportunity for considering the objections entertained to the proposal of the Government. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am afraid that no preference can be given to this subject over any other on the Report Stage; but as the Clause stands early for consideration on Friday, 28th November, it is possible that an opportunity may arise for a discussion upon it.

To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland will grant the Return which appears on the Paper relative to non-payment of rates.^* (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Secretary for Scotland is prepared to grant a Return in continuation of the former Return of 1899, and if the hon. Member can make out a case for the issue of a Return containing the information asked for in Column 3 he will consider it.

To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that Sir John Wolfe Barry, C.E., has declined to visit the Island of Lewis for the purpose of making a report in regard to the condition of the harbour at Port Ness, will the Secretary for Scotland state whether the services of another engineer have yet been secured. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative.

To ask the Lord Advocate if he will ascertain on what ground the Congested Districts Board are unable to open negotiations with the proprietor of the Island of Lewis for the purpose of acquiring land for cottars, fishermen, and others resident in the island. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I can only refer the hon. Member to my answer to his similar Question on 5th November,† and to the Special Report which is shortly to be issued.

To ask the Postmaster General whether the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the cable arrangements between Great Britain and all parts of the Empire, ascertained, or endeavoured to ascertain, what revenue was derived from cable messages to and from this country; if so, will be state what is the revenue; and, if not, will he take steps to obtain information as to the amount expended by merchants and all others in this country in cabling messages, with a view to considering the question of purchasing the cables at a fair price. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I was not a member of the Committee to which my hon. friend refers, but their Report and Minutes of Evidence have been published as a Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 1056] of 1902. On reference to this Paper my hon. friend will see the scope of their inquiries. The Committee reported strongly against any scheme for the general purchase of cables by the State, and I am not prepared to advise that His Majesty's Government should enter upon such an operation.

To ask the Postmaster General if he will say how many, and what, towns in Ireland have been connected by the trunk telephone system; whether in all cases the trunk system has been established without any grant from the cities and districts concerned; and, if so, will he explain why the Post Office authorities have required a guarantee of over £500 per annum for the establishment of a trunk telephone from Belfast to Londonderry. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberblain.) The following thirteen towns in Ireland have been connected with the trunk telephone system: Dublin, Belfast, Balbriggan, Drogheda, Dundalk, Newry, Banbridge, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and Arklow. In two cases, namely Newry and Banbridge, the connections have been established under guarantee. An extension to Naas is now being carried out under a guarantee. The ordinary rule in; ill cases of proposed extensions is to require a guarantee where there is reason to suppose that the revenue will not cover the maintenance and working expenses. When the working of the trunk system was transferred to the Post Office a number of extensions were made in Ireland without guarantee. Experience has shown that none of the Irish trunk lines, except those between Dublin and Belfast, are remunerative, and there is no reason to think that a Belfast-Londonderry line, which would be costly, would be any exception to this rule.

To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that at times in the Central Office, London, and in other places, male clerks senior in age and receiving higher pay than the women supervisors are placed under their control; and whether steps will be taken to abolish the practice in accordance with the desire of the Tweedmouth Commission. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Such an arrangement occasionally obtains, especially at times when male telegraphists are voluntarily performing extra duty on sections of circuits which are under the immediate supervision of women; but I am assured that the expressed desire of the Tweedmouth Committee on this subject is duly observed, and that men are placed under the supervision of women as rarely as possible. I may add, as regards the Central Telegraph Office, that female supervisors are themselves under the control of male superintendents and assistant controllers.

To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that there are French, Russian, German, and Austrian post offices at Jerusalem and at Peking, and no British post offices at these important places; and whether he will make inquiries as to the business done at those places by British subjects and traders with Great Britain, with a view to opening post offices under England's management. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is the same as was given to him in reply to a similar Question asked on the 5th of May last.† I am aware that the Governments of certain foreign countries have established post offices at Jerusalem and Peking and that there are no British post offices there. Inquiries have already been made whether any exceptional circumstances rendered it advisable to establish a British post office at Peking and I am satisfied that it is not necessary. In the case of Jerusalem I know of no demand for a British post office; and I do not propose to take any steps in that direction.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is possession of any agricultural statistics which will enable him to compare the acreage of land cultivated in the several provinces of India at the present time with the acreage cultivated in any year subsequent to 1890; and, if so, will he quote the figures. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The cropped acreage for surveyed tracts in the several provinces was returned in 1890–1891 and 1900–1901, respectively, as follows:—

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that an order was given to an American firm for thirty viaducts for the Uganda Railway in October, 1900, and that it was a condition of the contract that they should be erected complete in forty-six weeks, that is, by September 1901; whether, seeing that the first viaduct was completed by the 31st March, 1901, and seven more by the 31st March, 1902, he can say when the remaining twenty-two will be finished and whether in future he will insert penalties sufficient to prevent delay in fulfilling contracts. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) An order was given for twenty-seven viaducts in December, 1900, to an American firm which had offered to construct and deliver them in forty-six weeks. The contract provided that actual erection was to be completed within seven months from the date on which the chief engineer should report that he was ready for the contractors to begin work. This he did on the 20th December, 1901, and the viaducts should therefore have been completed by 19th July, 1902. Thirteen of these viaducts have already been taken over from the contractors. Penalties to prevent delay were provided in the contract in the usual manner, but no decision can be come to in regard to enforcing them until the works are finished, and the circumstances under which the delay occurred fully considered.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the assurances given, that positions in the Naval Ordnance Department which could be taken by gunners and boatswains as they became vacant should be filled by men of the rank of naval warrant officers, he will explain why none of the ten vacancies for assistant naval ordnance officers that have occurred since 1899, have been filled by the appointment of a naval warrant officer. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The course that has been adopted in regard to the filling of vacancies for assistant naval ordnance officers is in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee which dealt with the reorganisation of the Naval Ordnance Store Department. If the noble Lord will refer to the reply given to his previous Question on this subject, on the 2nd June last,† he will find a statement as to the scope of this Committee's recommendations so far as they dealt with the employment of retired warrant officers.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland where and in whose custody are preserved the MSS. of the Ordnance Survey Memoirs of Ireland; whether, seeing that the only volume printed by the Government was Volume I., relating to the city of Londonderry and parish of Temple more, the Irish Government will consider the advisability of preserving these memoirs by having them printed; or, if the County Councils undertook the same, whether the Government would afford facilities there for and give a grant in aid thereof.

† See (4) Debates, cviii., 1110.

(Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The MSS. referred to are in the custody of the Royal Irish Academy. The publication, at the expense of the State, of the single volume mentioned, which dealt with one parish only, cost £1,705. The publication of the remaining MSS., of which there are a large number, was not continued, mainly on the ground of expense. I understand they are in excellent preservation and order, are freely accessible to the public, and have been largely utilised in various works bearing on the history and antiquities of Ireland. Any proposals by County Councils in the direction suggested, if made, would be considered by Government.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken by the Irish Government for the preservation of the ancient buildings on the hill of Greenan, near Londonderry; and, seeing that this historical and ancient monument has been preserved from destruction by the action of a local antiquarian who had the buildings thereon renewed, will he state whether steps will be taken by the Board of Works to have the existing buildings vested in them, and thereby preserve one of the most historic and ancient monuments of Ireland. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Board of Works is precluded from making any expenditure on ancient monuments unless their custody is vested in the Board by deed. The Department will endeavour to ascertain if the proprietor of the monument in question is prepared to execute such a deed.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the lack of employment for agricultural labourers in County Limerick, he will see, now that the Limerick County Council have done their part by direct labour, that the Local Government Board put the scheme in regard to the repairs and maintenance of the public roads into operation as soon as possible. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) One Rural District Council has appealed against the scheme proposed by the County Council. A local inquiry must in consequence be held before the Local Government Board can sanction the scheme or any modification of it. When the views of the remaining District Councils have been received the inquiry will be arranged for, and no unnecessary delay will be allowed to elapse before the Board gives its decision.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say upon whose authority extra constabulary were drafted into Dungannon on the 5th instant; whether there was any breach of the peace on that date; whether he is aware that the sixty men of the Royal Irish Constabulary only arrived late on the evening of the 5th instant; and will he say upon whom it is proposed to charge the expenses of these additional men, seeing that the opinion of the local authorities that additional police were not required was right; and will he state if there is any precedent for the sending of such a force on that date in previous, years. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) An extra force of sixty men was drafted into Dungannon on the 5th instant upon the recommendation of the officers locally responsible for the preservation of the peace. The local magistrates concurred in the opinion that an extra force was necessary; they only differed from the police authorities in their estimates of the number of men required. The occurrences in view of which the force was sent did not take place until the evening of the date mentioned, consequently the men did not arrive until a few hours previously. No breach of the peace occurred, I am happy to say. On two occasions this year rioting took place, when a small force was drafted into Dungannon; on two other occasions, when a large force was brought in, everything passed off peaceably. A force of ten men was sent on 5th November, 1901. A charge amounting to £6 2s. 6d. will be made against the urban district in respect of the men employed on the 5th instant.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mary Doyle, who holds a licence in Sneem, County Kerry, caters for the public, that she has kept no drink on the premises for twelve months, and that the police authorities opposed her licence on those grounds; and, seeing that Mr. Warden, of Derryquin, got an assignment of her licence over twelve months ago, will he say who pays the licence money to the excise authorities. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The police did not oppose this licence, nor is it the fact, as alleged, that Mr. Warden obtained an assignment of the licence. I cannot say by whom the licence duty is paid.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether any steps have been

	First Class.	Second Class.	Troops.
	—	—	—
Accommodation	88	6	1,084
Numbers embarked Composition:—	85	4	1,002
Australian Commonwealth Horse	38	—	24
8th New Zealand Contingent	43	4	891
10th New Zealand Contingent	2	—	82
Details	2	—	5

Two deaths took place on the voyage and thirteen on shore from illness contracted on board or in South Africa; five others died from illness developed on shore.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the new Clause with regard to endowments will apply to endowments administered under a Charity Commission scheme; if so, in what way it will affect schools entirely maintained by the endowment, but on the lists of schools supplying elementary education to the district and inspected by His Majesty's inspectors; and how will it affect schools in which the endowments are used partly for elementary and partly for secondary education but which receive the Parliamentary grant. taken, in view of the representations addressed to him from the General Officer commanding at Hong Kong, in November, 1901, to increase the lodging allowance and allowances for servants granted to officers of the garrison, in view of the house rent and rates of wages charged in the Colony. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The rates of lodging allowance have been increased from the 1st April, 1902. As regards the servants' allowance it was considered that there was no sufficient reason for any increase of rate.

