To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there is only one Admiralty junior appointment vacant, for which the Civil Service Commissioners are advertising an eight days examination on 25th November, to be held simultaneously in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, at a fee of £6; and will he state what number of candidates have entered for the examination; and whether he will consider the desirability, when the number of vacancies is small, of reducing the entrance fee. (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) Thirty-three candidates have entered for the competition for the one junior appointment advertised in the Supply and Accounting Departments of the Admiralty. Fees payable by candidates are fixed with reference to the salary of the post competed for, and to the prospects of promotion from it. The office referred to in the Question is of a value to justify the highest fee—£6. The amount of fees received does not meet more than half the expenses of the Examining Department. I cannot hold out any prospect of the fees being altered where the number of competitors in a particular case is smaller or larger than the average.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the cost per head for trained seamen, from the time they join till they have passed through the gunnery and torpedo schools and are regarded as efficient. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) I shall be happy to give this information, but it will take a few days to obtain it. I should be glad, therefore, if the hon. Member will repeat his Question next week.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the leave of the men of the "Terrible" will expire just before the beginning of the Christmas leave, the Lords of the Admiralty can see their way to allow the men to combine the two periods of leave so as to return after Christmas. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The Christmas leave at the ports has to be arranged in connection with the general duties of each port, and with regard to the personnel as a whole. The Admiralty do not consider it desirable to instruct the Commander-in-Chief to except from these considerations the men of any individual ship.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, under the Education Bill, County Councils will have to pay or credit each parish within a School Board district the proportion of grant now payable to School Boards under the Agricultural Rates Acts, 1896 and 1901, in aid of repayments of loans and interest. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) This question was dealt with in the debate in the House of Commons on the 17th. instant.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, in cases where there are no foundation managers of non-provided schools, or where the school buildings are the private property of individuals, on what principle is it proposed that the managers of the school shall be appointed; in cases where the present number of managers of a non-provided school is, under the trust deeds of the school, either more or less than the number required by the Act, how will the number be increased or diminished, as the case may be, so as to obtain the number required by the Act. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The process by which foundation managers are to be appointed under the circumstances set forth in the Question is clearly stated in the new Clause, the insertion of which will be moved by the First Lord of the Treasury on the 19th instant.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will explain what is meant by the words keep the school house in good repair, and make such alterations and improvements in the buildings as may be reasonably required, in Clause 8, sub-Section (d), of the Education Bill now before Parliament; does good repair include the making good of the ordinary wear and tear of the buildings; does this term cover the whole of the school premises, i.e., the playground, outbuildings, and offices; are the managers to be responsible for the enlargement of the buildings required by the growth of the school; and will he draw up and insert in the Schedule a model form of agreement to be made between the trustees of a non-provided school and the education authority, giving the exact terms of what may be required from them. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) I must decline to answer questions which relate to the interpretation of details of a Bill which is still under discussion in the House of Commons. I do not propose to insert in the Schedule such a form of agreement as the hon. Member proposes.

To ask Mr. Attorney General whether, under the Education (England and Wales) Bill, an education committee will have the power to delegate, or transfer subject to confirmation, the whole or part of its work to local committees; and whether it is necessary that all or any of the persons appointed to serve on a local committee shall be members of the education committee. (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) The hon. Member will find that it is proposed to deal with this point in paragraph 6 of the first division of the First Schedule, on page 33 of this day's White Paper.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board under which authority the district of Cann Hall will come, under the provisions of the Education Bill, seeing that Cann Hall has its own poor law officers, is incorporated with Leyton for sanitary purposes, and allied at present with Wanstead under the School Board. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Cann Hall appears to be a parish in the Leyton Urban District. That district has a populations which, according to the last census, exceeds 20,000. Under the Bill the Urban District Council will be the local education authority throughout the district for the purposes of elementary education, and the Essex County Council for the purposes of higher education.