To ask the Secretary of State for War, can he state the number and composition of the troops embarked on board the "Britannic " from South Africa on 7th July for Australia, and the number for which she was fitted; how many men died on the voyage; and how many have since died in hospital both in Australia and New Zealand. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The figures were as follows:— (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The new Clause referred to will apply to endowments under schemes in the same manner as to endowments under ordinary trusts. The schools referred to in the second paragraph of the Question would appear not to be public elementary schools, but merely certified efficient schools; such schools will not be affected by the Clause. The answer to the third part of the Question must depend in each case upon the terms of the trust or scheme.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of an inquiry being promoted by the Government, by a Royal Commission or otherwise, as to the best means of facilitating traffic and improving the means of communication in London, he would consider the advisability of including in such inquiry the question of obviating, by the provision of subways or otherwise, the necessity of impeding the traffic by breaking up the streets for the purpose of laying and repairing pipes, wires, and sewers. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) In the event of an inquiry being instituted my hon. friend's suggestion will be considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of unemployed reservists referred to in the letter recently issued by himself and the Commander-in-Chief.

No, Sir; no record of the figures is available.

None at all?

No record is available.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what number of officers and civil servants connected with the War Office have been rewarded for good service at home in connection with the late war in South Africa, and what form such rewards took.

The following have been the honours conferred on officers and civil servants connected with the War Office for good service at home during the war—two G.C.B.'s: four K.C.B.'s; sixteen C.B.'s; one Knighthood; one C.M.G. In addition, four clerks have received the Imperial Service Order, and His Majesty has conferred the Victorian Order on eight officials of the War Department during the past two years.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that under the existing regulations for the distribution of the Queen's South African medal and the King's South African medal, those officers and men who served during the earlier period of the war will receive but one medal, while those who served for the same time during the later period will receive two medals; whether the effect of these regulations will be to exclude the whole or the greater part of the Colonial troops from the possibility of receiving more than one medal: and, whether under these circumstances, he will reconsider the regulations as to the issue of these medals.

The regulations for the issue of these medals were only decided upon after very careful consideration of all the interests involved. My hon. friend must recollect that the Colonial troops are not alone in being affected in respect of the dates of service to which the issues apply, and the intention was that regular troops should receive special consideration as compared with those serving for shorter periods at a higher rate of pay. There is no intention of reconsidering the regulation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to further investigate the case of Robert Leonard, late sergeant in the 6th Dragoons, who was recently degraded to the ranks, by a sentence of court-martial at York, for having written a letter to the Secretary of State for War, complaining of the harsh way in which recruits in the regiment were treated and making complaints against his squadron commander.

The General Officer commanding the district was recently instructed to make an investigation into this matter. A Report of the proceedings has not yet reached the War Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the repairs to the boilers of H.M.S. "Diadem" are completed at Glasgow, and when will she be under steam; and can he state the total cost involved in these repairs.

The repairs to the boilers of H.M.S. "Diadem" are not yet reported as having been completed. The main engines have, however, been under steam in the basin at the contractors' works, and it is expected that a full power trial will be carried out in about ten days time. As the "Diadem" is being repaired on the basis of a schedule of prices, and the work is not yet completed, I am unable at present to Dive the actual cost.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a statement of the repairs required to be done to the boilers of H.M.S. "Terrible" has been sent to the Admiralty; and, if so, whether he will lay the list upon the Table of the House.

The list of boiler repairs and alterations which it is considered desirable to carry out in H.M.S. "Terrible" has been received from the dockyard. There is no objection to the list being laid upon the Table if there is any desire that such a course shall be taken.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to give the House any information with referent to the reported punishment of the 9th Lancers, now quartered at Sialkote.

The punishment inflicted on the 9th Lancers was (1) recall from leave (other than leave on medical certificate) of all officers and men, and stoppage of all leave until 1st June, 1903; (2) imposition of additional sentry duty while the regiment is in cantonments until 1st June, 1903. It may be well that I should add that I am informed by the Government of India that this punishment was inflicted by them because a native was assaulted and died of his injuries under circumstances which made it reasonably certain that his assailants were men of the 9th Lancers, and because, subsequently, no serious attempt to discover the offenders was made by the regimental authorities, on whom, as well as on the men of the regiment, the responsibility for the failure to bring them to justice is considered by the Government of India to rest.

May I ask whether that has been done with the full sanction of the officer commanding and the military authorities?

The punishment has been inflicted on the regiment with the full approval of the military authorities.

Will a full and independent inquiry be made into all the circumstances of the case?

No, Sir. This is a matter of military discipline with which I do not feel called upon to interfere.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state why no colonels of the Native Army in India have been promoted to the rank of Major-General since October, 1900.

By Royal Warrant of 5th November, 1899, it was laid down that "from 1st January, 1901, no promotion shall be made to the rank of Major-General or Lieutenant-General, except by selection, to fill an appointment, or as a reward for distinguished service." From the 1st January, 1901, therefore, promotion by seniority to the rank of Major-General ceased; and the question what Indian appointments should carry that rank is now under consideration by a joint War Office and India Office Committee, whose final report is expected shortly.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Pontefract, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the injuries recently inflicted upon an attendant by a patient in Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum; and if he can say whether precautions were taken to ensure the safety of the attendant in question while in the execution of his duty.

I have had a Report made to me on this occurrence, and find that for some days previously special precautions had been taken to prevent danger from this particular patient, but that the attendant in question (though specially warned a few hours before the attack) failed to exercise the necessary caution. I am satisfied that very great care is used at Broadmoor to prevent injury being caused by the patients to themselves or their attendants, and the occurrence in question must be regarded as one which no possible care could altogether preclude in an asylum such as Broadmoor.

May I venture to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the special claim of this man to a suitable pension is favourably considered?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of convictions and the amount of the fines obtained against Mr. Joseph Scannell, tobacconist, Dartmouth, under the Lord's Day Observance Act of Charles II.; whether the police will be directed to enforce this Act against publicans as well as tobacconists; and. if not, when it is proposed to repeal it.

I have no information which would enable me to answer the first part of this Question. As regards the latter part, it is not a matter in which I feel called upon to issue any directions such as are suggested, even if I had the power to do so, nor can I express any opinion as to the repeal of the Act in question.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to inquire?

The matter is one for the police.

And have you no supervision over the local police?

Not in this matter.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will explain why the Local Government Board auditor has disallowed the amount paid hitherto for the ringing of the bells of the parish church, Islington, on the King's birthday, which prevented the hells being rung on Sunday, 9th instant; and whether he is aware that the ringing of the bells on this occasion has been done for many generations.

The question which the auditor had to determine was whether this expenditure could legally be defrayed by the Borough Council out of the rates. In his opinion it could not, and hence it was his duty to disallow the charge. He has stated his reasons for the disallowance in the book of account, and it is competent for any person aggrieved by his decision to address an appeal to me against it. The validity of these reasons would then be carefully considered, and if it was found that the disallowance had been lawfully made it would be competent for me to remit it on equitable grounds. I should be quite ready to give favourable consideration to any such appeal.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he can state when the new street from Charing Cross to the Mall will be begun, and when it will be open for traffic.

The matter is being carefully considered by the First Commissioner, but he is not in a position to make any statement about it at this moment.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will lay upon the Table the Report of Sheriff Jameson upon the application by the Corporation of the City of Glasgow to be constituted the port local authority for the Clyde.

When the draft Order constituting the port local authority is issued, the Secretary for Scotland will consider the propriety of complying with the hon. Member's suggestion.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if the local education authorities will have power to treat as provided schools schools that, originally founded as undenommational schools, have become denominational by the connivance of the trustees.

The denominational or undenominational character of a school does not affect the question of provision. Unless a school is provided by the local education authority it cannot be treated by the authority as a provided school.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will state how many elementary, voluntary, and board schools are now charging fees; what is the annual amount received by Church of England, Wesleyan, Roman Catholic, British and other schools, also board schools; and how is the amount received applied.

According to the latest Returns (1900–1901) the number of schools charging fees was as follows:—Church of England schools, 1,756; Wesleyan, 307; Roman Catholic, 113; British and other, 330; Board, 153; total, 2,659. The amount received from fees was—Church of England schools £121,815; Wesleyan, £29,981; Roman Catholic, £7,163; British and other, £31,161; Board, £41,161; total, £231,281. The amount received in fees is entered in Form 9 and applied to the maintenance of the schools.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Belfast I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if he is aware that at the last elections for county councillors and district councillors in Roscommon a number of county and district councillors who were re-elected without opposition acted as paid presiding officers and poll clerks at contested elections in the same county; and will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter.

I am aware that this objectionable practice prevailed at some of the elections in County Roscommon. The question of its legality, which is doubtful, can be raised, I think, either on the audit or by election petition. But I do not at present see what independent action the Executive can take in the matter.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Belfast I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether, in view of the desire expressed by the commercial people of Belfast, Down, and Antrim, that the winter assize should be held in Belfast for criminal business, as at present it generally is, and that a court for trying civil cases and appeals should sit at the same time, he will take steps to establish such a court.

There is a good deal of difficulty in holding winter assizes permanently (which the suggested change would necessitate) in any particular town, but the matter is under consideration. I cannot, however, give the undertaking asked for.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state why the Local Registrar of Titles in Longford issued a circular to the tenant purchasers calling on them to re-register their titles; and will the Government defray the cost which this second registration has imposed on the purchasers.