To ask Mr. Attorney General whether he will state when the hon. Member for Galway city was arrested in England; if his arrest was consequent on a communication from the hon. Member himself, and how many times he has been brought before a magistrate and remanded for want of necessary evidence; when was the hon. Member last remanded, and for how long; and can he state when the Crown expect to be able to resume the case against the hon. Member. (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) The arrest took place on the 11th June, 1902. I understand that lie had written a letter, which appeared in the public Press on the 6th day of June, 1902, to say he was coming to England, but the information had been prepared some months before his arrival. There were nine remands, four of them being in consequence of the fact that some of the witnesses had returned to South Africa, in consequence of his not returning to England earlier, and had to be brought back. The evidence was completed, and the committal for trial was made on the 1st August. Notice to summon a grand jury, which is a necessary step in this case, has been given, and there will be no avoidable delay in proceeding to trial.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state when the recent correspondence upon the treatment of the Jews in Roumania will be laid upon the Table. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) I hope my hon. friend will not find my answer very disappointing, but I can only refer him to that given to him by my right hon. friend at the head of the Government on the 20th October.† No useful purpose would be served by presenting correspondence in the present stage of the question.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how much of time £500,000 voted by Parliament under the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, has been unallocated; and whether, out of the unallocated balance, with a view to the development of the North Donegal fisheries, he will consider the advisability of giving a grant in aid of an extension of the Carndonagh Railway to Calduff. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The entire sum mentioned has been hypothecated. By Section 9 of the Marine Works Act, 1902, any sums liberated under the

† See preceding Volume, page 219.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, during the Chief Secretaryship of the First Lord of the Treasury, inquiries took place with reference to the State purchase of Irish railways; that, with a view of carrying out such a scheme. Mr. Thomas Robertson was appointed chairman of the Irish Board of Works, and reported favourably thereon; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Report and other communications relating thereto; and whether he will consider the advisability of recommending the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No, Sir. I am not aware that such inquiries were instituted. The First Lord in April, 1897, in reply to a Question of the honourable Member for West Waterford, stated that he knew of no reason for departing from the conclusions of the Royal Commissions appointed in 1865 and 1886. They were adverse to the policy of State purchase. I am not prepared to recommend the appointment of a third Royal Com mission.

To ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the recent changes whereby officers are now provided with furnished quarters and supplied with chargers if in the mounted branches of the service, if he will consider the advisability of again placing the entrance examinations for cavalry and for infantry on an equal footing both as regards age and requirements, and of allowing the choice of the two services to candidates, in accordance with the number of marks they obtain, as is done in the Woolwich examinations for Engineers and Artillery. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The suggestions of the hon. Member will be considered, but until the new system has been tested I am not prepared to advise any change.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the length of service after which Majors and Captains are being promoted respectively to the ranks of Lieutenant-Colonel and Major is greater in the case of officers of the Royal Garrison Artillery than in that of the Royal Horse and Field Artillery, and of officers generally throughout the Service; and whether it is proposed to make any provision in the Army Estimates of 1903–4 for redressing the alleged grievance. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The periods of service in each rank have been affected in some branches be the war. I am proposing, by a reduction in the rate of absorption of the supernumerary majors, to remove the alleged grievance.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state why the Special Report on the social condition of the Island of Lewis by the Crofters Commission has not been circulated to Members, although it was laid upon the Table of the House four weeks ago.

The Special Report to which the hon. Member refers will be circulated this week. The Report was laid upon the Table on 22nd October.

It is not to be found in the Library.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the School Board for the parish of Stornoway have been communicated with as to the desirability of providing some kind of shelter in the playground of Aird School as a protection during severe weather for the children who attend the school; and, seeing that His Majesty's Inspector has recommended shelters for Highland schools, will the Education Department take some action in the matter.