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No circular has been issued requiring re-registration, nor has any re-registration taken place. The precise nature and legal effect of what has been done were described by me in a reply to a Question addressed to me by the hon. Member for North Long ford on the 5th of July of last year,† to which I beg to refer the hon. Member.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Belfast I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been called to the ease of Herbert Lindsay, who was arrested on 9th September last by a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary for an assault; and seeing that, at the trial before the presiding magistrate, the sergeant admitted that he received from Lindsay his name and address and stated he had no reason to doubt his genuineness, and that the presiding magistrate characterised the arrest under the circumstances as an error of judgment, can he take immediate steps to prevent the recurrence of similar cases.

In this case the complainant was willing and anxious to proceed to the Station House and charge Lindsay with an aggravated assault. The sergeant who, by the way, was himself a Presbyterian, on the information he was then able to obtain, came to the conclusion that the assault was of an aggravated character. Under those circumstances he was, by the provisions of the 229th Section of a Local Act (8 & 9 Vict., cap. 142) justified in arresting the accused and bringing him to the police station. The resident magistrate, on all the facts brought out at the hearing, took a

† See (4) Debates, xcvi., 1003.

different view as to the nature of the assault, merely observing that it might have been better to have proceeded by summons, but that the best official might be guilty of an error of judgment. The police are fully aware of the rules which should guide them in the discharge of their delicate duties in Belfast. No action by the Executive appears to be called for.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Herbert Lindsay, who was convicted in Belfast and ordered to pay forty shillings and costs, or in default to be imprisoned for one calendar month for alleged assault; if his attention has been called to the evidence given on appeal at the Belfast Recorder's Court, where the decision of the magistrate was reversed, and will he state on what ground the evidence of character was refused by the stipendiary; will he cause further inquiry to be made in this case; and can he arrange that in future eases of criminal prosecution, where evidence of character is tendered, magistrates will receive such evidence before the determination of a case.

The evidence given before the Recorder was not the same as that given before the resident magistrate, in as much as there was a cross case before the latter, on the hearing of which Lindsay wade some important admissions touching his own conduct on the occasion. Evidence of character was tendered, but the resident magistrate said it was unnecessary, as he would assume that Lindsay was a man of excellent character, and that in forcing his way into the house of the complainant, who was a Roman Catholic, and endeavouring to sell to her a work treating of the worship of the Virgin Mary, which was offensive to Roman Catholics, he acted from conscientious motives. The Executive cannot dictate to resident magistrates or other judges how they are to decide cases which come before them. It magistrates fall into error, their mistakes can be corrected by due process of law.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to prevent a man like Lindsay causing disturbances in Belfast by shoving his religious views under people's noses?

Proper steps are taken by the police.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will recommend the Irish Lights Board to send an inspector to make local inquiries as to the necessity for lighting Rock Angus at the entrance of Strangford Lough.

I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that their Inspector has already visited Rock Angus, and reported to the effect that it is undesirable to light the rock except in connection with an extensive system of leading lights up Lough Strangford.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, the salaries of teachers in Ireland having now been consolidated, there is any objection to their being paid in future monthly instead of, as at present, quarterly.

The present system of quarterly payments necessitates the continuous employment, for a fortnight, of almost the entire staff of the Education Office. Monthly payments would entail a very largely increased staff. On this ground alone the suggestion of my hon. friend could not be adopted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received resolutions from several poor law boards refusing permission to the present lady inspector to examine the children boarded out at nurse; and whether he can state when it is proposed to appoint a Roman Catholic lady as an additional inspector, and what will be the conditions of the appointment.

On June 26th I stated that the fist requisite of a case in favour of appointing a second lady inspectress was that all parties should co-operate to make the first a success. Some resolutions have been received and are to be regretted. But the general attack on the first appointment has ceased, and a second lady inspectress, Miss FitzGerald Kenney, who is, I understand, a Roman Catholic, has been appointed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the charge of the Lord Chief Baron in the case of O'Keeffe v. Walsh and others, of Tallow, in which certain officials were alleged to have been guilty of a breach of public trust; and if he can state what proceedings he proposes to institute against the officials so referred to.

I have read a newspaper report of this important judgment. I respectfully decline to debate the course pursued by the Executive more than three years ago.

Why don't you prosecute them?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many County Councils have refused to vote money for the maintenance of the Assize and Sessions Court-houses; and how many court-houses have, in consequence, been left derelict on the hands of the sheriffs for those counties.

One County Council only, namely that of Mayo, recently refused to provide funds for the maintenance of three court-houses within the county. Under the Local Government Act, 1898, it is the duty of the County Council to maintain these buildings in good condition and repair. If the Council fails in its duty in this respect, adequate remedies are provided by the Act. The contingency contemplated in the second part of the Question could never arise.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any of the inspectors appointed by the Board of Intermediate Education have any knowledge of Irish; .and, if not, whether inspectors who are capable of examining the pupils in Irish will be appointed.

There are no inspectors in the service of the Intermediate Education Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to indicate the material points in which his proposals for dealing with the Irish land question will differ from the Bill which he introduced this year.

I have nothing to add to the statements I have made in this House and out of it. I believe them to be intelligible, and, in any case, I deprecate a piecemeal anticipation of a First Reading speech.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Monaghan, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say when it is expected the Royal Commission on Irish University Education will issue its Report.

I am given to understand that the Report will probably be laid before Easter.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that the Select Committee of this House on Municipal Trading, appointed on the 6th April, 1900, has not been re-appointed, and in view of the increase in municipal debt and rates occasioned by municipal trading and other causes, he will consent to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the question of municipal trading, and into the causes which have resulted in the increase in municipal debt and rates.

I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts the statement twice made in the Question that what is called municipal trading raises the rates; and, if not, whether he approves of such a suggestion in the form of a Question.

Really, it is not my business to criticise Questions. I am their victim, and not their critic. Any Gentleman who has any views on that point should address the Chair. As regards the Question put on the Paper by my hon. friend, I have to say that it is, I think, to be regretted that the Joint Committee was not re-appointed, and I hope there will be a possibility of reappointing it at no distant date. His suggestion for a Royal Commission might be entertained in the absence of the other alternative, but I should not like to give any definite answer to that question without more consideration than I have been able to give to the subject.

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is in order to make a statement that municipal trading raises the rates, in the form of a Question?

As a rule, argumentative statements of that kind are not admitted in a Question. I have not had my attention called to this Question, or considered its form.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will place on the Paper an Amendment to Schedule 4, to include on the repeals Section 24 of the Act of 1870, with a view to carry out his undertaking to preclude in the case of schools which have been transferred to School Boards the retransfer of such schools to the managers.

I think that the general principle which should govern the ease referred to by the hon. Gentleman is that which I have already more than once described as applicable to leased schools. If a local authority should voluntarily give up, under its powers, a school which has been transferred to it, I think that case would have to be considered, subject to the provisions of Clause 9. I have already indicated that that is my view with regard to schools which are leased to the authority, and of which the lease has terminated.

May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a passage in a speech he made on the 14th July, in which he used very strong words in reply to the appeal made by the hon. Baronet who is now Secretary to the Board of Education to withdraw this Clause—

Order, order!

I will put a further Question on the Paper.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the business will be on Friday next?

If the right hon. Gentleman will kindly repeat the Question tomorrow I shall be prepared to give all answer.

suggested that it would be for the convenience of the House that these proposals should not be debated at this stage. On the Clause that was coming on they would he governed in their discussion of these proposals by the Rules of Committee, and not by the more stringent Rules of Report.

said he would like to make the observation that it was rather an odd procedure to invite the House of Commons to consider on Monday a Clause which was only put upon the Paper on Friday night, and a proposal which affected so closely not only the interests that the House had to guard, but the interests and concerns of so many local authorities throughout the country.

Order, order! It would be irregular to discuss the Clause on Report of the Money Resolution.

said he was going to conclude by saying that he did not see any objection to the course proposed. He had no desire to do anything that was in the least degree irregular. It was only by way of obiter dictum that, while agreeing to the particular course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, he put in a little protest against the way in which the matter had been laid before the House by the Government.

said there was another complaint they had to make. Perhaps he might be allowed to put it in the form of a Question. They could not thoroughly understand the working of the financial proposals of the Bill without the figures showing the operation of the Bill financially throughout the country. He understood that the Duke of Devonshire had promised to give those figures, and he wished to know why they had not been given to the House. With regard to the appeal which had been made, he thought they ought to have some opportunity of discussing the Clause in its double aspect, and he therefore hoped that any Motion not intended to make nonsense of the Clause would not be too strictly viewed.

said that from a purely financial point of view he thought the appeal made by the First Lord of the Treasury was, to say the least of it, somewhat cool. This enormous financial proposal, which in accordance with the invariable Rule of the House had been brought in first in Committee, was closured, and no one had an opportunity of saying a single word about a scheme which he understood involved from one and a half to two millions. Surely it was cool for the right hon. Gentleman to ask the House to forego its undoubted right to discuss this matter. I Let it be observed that from a financial point of view this was absolutely the only occasion which the House would have of discussing it. What the House would discuss when they came to the Clause would be particular circumstances and conditions under which the money already authorised should he handed out. The House was not in such a position that it could dispense with any of the securities with which the wisdom of their predecessors had surrounded their financial operations. It behoved the House to stand up for every power it possessed in connection with the authorisation of any charge upon the public purse. It was extremely unfortunate that the Government had found it necessary to prohibit any discussion on the financial operation of the Bill.