I can add little to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 3rd November.† His Majesty's Inspector is quite alive to the matter in question, and he will consider it with the School Board. But he believes that the advantages of such sheds may not be commensurate with the cost, and that in some cases it is better to give access to the schoolrooms in case of boisterous weather during play hours.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that Mr. Millar, the Local Government. Board s Inspecting Officer under the Public Health Act, spent four days in the Island of Lewis in the month of May last, will the Secretary for Scotland state what townships in the parishes of Stornoway, Barvas, Lochs, and Uig were visited by this officer; has he made any report on the sanitary condition of those parishes; and, if not, will he be required to state why the conditions of The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, are not enforced.

Mr. Millar's visit to the Lewis was primarily for Poor Law purposes. He, however, also made a report on sanitary matters which may be of assistance to the Board.

What townships did he visit?

I am not aware.

He did not visit one.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the accelerated mail train service in connection with the mid-week United States mails via Queenstown, by means of which it was possible to deliver mails in New York some four hours earlier than previously, has been discontinued; and whether he will consider the advisability

† See preceding volume, page 1381.

The service to which the hon. Member refers has been discontinued; but he is mistaken in supposing that it was an accelerated service. The time gained in delivery on the other side was lost by the public posting the correspondence here. The arrangement had, therefore, no postal advantage; and when it was made in deference to the wishes of the White Star Company it was conceded somewhat reluctantly, as it cut short the time for posting letters for the United States in tins Country on Wednesdays by some hours of a business day. Now that the company no longer requires the continuance of the arrangement, those hours have been recovered, while the mid-week course of post to New York is no longer than it was before.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been directed to the age of Messrs. Macbrayne's mail steamers "Glencoe" and "Gael," running between Kyle and Stornoway; does he propose to take steps to require Messrs. Macbrayne to carry His Majesty's mails in steamers of modern type; and will penalties be enforced against the firm when their mail steamers fail to keep time.

The "Glencoe" is not employed on the mail service to Stornoway. The hon. Member probably refers to the "Glendale" which has recently been performing the service. I understand that the "Glendale," was built in 1875, and the "Gael" in 1867, and that the latter steamer was fitted with new engines and boilers in 1892. Both of these steamers fulfil the requirements of the mail contract; and in view of the heavy loss already incurred in connection with this service, I cannot promise to take any stops in the direction indicated. I have given directions that in cases where time is lost without any satisfactory explanation, the question of imposing a penalty shall always be considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been directed to the case of Alice Emily Keates, attending the day schools of St. John's Church, Sutton-on-Plym, Plymouth, who declares that she was required by the schoolmistress to bow and make the sign of the Cross on passing an image of the Virgin Mary in the church, to which the school was taken twice a week and on Saints' days, and was caned by the mistress for her objection to do so, until her removal from the school by her father in February last; and whether he will investigate the matter, and state what steps he proposes to take to prevent the repetition of such proceedings.

This information relates to a period which ended nine months ago; and no complaint has been made to the Board of Education. The statutory declarations of the girl and her father, sent to me privately by the honourable Member are being communicated to the managers.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Rector of Plymtree, Devon, refused on the 5th November, to the Liberal candidate for the Tiverton Division, the use of the schoolroom for a political meeting, alleging an attack on Christian teaching in schools; and will he withhold the public grants from schools the use of winch is refused for such public purposes.

I have no information on the subject. The managers are under no legal obligation to grant the use of the schoolroom to the candidate for the purpose of a political meeting. Their refusal would be no ground for the withdrawal of the Parliamentary grant.

Will the Hon. Baronet inquire into the circumstances and see if the facts stated in the Question are correct?

No, Sir. The Board of Education has no authority in this matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the large Irish-speaking population in the counties of Galway, Mayo, Waterford, Kerry, Clare, Donegal, Cork, and Sligo, he will recommend that in the appointment of magistrates and post office and other officials in these Irish-speaking districts a knowledge of the Irish language will be insisted on as a necessary condition.

Applications and recommendations for the Commission of the Peace are made to the respective lieutenants of counties. In Irish-speaking districts, interpreters are employed at assizes, quarter sessions, or petty sessions courts. Questions relating to post office appointments should be addressed to my right hon. friend the Postmaster General.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the amount of the yearly grant paid to the Royal Irish Academy for the copying of Irish manuscripts and the production of an Irish dictionary; whether he can give the approximate date when an Irish dictionary will be issued by this body; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of transferring the grant to the Irish Texts Society.

No portion of the grant in aid is ear-marked for either of the objects mentioned. But in each year a sum of more than £300, on an average, is expended on the publication of Irish Texts, the occasional purchase of Irish MSS., and the collection and arrangement of material for the production of an Irish dictionary. The collection of material is now nearly completed and its preparation for dictionary arrangement has already commenced. It is impossible to fix, even approximately, the date when the dictionary will be issued. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the negative.

Why will not the right hon. Gentleman hand over this task of compiling the Irish dictionary to a more energetic body?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when it is proposed to release Michael Muldowney, who was convicted of complicity in the Craughwell tragedy eighteen years ago in Sligo.

The Lord Lieutenant, in whom is vested the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, desires me to say that the case of this convict will be specially considered by him on the 23rd January next.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is now able to state when an opportunity will be given to resume the debate on the Indian Budget.

I hope to take the Indian Budget on Friday next. I cannot promise that the whole of the day shall be devoted to the Indian Budget, as I may have to ask the House to proceed with the Osborne Estate Bill, but the Indian Budget will be the first Order.

Will any other business be taken on Friday?

No; nothing else.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the New Zealand coal supplied to the China Squadron emits such volumes of smoke as to make signalling difficult, and often betrays the position of the ship using it long before her masts appear in sight.

It is known that New Zealand coals emit more smoke than Welsh coal of good quality. The Commander-in-Chief has recently reported that the steaming qualities of the coal are excellent, and since the stokers have become accustomed to its use the quantity of smoke emitted is less than it was.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to a memorandum recently issued to senior officers on the China Station in reference to the friable nature of Westport coal, and the large proportion of small coal it contains, and desiring that its value should be made known generally in order to anticipate complaints which may be mantle by officers unacquainted with this coal; and will he say if it is the practice of the Admiralty to anticipate complaints of stores supplied to the Navy.

It was recently pointed out to the Commander-in-Chief on the China Station that cargoes of Westport coal were, for various reasons, likely to comprise a larger proportion of small coal than is the case with Welsh coal, though the steaming qualities of the former had been found from experience not to be affected seriously thereby, and he was directed to inform commanding officers of H.M. Ships to this effect. It is probably to some memorandum issued by the Commander-in-Chief in pursuance of those directions that the hon. Member refers. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether there is any provision in the tenders for clothing given out by the War Office that the work is to be carried out in factories; and, if so, if he will state whether a contract has been given out for 20,000 garments to a contractor who has no factory, and is carrying it out by means of outworkers.

In reply to the first part of the Question, there is a stringent clause to this effect in the clothing contracts. In reply to the second part, no such contract has been made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Militia officers who resigned and enlisted to get to South Africa lost the chance of obtaining commissions in the line without examination, as was done by their comrades who remained at home, he will consider the advisability of candidates both with and without service marks competing ill the same category, service marks being given according to length and character of service, and of removing the restrictions as to the counting of service marks from March last only, also of not limiting the time for the counting of such marks to March next.

The effect of the hon. Member's proposals would be to give the candidates claiming service marks an unfair advantage over the other competitors, and his suggestion to give service marks according to character of service is impracticable. I am not therefore prepared to make the alterations suggested. All candidates who have been in South Africa will have had nearly twelve months in which to prepare themselves before the examination in September, 1903.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether it is intended to continue the present tenant system of canteens; whether it is proposed to introduce periodic examination by independent experts on behalf of the War Office; and if, in future, more encouragement will be given to local trade in these cases.