said he wished to attack the principle of the Clause because it contained the element of pure sectarian endowment, which it had hitherto been the policy of the House to avoid. The policy of the Government was to abrogate once for all the principle emphatically laid down in the Act of 1870 that no State money should be given to denominational bodies except under conditions which would make it clear that none of the money should he applied to the cost of religious instruction. That principle was laid down by Mr. Gladstone, and accepted by the Church party, but Parliament was asked to found a new order of lay dogmatic teachers, to be paid entirely by the State. It was said that the Church provided an equivalent in giving the use of its schools. But that was a gift which the Church could not withhold; for, literally, thousands of these schools were built, to the extent of 50 per cent. of the cost, out of State money. The Church had broken down under "the intolerable strain" of maintaining these schools; and now it transferred all the secular obligation to the State, still claiming the right to use the schools for all its own denominational purposes. For all these advantages the Church in return was only to hear the cost of repairs. The Church had got the best of the bargain, and, in some cases, it would make a small pecuniary profit, because the commercial astuteness of the Prime Minister had arranged that the Church was to retain, for denominational purposes, not only the schools, but the teachers' houses, which, under the Act of 1870, were to be taken as part of the school-house, although many of them were partly built at the expense of the State. How did the Prime Minister justify that misappropriation of State money? He should not oppose this grant if it were a grant to secular education only. It was not certain, however, that the funds available for secular education would be increased by the Resolution in its new form. Why should the localities proceed to increase the salaries of the teachers and improve the efficiency of denominational schools? They would be apt to leave these schools where they found them, and not to raise the salaries of men whom they did not appoint and could not control, for the benefit of schools which they were not allowed to manage. There was to be established a new order of lay ecclesiastical teachers. Henceforth the teachers in denominational schools would be ecclesiastical officers, ecclesiastically appointed, and ecclesiastically controlled, performing among their other duties functions which were strictly ecclesiastical; and that system was devised, not because it was necessary to the maintenance of religious education, but for the endowment of religious education. The Bill was only in favour of religious education because it sought to put the religious education of a particular Church on a basis of religious endowment. Contempt was often cast upon the "Nonconformist conscience," but did not the policy the House was now asked to adopt afford a singular illustration of the "Anglican conscience"—at any rate, as that conscience was put forward in Parliament, but not, he believed, as it prevailed among the lay members of the Anglican community. Nonconformist communities, by continuous effort and self-sacrifice, which commanded the greatest possible respect, supported their own ministry and carried on the religious work far beyond the bounds of their own people and churches. The sacrifices made by them for the maintenance of their faith were very real, and often touched personal comforts and even the necessities of life. Those sacrifices were to be increased in order that a far wealthier community might be relieved of a much smaller sacrifice. How were they to be increased? The Church was "coming on the rates!" That phrase was usually held to indicate a rude fall in social status, but he really thought it was not so bad as coming on the bread, sugar, and tea of the poorest of the community. They could now begin to see why the corn tax was imposed. In a time of peace, and with every prospect of a surplus, that tax was imposed as an immediate preliminary to this Bill. Supporters of the measure doubtless regarded these proposals as high State policy, with a fine flavour of religious enthusiasm, but Nonconformists and the people at large—whose affections the Church of England desired to win, but whose taxation was to be increased for the purposes of the Bill—would regard the policy as one of simple meanness. Was that the light in which the Church of England desired to appear either to its Nonconformist brethren or to those whom it wished to win to its fold? But to pass to another question. A new order of dogmatic teachers to perform really clerical duties was to be founded. Was that what the Church intended In addition to its other disadvantages, the grant was in direct contravention of one of the most important but most neglected rubrics of the Church. The Prayer Book stated—

"The curate of every parish should diligently, upon Sundays and Holy days, alter the second lesson at Evening Prayer, openly in the church, instruct and examine as many children of his parish sent to him as may be convenient, in some part of the Catechism."

That was how the Church directed its catechetical teaching to be conducted, and it was almost the method adopted by Nonconformists. The latter were content that the basis of morality and religion—common to all Christian sects and forms of faith—should be taught in the State schools, but when an advance was made to the catechetical teaching of specific doctrines, they were not only willing to teach their own children, but insisted on so doing. Nonconformists had no desire to avoid that paramount duty, and the Church of England had no right to get rid of it. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich was quite right when he maintained that the proper persons to teach the young of the Church of England were the clergy. What was to be said of the vagaries of the Anglican, or rather the ecclesiastical conscience, which was shocked at the suggestion that laymen should control clergymen in the management of a school, and yet insisted that somebody else should provide the money to enable laymen to do the duty of the clergy? There had appeared on the Paper, as a Government Amendment, the suggestion that in a school where fees were paid, a part of the fees should be given to the denominational managers towards the cost of religious instruction. That proposal was an evidence of the business-like astuteness of the Prime Minister in the interests of denominational teaching. Why should not that commercial astuteness be devoted in another direction? If the Church was to part with the teaching of its young, and to throw the charge on the State, ought it not to sacrifice some portion of its vast endowments? If the Prime Minister allocated the fees with such precise justice, let him allocate the endowments also. A fair application of that principle would make the right hon. Gentleman a little less eager in his raids on the public purse for the benefit of a particular denomination. Those raids were now made with much apparent success, but the Church of England would probably pay dearly for them. The strength of Nonconformity lay largely in the sense of personal responsibility felt by all Nonconformists in the maintenance of their faith, and that moral quality was shown by results to be worth more, even from the financial point of view, than all the endowments of the Church. The Prime Minister might or might not succeed in his efforts to squeeze out Nonconformity, but he would certainly succeed—although it was not his object—in weakening the sense of personal responsibility in the laity of the Church of England. Every session the right hon. Gentleman came forward with a measure to give further relief. In the long run the Church would probably not thank him for his efforts, and certainly those efforts would meet with the hostility of the people at large, when they understood how the richest branch of the Church of Christ in the world could or would live and do its work only out of taxation, which fell on the poorest of the poor.

My hon. friend the Member for Kings Lynn said he had never heard so cool a proposition as my suggestion, that we should not waste our time—"waste," I think, is strictly the word—over the Report stage of this Resolution, but proceed at once to the discussion of the Clause in Committee, under the less rigid Rules which then govern our debates. My hon. friend is a far better judge of coolness than I can pretend to be, and if, after consideration, that is his verdict, I do not intend to defend myself against charge. But I would point out to the Committee that, if my hon. friend's objection was simply regard for the public purse and to secure a strictly financial debate on, the Report of the financial Resolution he must have been singularly disappointed by the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. and learned Member told us of a great many things. He told us of the demerits of the Church of England, the demerits of the First Lord of the Treasury, and the demerits of the Bill at large, but however they have really nothing to do with the financial proposals of the Bill considered as financial proposals. When I listened the hon. and learned Member's speech I confess that I could not feel in my heart to blame him, because I felt that this must have been some belated specimen of a Second Reading speech which the unfortunate accidents of debate had prevented him delivering earlier. The hon. and learned Member has told us that this Bill is an extraordinary and a generous gift to the Church of England, and he has told us that in so far as it relieves the ratepayer, it relieves him of a charge which he ought to bear. I am glad he has made that statement, because I find that some of my friends think this proposal very hard upon them. The hon. and learned Member has treated this Resolution throughout as if it referred to a contribution from the taxpayer to denominational education and denominational schools. It is nothing of the kind. It is a contribution to the general education of the country, which affects provided schools as much as unprovided, and which affects unprovided as much as provided schools, and for the hon. and learned Member to come down here and talk about it as if it was a contribution from the poorest of the poor, is to make a travesty of the facts which I am surprised at coming from an hon. Member holding the position which he does in this House, and I am surprised that he should have condescended to this. The hon. and learned Member was not only wholly and utterly inaccurate in his conclusions, but he was absolutely inaccurate as to the principle which underlies this proposal. He said that it was a new principle, and that for the first time we are breaking through an old and well-established canon that there should not be any contribution from public funds to denominational education. The hon. and learned Member must have known that he was talking something nearly approaching to nonsense when he made that statement. He must know that the State has constantly contributed to denominational teaching, both in England and Scotland, and he must know perfectly well that whatever may be said about the novelty of giving rate-aid in England, however novel that principle may be, there is absolutely no novelty whatever in the principle of giving money out of the Exchequer towards schools in which denominational teaching takes place.

I never, of course, said it was a novel principle for the State to give money to schools in which there was denominational teaching. What I said was that in giving that money the State had always taken care that no part of the money should be allocated to the cost of religious teaching. That was the principle which I laid down.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong, and it is perfectly easy to show that no public money goes to denominational teaching in those schools now. It is only a question of going through the accounts of the schools. I venture to say that the hon. and learned Member's theoretical principle is as much preserved, if it ever had any existence, under this Bill as it was before. This Resolution deals with a contribution which is a contribution by the Exchequer, not to one class but to all classes of schools, or, more correctly speaking, it is a contribution from the Exchequer not to schools at all of any sort or kind or distinction, but to the ratepayers upon whom rests the obligation of providing schools. If the House agrees with my contention, they will draw, as I do, two conclusions. One is that the hon. and learned Member's speech was irrelevant from beginning to end, and the other that the sooner we get into Committee upon the Clause the better. I do not know what the promise of the Duke of Devonshire refers to, but I do not think it is possible to give the figures yet, and there must be an element of conjecture about them.

said that although he approved the amalgamation of the two grants of 1897, a suggestion which he himself had made, he most cordially supported the general contention of his hon. and learned friend who had just spoken. He traversed the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that the speech of the Member for South Shields was in any sense irrelevant to the financial issues raised by the Resolution. The whole of his speech was based upon the provision of public money and its expenditure upon the objects proposed, and upon both those points he thought his hon. and learned friend had established an unanswerable case for the criticism he had levelled against the Bill. They perfectly recognised the purpose and the policy of this Bill. Step by step in the course of the Committee on this Bill concession after concession had been made to the denominational interests, and no protection was given to the public, no guarantee was given that these grants would be expended in the way the nation had a right to demand, namely, in the development of secular education. There was nothing to restrain sectarian bodies in their efforts to divert these grants and use them for sectarian ends. This half million of money would go to support the machinery placed in the hands of the denominationalists to capture and monopolise the schools of the country. That was one aspect of this grant. It was an enormous subvention to sectarianism. And the other aspect was equally characteristic of the uniform policy of this Ministry. The question of rates was ultimately a landlord's question. And this money was being given in a way which inevitably made it a new subvention to the landowners. He protested against this grant because there was no guarantee given to the public that this money would be spent upon popular education. They had been giving subsidy after subsidy in the teacher's house, in the share of endowments, and in other ways. They had learned finally today that even in the case of denominational school managers who had not had the pluck, and would not make the pecuniary sacrifices, to keep their schools going in the past, and who had, in consequence, transferred them to the School Boards to run. These extra funds would now be handed over to enable them to take over their schools and turn them into denominational schools again.

said this proposal had only been on the Paper for a few hours, and he wished to know if an opportunity would be given them of discussing the general bearings of the Clause.

asked if they would be able to discuss in Committee whether part of the grant ought not to be given to secondary education.

said he was 10th to answer what was apparently a question of order, but he should greatly doubt whether it was possible to dismiss secondary education. That was not, however, for him to decide. As to the question of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, that must depend upon the character of the Amendment. He thought they must treat the whole Clause as a discussable proposition. On the other hand, the Amendment might be of a character which would enable other Amendments to be brought before the Committee.

said he would reserve anything he desired to say on the proposed grant for the Committee stage, but he wished to ask a question which he thought could be more suitably answered now than in Committee. It had reference to the position of London in connection with this matter. London was for the moment left out of the Bill, and the House could not say at present whether the Government intended to deal with it next year. Assuming that the Bill applied to London, then London, in the ordinary course, would be entitled under the new proposal to £195,000 out of the total grant. Deducting the £49,000 which the voluntary schools received under the voluntary schools grant—he was using round figures, which he thought were sufficient for his purpose—London would be entitled to £146,000 out of the round £1,000,000 proposed as the additional sum to be given under the Bill. It appeared to him that a sum of £146,000 ought to be put aside in respect of London. Obviously it would not be fair that London taxpayers should contribute this additional sum unless London schools were to benefit to the same extent as they would do if the Bill applied to London. According to the ordinary calculation, London contributed one-fifth of the whole sum of the Imperial taxation, and therefore the amount to which the London taxpayers were entitled was something like £200,000. The Prime Minister had said that the question of Ireland and Scotland would he reserved, but that these countries would not in any sense be damnified by this Bill passing and by an additional sum being given to England. How would London stand in this matter? It seemed to him that the only way of dealing with the matter was to earmark £150,000 for the benefit of London education.

The provisions of this Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows, do not refer to London. We hope to deal with London on an early day, but I do not see how we can allocate money to London until we deal with it.

said he did not mean that.

Or accumulate it.

said that until London was dealt with, London would he mulcted to the extent he had indicated.

said he understood his hon. and learned friend the Member for South Shields would oppose the grant if a division were taken. He understood that his hon. friend the Member for East Northamptonshire was in the same position. He therefore wished to state the reason why he would support this grant in aid. If he had come to the House and heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields without any knowledge of the question, he should probably have been influenced by his arguments. But what were the sober facts of the case? This was a grant in aid of local rates. It was a grant in aid of the provided schools, just as much as a grant in aid of the non-provided schools. If his hon. and learned friend had moved to reduce the amount by what went to the non-provided schools, there would have been something to say for the proposal. He was perfectly ready to oppose any further grants in aid being given to the denominational schools where there was not popular control, but this was not a grant to the denominational schools, because these schools would receive the grant in one way or another, or rather, he ought to say, they would receive the money from the taxes in one way or another, whether there was any grant or not. The only effect of refusing this grant in aid would be that the denominational schools would receive a larger sum out of the local rates, and the provided schools would receive more out of the Imperial Exchequer. Were they prepared to refuse this grant in aid, and even the increase that had been made, and at the same time to say that the local rates should be increased in proportion? That was quite right, undoubtedly, from the point of view of the hon. Member who represented one of the Divisions of London. He represented a great many who paid no rates at all, the voluntary subscriptions having been so liberal that no local rates had been required. He did not think the view stated by the hon. Member for North Camberwell was that which was generally taken by Members of the House. It was perfectly true that the financial proposals gave a little more than was contemplated, until last week. It was, however, limited indeed, and there was this objection to the limitation that they laid down the principle that the local rate for primary education should never be less than 3d. in the £, and if, by good management and economy, combined with efficiency, those local rates should be under 3d. in the £, the Imperial Exchequer grant would at once be reduced by the same amount. That appeared to him to be an unsatisfactory form. It was encouraging people in the local districts to economise the amount of grant voted from the Imperial Exchequer. At the same time it ought to be borne in mind that this grant was only for primary education, and that an amount would have to be raised for secondary education. It was now suggested that the rate for that purpose should be 2d. The whisky money had been applied in the past in many cases entirely to secondary education. The Government were really putting on the local ratepayers this compulsory rate of 3d., and at the same time there was another equivalent rate of 3d. The result would be that the local ratepayers would have to contribute 6d. in the £ for educational purposes in their district. He did not argue entirely from the point of view of the agriculturist. He believed the local rates pressed heavily in country towns and villages on the small shopkeepers and tradesmen and the agricultural labourers, and it was in behalf of those men that he supported the grant in aid.

said he wished to refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and to ask the Committee to consider how they stood from the point of view of procedure. Here they were asked to pass the Report stage of the Resolution, authorising the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay certain large sums of money out of the Treasury, and neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the Committee, even in an estimate, what was the total sum of money the Resolution was to authorise payment of. The Committee stage of the Resolution was closured on Friday afternoon. As he read the Resolution, it was an indefinite sum that was to be paid out of the Exchequer. It seemed to him they had arrived at a stage when the Treasury was to be considered as a sort of private box of the Ministry of the day, instead of as the public purse to be directly guarded by this House. He doubted if there ever was an occasion throughout the history of the House when there was a Resolution undiscussed in Committee or unexplained on the Report stage by a Minister of the Crown, and by which it was proposed to authorise large sums of money to be paid out of the Treasury, without any estimate in round figures being placed before the House. He should have liked to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place at present. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, as guardian of the Treasury, would not remain dumb to the end of the Report stage. The position was even more striking for this reason, that the Resolution which stood on the Paper for many weeks until Friday last, was a Resolution which had been drawn up in consultation with the them Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were informed by the Prime Minister that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day that had insisted on the grant from the Treasury should not exceed three fourths of the expenditure on education. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer in doing that was taking a very effectual safeguard over the National funds, but in a moment that safeguard had disappeared. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell the House what he thought of this unlimited Resolution.

formally moved—

"In page 4, after Clause 10, to insert the following Clause:—'(1) In lieu of the grants under. The Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, and under Section 97 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870, as amended by The Elementary Education Act, 1897, there shall be annually paid to every local education authority, out of moneys provided by Parliament—(a) a sum equal to 4s. per scholar; and (b) an additional sum of 1½d. per scholar for every complete 2d. by which the amount which would be produced by a rate on the area of the authority falls short of 10s. a scholar. But the total amount of Parliamentary grants paid to a local education authority in any year shall not be such as to make the amount payable out of rates by the local education authority in respect of their expenses under Part III. of this Act in that year less than the amount which would be produced by a rate of 3d. in the pound, and the grants shall, if necessary, be reduced accordingly. (2) For the purposes of the number of scholars shall be taken to be the number of scholars in average attendance, as computed by the Board of Education, in public elementary schools maintained by the authority.'"

He said: I do not think that it will be necessary for me to make any long statement in explanation of the altered Clause. There are, broadly speaking, two changes. The one consists of a considerable increase in the amount which is given by the Exchequer; the other is a change—not of vital or fundamental importance, but still a useful change—in the mode in which the money is allocated. I have already made a statement as to the advantages of dividing the money into two portions, one giving a fixed sum per child of the population of the whole kingdom, and the other making allocations to different portions of the kingdom, on a basis varying with the wealth or poverty of payable of various districts concerned. I, on that subject, will only say that we have maintained that basis unaltered, except that my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has found it possible to increase the sum which the Government estimated as a maximum of somewhere about £900,000 a year. Roughly, we have been able to add to that a sum which, if every locality complies with the conditions under which the grant can be conferred upon them, will amount to about £400,000 a year more, so that there will be a total benefit to the local ratepayers of about £1,300,000 a year. That is the largest change in the Clause, and I think it is one which will be universally satisfactory. The other change refers to the limitation based on the 3d rate, and I think that will also prove satisfactory on the whole. The Government thought at first that a 3d. rate would be universal, or nearly universal; but, on closer examination, we found that there were more places than we supposed in which it will not be necessary to raise a 3d. rate. No blame attaches to the Government for that miscalculation, and no inconvenience has been caused to the Committee. I shall accordingly ask the Committee to consider a further Amendment. The general proposition I wish to advance is this: that under the Clause as it now stands we give a larger sum than we gave before, and also render the limitation principle more generous in its operation.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the exact terms of the modification.