I am not at present in a position to give the hon. Member any information on this subject.

When will the noble Lord be in a position?

On the earliest possible occasion.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the rates charged for bicycles, cricket and tennis bats, spears (tied or packed), and perambulators taken by passengers on the Uganda Railway are the same (1s. 4d. per ton per mile) as those stated in the revised classification of 15th November 1901, as applicable to goods traffic.

The articles mentioned when carried by passenger trains are charged at passenger-luggage rates and not at those applicable to goods traffic.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it has been brought to Isis notice that the Inland Revenue officers of the city have asked employers for lists of their employees liable to pay Income Tax and for the amount of their salaries; and will he say whether this course has his sanction.

All employers are under a statutory obligation to furnish, when asked to do so, a list of those of their employees who are not entitled to exemption from income tax. They are not asked to state the salaries paid, except in the case of public companies. Even then the information is not pressed for, but, unless it be given, it may be necessary to have recourse to estimated, and possibly incorrect, assessments on the employees.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will, prior to the Second Reading of the Osborne Estate Bill, lay upon the Table of the House and print and circulate as a Parliamentary Paper, an excerpt from the will of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria in so, far as it relates to that estate.

The will of the Sovereign is not open to inspection, and. so no part of it can be made public. The purport of the Clauses relating to the Osborne estate is recited in the Preamble to the Bill.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if co-operative societies registered under the Friendly Societies Acts pay taxes on dividends and profits.

Societies which comply with the conditions of the Friendly Societies Acts are exempt from Income Tax, provided that they do not assure to any individual a sum of snore than £200 or an annuity of more than £30. But I understand that a co-operative society (that is, one for carrying on an industry, trade or business) cannot be registered-under the Friendly Societies Acts.

Do these societies pay the tax on dividends as well as on profits?

What societies—friendly or co-operative?

Friendly.

Friendly societies do, not pay income tax at all if they come-under the description I have given.

hoped that since last evening the Government had reconsidered their position, for it was evident that the words proposed to be left out were surplusage and ought to be omitted, or else they were capable of conveying a meaning not contemplated by the authors of the Clause. In his view they were mere surplusage, because there was nothing in the Act to affect any endowment apart from what was incidentally and necessarily connected with the operation of the Clause itself. If these words remained in the Bill their interpretation might be strained to mean something very much wider than the Government intended. The local education committee might be debarred from holding these inquiries, and if that were not intended, then certainly the words should be struck out. Words of that nature would not have been inserted without a definite meaning, and naturally the authority would seek to find one. The meaning that would probably be assigned to them would be that the local authority was debarred from doing certain work which was really a concomitant of the work they were called upon to perform under this Clause.

believed that these words were important and desirable, and ought to be retained in the Clause. In common with all who had had an opportunity of observing the working of the schools, he attached the greatest value to the ancient endowments of the country. A Clause of this kind ought not to be inserted in the Bill without again placing on the Statute-book the opinion of Parliament as to the value of these ancient endowments. As he understood the words, the endowments would by then be left over to the Board of Education or Charity Commissioners to deal with them exactly as they now were, and the words proposed to be omitted would secure that neither one side nor the other was prejudiced. He felt the importance of maintaining these endowments and adapting them to the circumstances of the day, and he supported the retention of the words, because he believed that they were consistent with the great principle of the maintenance of the endowments and their adaptation to the circumstances of the age.

said it seemed to him it would be desirable for the Government to substitute the word "power" for "discretion" in the words proposed to be left out. He objected to the word "discretion," because it conferred on the trustees the power to discriminate as to what part of the money of a general trust should be devoted to repairs, and what part to the general education in the school. The word "power" would reserve to the trustees everything they were entitled to have.