My explanation is probably simpler than the terms of the Amendment. It is this: if any place raises less than a 3d. rate, its grant from the Exchequer will be pro tanto diminished. The Amendment, however, will be to strike out the paragraph beginning "But the total amount" and ending "be reduced accordingly" and to substitute the following, "If in any year the total amount of Parliamentary grants payable to the local education authority, would make the amount payable out of other sources by that authority, on account of their expenses-under Part III. of this Act, less than the amount which would be produced by a rate of 3d. in the £ the Parliamentary grant shall be decreased and the amount payable out of other sources shall be increased by a sum equal in each case to half the difference."

thought it most unfortunte that they had these continual changes in the Clauses of the Bill. Only hon. Members who were members of local authorities were competent to discuss this new Clause, and what was wanted was time to send it down to the various local authorities in order to hear from them how it would work out. Those of them who had tried to Bret at the facts knew that there was a great difference of opinion amongst highly competent authorities as to how the Clause would work out. Amendments which some of his hon. friends proposed to this Clause were based on the fact that it gave very sufficient financial assistance to different parishes, and discrepancies between district and district would continue to exist. They might not be so extreme as between the highest and the lowest as at the present time, but they would continue. Many hon. Members desired to see the principle of the equalisation of rates, which had been put forward for London by the Government with every demonstration of support from their followers, applied to the counties. Something was done in 1897 to redress the grievance by the grants to the most necessitous districts, but the Act making these grants would be repealed by the present Bill, and the hardship would remain. Calculations which had been made by those who had the greatest official knowledge of the figures, showed that, while the effect on the general rate of the county that would be produced by equalisation within the county would be very small, the discrepancy as between different districts would be very great, some districts paying three times and four times as much as others. To relieve the poorer districts, the average charge would be very small, as compared with the enormous discrepancy as between district and district. The Committee would have to consider that matter. No doubt, the case of county boroughs which were extremely necessitous would be put before the Committee; but the question of equalisation within the counties, in order to relieve the poorer parishes, which had lost the local management of their education, should also be considered. The Government had given, in respect of the poverty of those poor districts, a large sum of money; but they had given half of it absolutely to the county as a whole, and the county was given discretion as to whether half the other half, or another quarter, should be given to the poor districts. Why should the county have that invidious task put upon it? It seemed to him that a larger share should be given to the poor districts, and that there should be some attempt at equalisation. The hon. Member for the South Molton Division put a Question to the First Lord of the Treasury on the subject the other day. The hon. Member asked if the expenses charged to the present School Board areas would be included in the expenses of the local education authority; and it was an extraordinary fact that the answer was in the affirmative. That brought out the absurdity of the situation. The proposal was one that would not stand the careful investigation of the Committee.

said he quite admitted that the problem of how to meet the case of the pourer districts equitably was a very difficult one. Where the rateable value was lowest, the number of working class children to be educated was, as a rule, highest, and where the rateable value was highest, the number of working class children to be educated was, as a rule, lowest. That being so, the difficulty of meeting the case of the poorer districts was very great. For instance, in Bournemouth the rateable value was £390,000, the number of children to be educated was 3,400, and 1d. in the £ brought in 9s. per child. In Gateshead, on the other hand, the rateable value was £340,000, the number of children to be educated was 14,240, and 1d. in the £ brought in 1s. 7d. per child. To devise a sliding scale which would meet two extremes of that kind was a very difficult task. How did the Government propose to meet them? They took all the Voluntary School Acts' money, except what belonged to London, which was not yet legislated for, and also the necessitous School Boards' money, amounting in all to £860,000. Then they added the new £900,000 described to the House by the Prime Minister, making a total of £1,760,000. First of all, they proposed to dispense 4s. per child all round; and, including London, that worked out at £824,600, leaving £935,400. Then they proposed a 1½d. sliding scale for every complete 2d. by which the amount which would be produced by a 1d. rate on the area of the authority fell short of 10s. a scholar. Their original proposal was a 1d. sliding scale; and the increase of a ½d. would increase the amount by £467,700, making a total of £2,227,700, of which £824,600 would be in the form of a fixed 4s. per child, and £1,403,100 in the form of a 1½d. sliding scale. He did not think that that was the best plan of dispensing the money. The fixed portion was too much, and the sliding scale portion was not enough. If the fixed portion were materially diminished, and the sliding scale portion increased, the money could be dispensed in such a way as to make it better for the poorer districts, and not quite so good for the richer districts. He himself had taken the trouble to work out the figures for every part of the country; and he would direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the solution he proposed. If the fixed portion were reduced to 2s., there would then be sufficient money to make the sliding scale, not 1½d. but 2d. A 2s. fixed portion would amount to £412,300, leaving a balance of £1,815,400 to be dispensed under the 2d. scale. He would take the two most extreme cases, In the case where a 1d. in the £ only brought in 1s. per child, under the Government scheme, such a district would get a fixed grant of 4s. a child, and under the 1½d, scale it would get 6s. 9d. or a total of 10s. 9d. The other extreme limit was where 1d. in the £ brought in 10s. a child. In that case, the fixed grant of 4s. would be paid, but nothing would he paid under the sliding scale. That was a difference between the two cases of 6s. 9d., but the difference in the 1d. rate was 9s. and accordingly 6s. 9d. would not meet the differentiation. His proposal would involve exactly the same amount of money. In the case where the 1d. produced only 1s. a child, 2s. would be paid as the fixed grant, and 9s. under the 2d. sliding scale or a total of 11s. In the other case, where a 1d. rate produced 10s. per child, the fixed grant of 2s. would only be paid, and nothing would be given under the sliding scale; and the total would be 2s. and 9s., the difference between the product of the 1d. rate in both cases. The net result would be that by narrowing down the fixed portion and increasing the sliding scale, the same amount of money would be spent, viz. £2,227,700, but a little would be taken off the richer districts and put on the poorer districts. Curiously enough, the special aid grant would be exactly the difference between what a 1d. rate would produce in the different districts. He would suggest to the First Lord of the Treasury that that would be a more equitable scheme. The Government scheme was a good scheme as far as it went; but it made the fixed grant too much, and the sliding scale not wide enough to provide for the extreme differentiation in the amount produced by the 1d. rate. All the intermediate cases between a 1d. rate producing 1s. and 10s. would work out similarly under his scheme. He apologised for dealing with the matter in detail, but it was desirable that they should arrive at some scheme under which the money could be spent in such a way as to equitably deal with the great differentiation in rateable values. The new proposal with reference to the 3d. rate was, in his opinion, an improvement on the rigidity of the original scheme. He agreed that an obligation should be put on the locality to pay something. Indeed, he regarded that as vital; not that he wished to see more rates raised, but because he wanted people who had contracted themselves out for thirty-two years, largely because of the preference they said they had for a particular form of religious instruction, to be made to pay something. He was glad the Government had the courage to impose a local obligation to pay something. Otherwise, he had not the shadow of a doubt that towns like Preston, Stockport, and St. Helens would at once say, "We are going to get this new special aid grant; our schools are not so bad after all; we will be much better off; and there will be no need for us to raise a local rate at all." He was more glad than he could express that the Government had insisted in putting on a local obligation. But, modified though it was, the 3d. rate was more or less arbitrary. For instance, in Bournemouth a 3d. rate would raise 25s. a child, whereas in Stockport it would only raise 6s. a child, owing to the higher rateable value and the smaller number of working class children in the former as compared with the latter district. But Bournemouth must raise 25s. per child, otherwise it would be fined, even under the modified scheme. The scheme did not say that a 3d. rate should be raised, but that, if it were not raised, the locality would be fined to an amount representing the difference between a 3d. rate, and the rate they did raise. It was almost impossible to fix a standard of local obligation which would not be arbitrary in its incidence. The higher the rateable value the smaller would be the number of working class children, and the lower the rateable value, the larger would be the number of working class children. Therefore, the 3d. rate, modified as proposed, would be more or less an arbitrary standard. He did not like the phrase of 3d. in the £ in all new cases, because there was a grave danger that it would be stereotyped as the educational maximum instead of the minimum the Government intended it to be. The eight county boroughs and the 250 non-county boroughs which had never had a rate would say "3d. is the amount we are to go to, and we will go to that but no farther." He did not wish it to become fixed as the statutory maximum, which would be a most disastrous thing. In regard to the distribution of any new special aid grant, the Government should narrow the fixed portion and widen the sliding county scale. While he was glad that the Government would insist upon there being a local obligation, he should be sorry to find it fixed in the Bill at 3d. in the £. He would rather have had a proportionate grant and a widening of the sliding scale. He would rather see it put down at three-fourths by the State and one-fourth by the locality.

thanked the Government, on behalf of those who desired a charge on the rates that would not be unduly burdensome, for the concession they had made. It would be a monstrous thing to attempt in this Bill to fine in the future the districts which had hitherto been under a purely voluntary system. Although he agreed that the ratepayers must bear a fair share of the burden, when it cause to the question of what that fair share was, there was no reason for making the burden heavier than was necessary to obtain an efficient system of education. Anything beyond that was harmful, and made the ratepayers dislike education. The proposal of the hon. Member for North Camberwell to reduce the grant to 2s. per head and widen the sliding scale, would not specially favour the extremely poor districts. It would put aside certain advantages which the voluntary districts had had, and which ought not to be taken away from them in the future. It would place a fine upon those districts which had a voluntary system, and be exceedingly hard on the county districts in which there was a mixed system. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had talked about an equalization of rates up to the old School Board standard. This Bill took the burdens off particular districts and put them on the country at large, but beyond that the right hon. Gentleman desired the equalization of rates between county and country.

said that what he desired was equalization of the rates, not as between county and county, but within the county itself.

was glad the right hon. Baronet did not desire equalization as between county and county, as that was really a monstrous proposal and one which ought never to be made. As regard the 3d. rate, under the Clause as it originally appeared, it was to be levied in every district whether it was wanted or not. That would have been not only very unfair, but tremendously wasteful. Districts in which, because the educational necessities were met from either voluntary sources. Endowments, or State grants, the money was not required, would have been obliged to levy this 3d. rate. That was an impossible position to take up. However, the Government had not altered their proposal. But even under the altered circumstances, he though the rates ought not to be called on. He could not see why a district, which had sufficient money for educational purposes, should be obliged to raise a rate in order to get a grant to which they were otherwise entitled. He had no objection on principle when it was a question of the division of the amount between the State grant and the rates. In the present form of the proposal the Government had done all they could have been expected to do, and he heartily thanked the Prime Minister for the concession he had made.