said he wished to point out to the Committee that it was impossible to separate these words from the second Clause of the Bill as amended by the Government itself. By that Clause the duty of co-ordinating all forms of education was placed on the local education authority, and it appeared to him that if these words were left in they would limit, and, indeed, take away from the local education authorities whatever power to co-ordinate all forms of education might have been given them under the Clause. The Government had always put it forward that their great wish was to co-ordinate education, and inasmuch as Clause 2 was at present in a very lame conditions he hoped that on Report an opportunity would be found to strengthen it in that direction. The only argument for the words was that they were surplusage and unmeaning, or, as he ventured to describe them on the preceding night, pompous preamble; and in that case they ought to be struck out. If they had any meaning, it must be to the injury of Clause 2.

complained that the Government had given them no explanation of the meaning of the words, and said that in his judgment they were very dangerous words. It was understood that whatever income the trustees or managers had for the purpose of maintaining elementary education was to be transferred to the local education authority. But now it was provided that nothing in the Bill was to affect any endowment, or the discretion of any trustee, in spite of the fact that in the very next words the Clause proceeded to affect the endowment. If the words were meaningless, they ought to be struck out; if they had any meaning, then they could only operate in a mischievous direction.

said he had had an opportunity of going through the list of endowments in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and he had found that there was a considerable number of small endowments given specially to the schoolmasters and mistresses of the parish. Would they be taken into account in fixing the salary of the teacher? If so, it appeared to him that the parish would lose the benefit of these endowments. If the local authority had no power of using these endowments, say, for scholarships, and if they were all to be thrown into the hotch-pot, the small parishes would stiller a great loss.

said that the salary of the schoolmaster or mistress was a matter for which provision had to be made by the local education authority, and any endowment for that purpose would go to the local authority, and be credited to the parish. The Clause avowedly dealt with the income of endowments, and did not touch the endowments themselves, or interfere with the discretion of the trustees. He believed the words proposed to be omitted were necessary, and would in no way prejudice future recipients of the incomes of the endowments.

said that according to the Secretary to the Board of Education, the schoolmaster, in the cases cited by the hon. Member for the Otley Division, would be no better, and education would be no better, for the endowment; but the rates would be relieved.

asked whether it would be in the competence of trustees to divert a part of the income from the endowment to the upkeep of the school buildings, or to lay it by to accumulate a building fund.

said that if it were in the power of the trustees to deal with the money in that way now, it would equally be in their power hereafter. Whoever possessed a discretion in the application of the money would retain the discretion. Where the purposes for which the endowment was designed were met by the local authority, the endowment could be diverted to other purposes.

Then it is in the mind of the Government that part of the income of an ordinary educational endowment may be applied in the future to the up-keep of the fabric.

Yes, they said so last night.

said that the meaning of the Clause was at last clear. Although he had read it repeatedly without getting an idea of its real meaning, he did at last get some glimmering, because the hon. Member for Tunbridge supported it, and thereby showed that it must have some thing to do with religious or sectarian educational endowments. The local authority, with the rates behind it, would always provide adequately for elementary education, and, therefore, the question was whether the endowment could be set free for the relief of rates, by being diverted to the maintenance of the fabric and the Sunday school. The Prime Minister appeared to dissent, but that was the only interpretation he could place on the words of the Secretary to the Board of Education when he told them that if secular education were adequately provided for by the local authority, the trustees would have unlimited discretion to use the money for purposes for which the local authority was not responsible. As that authority would have an inexhaustible fund in the form of the rates at its back, it would certainly be able to make adequate provision, and would not need to fall back on the endowments. That being so, the trustees would have discretion to use them for other than educational purposes, although they had been left I for the general instruction of the poor of the parish, and he ventured to assert that any such diversion would mean confiscating endowments given to the poor for the benefit of the richest church in the parish. He could only describe it as a gross act of confiscation, and the intention to permit it was not even disclosed by the Government until the guillotine had been fixed. They had had no time to consider it, for the knife was falling, and they could hear its clang; and under such embarrassing and unnerving circumstances they were unable to give proper attention to so far-reaching a proposal.