said that as a general principle he was opposed to grants-in-aid, but the one under discussion was of a much better character than any the Government had proposed during the last six years inasmuch as it did not differentiate between classes of people or classes of schools. Moveover, if there were to be grants-in aid at all, those for educational purposes were the most justifiable. It was all very well for the hon. Member for North Camberwell to attack poor little rural districts because they did not contribute much to the rates, but seeing what a hard struggle it was for the little tradesmen to scrape a living and for others to raise their rent, it was really a matter of surprise that they levied any rates whatever for educational purposes or anything else that they could avoid, and any provision that would lighten the burden of rates upon them would be an advantage to education itself. The Welsh School Boards had been severely criticised. No doubt the attendance compared unfavourably with that in some of the rich English boroughs, and the equipment and staff were inferior but the reason was given in the very figures quoted by the hon. Member, because they proved that even that poor equipment cost more proportionately than that in the richer boroughs. The difficulty was one of rating, and, much as he loathed grants in aid, he was glad the Prime Minister had introduced this proposal; in his opinion it would be the least objectionable Clause in the Bill. The difficulty was not so much equalisation between county and county, or town and town, as equalisation within the county itself. The cost of a building, ordered by the Board of Education, even though inefficiently equipped, was prohibitive to a poor parish. Could not the Prime Minister find some means of meeting such cases? If the right hon. Gentleman would provide that out of the subvention the County Council should make a grant in aid of buildings, it would be a considerable relief to the poor parishes, and would hardly hit the county at all. It would probably represent less than ½d. rate to the county, but it meant a difference of 1s. or perhaps 1s. 6d. to the parish. Seeing that the Necessitous School Boards Act was being repealed, these places would not get so much relief after all; therefore he hoped some distinction would be made in favour of the poor little parishes.

said that as the question of Mr. Forster's opinion had been raised, he rose for the purpose, not of discussing the proper rate that should be levied, but of stating what he heard Mr. Forster himself say on the point. At the time of the Education Bill of thirty years ago he went with his father, who took a very great interest in the question of education, to stay at a house in Yorkshire, where they met Mr. Forster. The whole question of the Bill was discussed, and Mr. Forster was asked the question: "Why do you not fix a limit to the rate?" to which he replied: "Well, I nearly decided to put a limit of 4d.; the reason I did not do it was that I thought, if the limit was put in, every education authority would think it necessary to spend the 4d., whereas I think it ought to be done easily for 2d. or 3d."

asked whether the basis on which the assessment would be made would be the county basis or that of the particular area under the local education authority.

It is the county basis.

I think the words ought to be in the Clause.

They are not wanted.

expressed his great regret that the House should have to discuss this intricate question without the benefit of the views of the local authorities on the matter. The Government had pursued a most extraordinary course. In June last the First Lord of the Treasury announced this new Clause; it was tabled some time afterwards, but it was not until Friday morning last the present form of the Clause was published, while that very afternoon an alteration had been made, which the Members would have to discuss from their recollection of its object rather than their knowledge of its terms. A more inconvenient or unfortunate course could not be imagined. The complaints as to the heavy burden the Bill would throw on the rates were made before the Second Reading of the measure. The Government, therefore, had had all the facts before them for some months, and why they should have waited until now to mature their plans assed comprehension. On that side they held very strongly that the Committee had not been properly treated in the matter, and he felt bound to voice that feeling.

moved the omission of the words; "under Section 97 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870, as amended by The Elementary Education Act, 1897." He was anxious to state the case in which certain necessitous School Board districts were very much interested, and he wished to suggest a rearrangement of the grants proposed by this Clause. He recognised that if the sole result of this Amendment meant an increase of taxation he should be out of order, but the consequence of the Amendment he moved would be to cause a rearrangement of the last part of the Clause. He thought he would be able to show the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman had not submitted a scheme which would carry out the intentions already expressed by the Government. He would try to state his case as shortly as he possibly could. In 1870 it was recognised that the imposition of a rate for educational purposes would inflict upon certain districts an exceptionally heavy burden, and the Act of 1870 tried to make provision to meet the necessities of those places. It provided that in those districts if the 3d. rate did not produce a sum equal to 7s. 6d. per child in average attendance, such district would be entitled to an additional grant to bring up that sum to 7s. 6d. That system existed for twenty-seven years. But in 1896 the terrible condition in which certain urban and rural districts had been placed by the increased demands of the State, caused the position to be brought before Parliament, and this resulted in an alteration of the law in 1897. In 1897 they passed the Necessitous School Boards Act, under which an attempt—and a very earnest and successful attempt—was made to deal with certain exceptionally heavily rated districts. The Government of that day tried to find—and he thought did find—a very clear definition of what constituted necessity with regard to the School Board rate. They laid down that it should depend upon three factors; (1) the rateable value of the district; (2) the number of children to be educated; and (3) the amount of rate which had to be levied locally in order to discharge the statutory obligation. He wanted to lay stress upon the third factor. It was then agreed that they could not accurately define "necessity" unless they kept in mind in addition to the rateable value the amount of the rate which was to be levied in the district. If one district was entirely supplied by voluntary schools transferred to the new authority, though its rateable value and child population might be exactly the same as another district which had to supply all its schools, the charge which would accrue in the second case would be much higher than the other. It had already been pointed out that in order to deal adequately with such cases some grant must be made not only towards maintenance but to the cost of the buildings. In the Act of 1897 the cost of the buildings was carefully considered, and he needed only to quote the-opinion which had been arrived at by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, written by Lord Balfour of Burleigh himself, which stated that in the Act of 1897 an exceedingly ingenious and effective scheme had been discovered of dealing with this necessity. Only five years ago this principle was adopted, and now, under this Bill it was to be entirely thrown aside although it had worked well for five years and had the most cordial support of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. And why? As far as he could understand because the Government were of the opinion that the present scheme met the necessity, or else because they thought it was difficult to find an adequate remedy. In 1896 the difficulty was declared to be insuperable, but in 1897 it was overcome. He was not suggesting that they should revert to the Bill of 1897, but that the same principle should be incorporated in this Bill. What would be the effect of this scheme throughout the country? The scheme of the Government recognised two factors only, child population and rateable value, and upon those two factors alone would the new grant be distributed. Everyone realised that under the new Government scheme the 4s. per child would be distributed irrespective of the wealth or poverty of the district. Then they came to the sliding scale, which depended entirely upon the rateable value and the child population. If every district were equally supplied with school buildings there would be much to be said for this scheme, but when they realised that in some districts every school required was at present a charge upon the local rates and would remain so for some time, that the rateable value was low and the child population was very high, they had the whole of those three factors in the most aggravated form, and nothing was being done by the Government to meet these special cases. Those districts would not be one whit better off. He was more particularly interested in the great county borough of West Ham, with a population of nearly 300,000, and its enormous number of children, the majority of them being educated in board schools, and with the prospect of having to take over more than 7,000 children now in the voluntary schools. He had often brought before the House the disastrous taxation already pressing upon that borough. West Ham was a town larger than Nottingham, and with a larger child population, and it had a school rate which Nottingham would tremble at the very prospect of. The School Board rate in West Ham was 2s. 6½d., although they received, under the Act of 1897 the sum of about £18,000 a year. The Government proposed to sweep away that money under the lines he was moving to omit, and in lieu thereof they proposed to give another grant. The other grant, however, did nothing inure nor less than take the place of that money, but under the amended form of the Government proposal there would he added a sum of about £4,800, and that was all. That sum would only grant the smallest possible relief to the very heavy charge which would have to be undertaken in the education of those 7,000 additional children in the voluntary schools. How were they left as compared with other towns not necessitous? Bath would escape with a 5½d. rate. The figures he was quoting were based upon the latest Departmental Returns, and if they were inaccurate the margin of inaccuracy would remain the same throughout the whole of the towns. Bath would have a 5½d. rate, while West Ham would have a rate of 2s. 7½d. Could anybody believe that the scheme which the Government outlined in the earlier stages of this Bill was being carried out when two towns were being left in a position so exceedingly unequal as that? Birmingham would have the whole of the additional charge under this Bill entirely met by Government grants, and would be left with a school rate of 1s. 1½d. Therefore Birmingham, which was rich, with a comparatively small child population of about 15 per cent. as compared with 18 per cent. in West Ham in the public elementary schools—Birmingham, with a higher rateable value, would discharge its obligation to the State by the payment of an education rate of 1s. 1½d., and yet the districts to the East of London, the County Borough of West Ham, and the non-county boroughs in the south-cast of Essex, would have the burden which presses upon them heavily already accentuated by this Bill. Nothing whatever was done by the Government scheme to meet these burdens except this paltry additional grant of less than £5,000, which would accrue to them under the amended form of the scheme, and they did not even get that on the original form of the proposal. It had been stated that the obvious object of this new aid grant was to diminish the burden thrown upon the locality by the operation of this Bill. He had already pointed out to the Committee that there were districts to the east of London where that burden would not be diminished to the extent of a 1d. rate, while there were other districts where the whole of the additional burden would be borne, and where the rate at present levied would possibly be reduced. In Portsmouth he heard one of the leading aldermen of the town, who had held the position of mayor, declare that the scheme of the Government would not only meet all their charges but would take 2d. off the School Board rate. He could not see why towns like Portsmouth should be treated on a different footing to the towns which were already so heavily burdened. It could not be thrown at these East End districts that their rateable values had been made purposely low, for they had been assessed up to the utmost penny they could bear quite recently. Everything they could get hold of was rated, and yet, in spite of that, their rateable value was as low as £4 8s. 9d. per head of population. While they were heavily assessed they had an abnormally large number of children in attendance. Not a single one of their school debts was yet liquidated. The first school erected in the district had still a debt to pay off. He had shown to the Committee that what was now proposed by the Government entirely failed to meet the necessity pressing upon the ratepayers in the district. It might be suggested that although the School Board rate was heavy, the other rates were light, but the fact was that the local rates worked out at 9s. 8d. in the £while the average of the country was somewhere between 7s. and 8s. He had tried, at the risk of the loss of lucidity, to compress his remarks as much as he could, but he should have failed in Ids duty if he had not raised his most emphatic protest against the terms of this Clause. He said frankly that he put his Amendment forward rather as a means of urging the Government to amend their scheme, to so modify it that urgent necessity might be relieved, and that some of the richer districts might bear a fair proportion of what was a national burden. Whitehall fixed the amount of the demand. The local authorities had practically no control over what they must do, and yet the localities were called upon to pay an alarming amount of the expenditure. He felt more strongly, as years went on, that inasmuch as this educational work was a national benefit, it ought to be a national burden thrown in the main on the central exchequer and not upon the local rates. Feeling that, he appealed to the Government to try to find some scheme before the Report stage which might meet the necessities of the districts.

My hon. Friend speaks with great force for the constituency which he represents. That constituency has been, ever since I have been concerned in these questions, a source of great anxiety to those who have had to deal legislatively or financially with educational problems. The truth is not that the borough which my hon. Friend represents is in every particular a part of London, with the exception of this very important particular from my hon. Friend's point of view, that it does not gain by the Equalisation of Rates Act, which affects the Metropolis as a whole. No doubt that does produce a most abnormal state of things. It produces a state of things to which I do not imagine any precise parallel can be found in any other part of the country. I am, therefore, the last of complain that my hon. Friend should appeal to the Government to try to find some remedy for that state of things, some alleviation which would content those whom he represents. I confess I cannot accept the particular solution he proposes. I am not absolutely sure that I understand the effect of the Amendment. If his idea is that my right hon. Friend is to give all the grant which he has just promised, and the grants to necessitous School Boards in addition, then I take it that the Amendment would be out of order, for it would certainly be in substance, whatever it was in from, asking the Committee to sanction a very large increase of the grant we have just been authorized by the House on Report to give in aid of education. Therefore, I conceive that is not the policy of my hon. friend.

I recognise that I should be out of order if the Amendment had that effect. This Amendment must necessarily be followed by other Amendments to secure a redistribution of the grant.

The policy which he actually adopts in view of the regulations of the House is not to ask any increase in the amount of the grant, but to ask that the existing grant should be diminished by the amount of the necessitous schools grant, and that the necessitous schools grant should be distributed as at present. I have not been able to work out the figures, but I am not at all sure that my hon. friend would gain much by that procedure. But in my case I think the Committee will feel that, although there may be hard cases, it would be quite impossible for us, and most undesirable, to abandon the general scheme of this Bill, which masses all the grants together, and gives them in one general sum, for the purpose of dealing with this or that exceptional case. I would remind the Committee, what my hon. friend is perfectly aware of, and what he practically acknowledged, that this Bill does him no injury, and that he will not be worse off under the Bill than he is at the present time, but that only there are other parts of the country which will benefit by the Bill more than he will benefit by it. I am afraid that is true, and I am afraid it is inevitable as long as you adhere to the policy which is the policy, I frankly admit, of the Bill. While you may vary of the maintenance charges, you cannot pool the buildings. I do not believe the Committee would really tolerate any proposals of that kind. If you once admit that a district which is obliged to provide all its schools must bear a heavier burden than the district which, by good fortune, or for some other reason, had a great many schools provided for it—so long as you admit that there is to be a difference of that kind, so long, I fear, you must admit that there must be a difference between West Ham and some other more fortunately situated districts. My hon. friend would not gain as much as he hopes to gain by the Amendment. No doubt the position of West Ham after the Bill passes will be as it is now, and that it will not be so financially fortunate as compared with certain other districts in the country. For these reasons I think the Government have really no choice but to vote against my hon. friend's Amendment.

said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that they could not pool the buildings, but he had not offered to the Committee any argument in support of that. He had never heard any argument which had really gone to the point against the pooling of the liabilities of the provided schools. When the Government had taken away by what seemed to him to be the whole principle of the Bill, the local management of the schools by the elected representatives of the locality, it seemed to him that they had gone to the point which necessitated the equalisation, or something like the equalisation, of the charge for these schools. Of course that question did not very well arise on this Amendment. It was not possible for him to support the Amendment, which however, afforded an opportunity for the discussion of the question whether the money which was to be given should go directly to the district, or to somebody else on behalf of the district. The united districts did not receive the money direct, it went to somebody else for them. There were united districts much larger in population than the urban districts which were named in the Bill as separate districts, and yet the money which was given in respect of the liabilities of those united districts under this Clause was to go, not to them, but to the county, which was only bound to return one quarter, or one half if they so chose. These appeared to lam to be cases of monstrous and unnecessary injustice.

said he hoped the Government would look with a favourable eye on the suggestion made by the hon. Member for North Camberwell. What might be wanted for the Old Kent Road might not be suitable for an agricultural county. He desired to thank the First Lord of the Treasury for the concession he had made to the agricultural Members; the right hon. Gentleman had tempered the wind to the shorn lamb. He did not mean to say that they were satisfied. It was not their business to be satisfied, but they were grateful; and with an intelligent anticipation of events before they happened, he hoped they should have further relief from the rates before long. He was bound to say that, as a humble agricultural Member, he would do his best to persuade his supporters that the First Lord and the Government had, under very difficult circumstances, endeavoured to do their best in this matter.

said that the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford had said that it was not his business to be satisfied with the Government proposal, and neither was it the business of the Opposition to be satisfied. There were extreme cases like West Ham and some rural districts which would be saddled with great liabilities. In his own constituency—the county borough of Oldham—the rates amounted to 6s. 8d. in the £, of which the school rate was 1s. 9d., and the amount received would only be 1s. 6d. per scholar. The hon. Member for West Ham had, however, not stated what his proposal would amount to in regard to the other grants, and therefore while he agreed with him in principle he could not vote with him.

said that the case of his constituency was as bad as that of West Ham, where the population was almost entirely made up of working men from London, and the district had to educate their children.

said he agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, that it was a great pity that they had not had an opportunity of consulting the local authorities in regard to this Clause. Under the provisions of the Bill as originally drafted, instead of the necessitous districts being better off than before, they would be worse. In East Ham instead of getting 8s. 10d. per scholar they would only receive 8s. 2d. under the new scheme. He urged on the Government that a sliding scale was absolutely necessary. It was imperative that some arrangement should he arrived at by which the necessitous districts should be put in such a position as to educate the young children who resided there. He wished this Bill when it became an Act to work easily and smoothly, and it was necessary that there should be no injustice done to any part of the United Kingdom; and that could only be done by the adoption of a sliding scale.

said his hon. friend and the Committee would see that this was an Amendment which could not possibly be accepted. If he understood the words of the Amendment correctly, the effect of them would be to make the grant more in certain cases.

Not the effect of my words.

That was the effect of the hon. Member's Amendment, but the hon. Member must have meant less.

said the words of the Amendment were the converse of what he desired to move, but his position was that as he could not move a reduction, he had to move an increase.

expressed great sympathy with the hon. Member, who was not in a position to move what he really desired, but at the same time he felt sure that the hon. Member would see that the Amendment was one which the Government could not possibly accept.

said he desired to move an Amendment, in line 7 to strike out the words "per scholar." The wording of the Clause as it appeared; upon the Paper did not carry out the obvious intention of the Government—

"An additional sum of 1½d. per scholar, for every complete 2d. by which the amount which would be produced by a 1d. rate on the area of the authority falls short of 10s. a scholar."

Supposing they took a district in which there were ten scholars and in which the 1d. rate produced £2 10s. Ten shillings a scholar would amount to £5. The 1d. rate would be £9 10s., and therefore the amount produced by the penny rate would fall short of the amount required by £2 10s. If each scholar was to receive 1½d. for every complete 2d. of the amount by which the rate fell short of the amount required—there were 300 twopences in £2 10s.—1½d. for every complete 2d. would give 37s. 6d. per scholar, or a total grant to the ten scholars of £18 15s. That was not the intention of the Government. The intention of the Government was to give 1½d. on every complete 2d.—not on every complete 2d. "per scholar." The object of his Amendment could be attained either by leaving out the words "per scholar" in line 7, or by inserting the words "per scholar" after the word "twopence" in line 8.

thought his hon. friend was quite correct in his statement of the intention of the Government, and he would accept the Amendment but he would prefer it in the manner last suggested by the hon. Member.

said it had been conclusively shown that there were a large number of poor parishes possessed of a School Board, the rates of which were extremely high. The First Lord of the Treasury had declined to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member on the ground that it was of an exceptional character and related to only one or two cases in the United Kingdom. The Amendment he now proposed to move was of a different character, the hard cases it was designed to meet being rather the rule than the exception. He quoted the amounts of the education rate in several parishes of Carnarvonshire, to illustrate the necessity for greater relief in extremely poor parishes. In such parishes throughout the country the cause of education would be indefinitely retarded unless the parish, and not the county, were made the unit in this financial Clause He knew a number of parishes in which a 1d. rate did not produce more than £10 a year.

said the Amendment would not carry out the object of the hon. Member, as it was already provided in the earlier part of the Clause that the money should be annually paid to every local education authority. On the merits of the Amendment, he pointed out that the Government had already gone as far as they could to mitigate the burden on poorer parishes by increasing the payment from one-half to three-quarters of the twopence. He hoped the Committee would see that the Government had gone as far as it could in this matter, and would reject the Amendment.

said if the hon. and learned Gentleman had confined himself to saying that the Amendment would not carry out the object his hon. friend the Member for Flint Boroughs had in view, he would not have had anything to say upon the matter, but the hon. and learned Gentleman went further and said that the Committee would recognise that the Government had gone as far as it could. He had never heard any argument from the Government which met the demand for a much bolder step in the direction of equalisation. The total grants under this Clause would now be considerably over two millions of money. In spite of this great increase in the grant, there was nothing being done towards equalising the charges on the parishes. He agreed that the Amendment would not carry out the view of his hon. friend, and therefore, he would try to raise the question at a later stage in order that a division might be taken upon it.

said the difficulties of the Committee had arisen from the Government Amendment having been put down on the Paper so late. The suggestion of his hon. friend the Member for Flint Boroughs seemed to him to be reasonable, and he did not think it ought to be brushed aside in this way. It was worthy of the attention of the