said the arguments which had been put forward obviously had no relation to the words the Committee was considering, for the only meaning of the words was to leave the trustees with the discretion which the trust deed gave them.

said the original bargain made by the Government was that the denominational managers were to bear the cost of structural repairs. Now there was another proposal that the local authority should pay the rent of the master's house, of which they heard nothing before. On that side an Amendment was put down that those School Board parishes which had built masters' houses out of loans should also have this contribution, but the Government closured that Amendment. Now they had another revelation to the effect that the trustees were to have a discretion to spend on repairs money winch had been left for the education of the children. The result would be that there would be no bargain at all; the denominational managers would get everything, and people who had left money to benefit the parish would have their money twisted and diverted to denominational purposes. There had recently been published in Warwickshire a list of educational endowments, and the gentleman who prepared it said that there were sixty-five parishes altogether, and in a great many of them the masters' houses, school buildings, as well as the endowments, had been left simply for the purpose of educating the children of the village independently of the Church altogether.

said that as regarded the discretion of the managers he had stated early in the debate that where the managers had a discretion under the terms of the trust they could exercise it for the benefit of the school. They were bound by the terms of the trust to use the endowment for the benefit of the school, and if they found that certain purposes were adequately met by the local authority, then they might use the money in their hands for other purposes for which the local authority was not responsible, and for which they were responsible, but which were just as essential for the education of the parish as the supply of teachers and other purposes. Surely they had heard enough of the scandalous condition of the school buildings in many country districts. He ventured to say last night that he thought the managers would do not merely a justifiable but a very proper thing if they put all the money they had over in one year away for purposes for which it was not immediately required in order to establish a building fund with a view to an improvement of the school buildings in the future. He did not believe hon. Members opposite would dispute for a moment that that was a most important educational purpose, and would be entirely in consonance with the wishes of the founders.

said he was afraid that a good many hon. Members did not know what the Clause meant. They had had a definite utterance from the hon. Baronet the Member for Preston, who said that the discretion of the trustees meant what was contained in the trust deeds. The Secretary to the Board of Education now said that it meant the discretion of the trustees to apply certain money for what they considered to be proper educational purposes, and if they considered that the educational purposes were properly supplied by the local authority, then they could use their discretion with reference to the disposal of the money within the terms of the trust deed. But by this Bill the education authority was bound to supply all the educational requirements, and therefore wherever there was an endowment given for the general support of the school, or to be devoted to general education, they gave the managers the first grip of that money for the purpose of doing the repairs, or else of laying it by for building Suppose they had an income of £50 from an endowment in perfectly general terms for the general support of the school, or to be devoted generally for the purposes of education. If only £20 were necessary the managers could take that £20 and say, "We have a discretion in this matter, and we will place the other £30 to a building fund to he used next year." That was the meaning of this Clause. That was the reason for the alteration of this Clause. The Bishop of London shed some light upon this question at the recent meeting in the Albert Hall. He said that the weak spot of their bargain was the repairs, and lie implored them to try what they could do in the House of Lords to deal with this difficulty.

"What a terrible thing it would be," said the Bishop, "if many schools were compelled to close their doors from sheer inability to need their expenses after all this trouble and care with reference to the Education Bill."

said that charities and endowments had been diverted from their original channels, and had been used in support of voluntary schools. He could give as an instance the Towyn Charity, which was in no way a Church charity, which had for many years been used to carry on Church schools. This charity was originally left for the poor, but there being practically no poor in that small township for which it was left, the Commissioners, by a decree, diverted it to two Church schools. The Joint Education Committee drafted a scheme which the Charity Commissioners printed and approved of. It went on to the Education Department, and while it was there the Duke of Devonshire was petitioned by the clergy not to proceed with the publication of the scheme, and he yielded. Consequently the children had had no benefit, but the clergy simply had to find £40 less. There was no mention in the Bill of such income, and if it was not dealt with the result would be that the parsons would still be getting £40 per annum, which presumably they might use as they pleased for either maintenance or repairs. It would be a shame if parsons were allowed to receive endowments intended for the poor and utilise them for purposes which in no way benefited the public.

There appear to be some extraordinary misconceptions about this Clause. The hon. Gentleman opposite has quoted the speech of the Bishop of London, and mentioned something about a bargain. I know nothing about any such bargain. I have made no bargain, and that is a phrase which I absolutely decline to recognise. This proposal deals with endowments, and the whole object of the Clause is to make provision in the case where the existing endowment makes no provision. Where the existing endowment makes provision we leave the discretion wholly unaltered, but it is possible under the Bill that a ease may arise with which it is impossible for the trustees to deal, and we therefore provide in this Clause a very simple remedy to deal with it. If the trust deeds give the discretion now to distribute the money they retain it, and if they have not got it we give it to them. The hon. Member asks whether this Bill is intended to restore to the public or the poor or to the rich money which has been improperly diverted. If it has been improperly diverted go to the Law Courts and get it put right. This Bill is not intended to survey and reform, so far as reform is required, the whole field of endowments. Other Acts have been passed for the purpose. All we do is not in any sense to revise endowments, but to meet the single case in which the discretion bestowed by law in the trust deeds is interfered with under the Bill.

pointed out that the Bill now made new provision out of the public funds for purposes which the endowments formerly served. That changed the whole thing and put a new face upon it. It enabled the trustees to divert funds which were given for education to the relief of, what? In the first place, of the rates, or, if they pleased, of the subscribers. This was the natural result of this Clause. The object of this proposal was to divert endowments given for the education of the poor and apply them for the relief of the rich.

hoped that as a mere Scotchman he would be pardoned for intervening in an English debate, but what he desired was information as to the number of schools affected by the discussion in progress. Judging by the anxiety displayed by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the hon. and learned Member below him, one would think that if not the whole, at any rate the great majority, of the voluntary schools in this country were endowed. He understood that was not so; that out of 14,750 schools or thereabouts only some 2,200 had any endowments at all, therefore upwards of 12,000 schools would still require to provide all repairs out of absolute subscriptions. Then, again, of the 2,200 schools, a certain proportion had their endowments specially devoted to various objects, which would mean the handing of these endowments over to the local education authority, so that when all was said and done the question under discussion only related to a small minority of the schools, and again, in most of these eases, the endowments were of the most paltry description—only a few pounds in many, cases. He did not think, therefore, that the evil was widespread, or that the Government merited the condemnation that had been showered upon them.

said he wished to call the attention of the Secretary of the Education Department to two charities which were referred to in the reports made to the Charity Commissioners in connection with an inquiry held in every parish wholly or partly within the administrative county of Durham, into endowments subject to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894. He would read the statements of the purposes for which they were left. Those cases would afford an object lesson to show what the Government really meant. The first ease was referred to in these terms:—

"From the recitals in a Bond bearing date 12th October, 1691, it appears that the Rev. Henry Greswold gave £100 to John Raine, Henry Eden, Cuthbert Swainston and Cuthbert Raine, to be laid out in the purchase of lands or an annuity, the profits to be paid towards a yearly salary for the schoolmaster of Gainford, for teaching the poor children of the said parish.…Forthis payment [the yearly interest] the schoolmaster instructs in reading, writing, and accounts, six children recommended by the churchwardens, from any part of the parish, exclusively of the chapelry of Barnard Castle."

"William Dent, the elder of Brightwell, in the county of Berkshire, clockmaker, by Indenture of Lease and Release, dated .29th and 30th April, 1706, assigned, released and confirmed to John. Dent and William Dent the younger, their heirs and assigns, two several messuages or tenements and premises, situate in Cost Street, within the parish of Stepney, and County of Middlesex, in trust, for the educating of such poor boys as should be born in the town of Barnard Castle, in the bishopric of Durham, with power to sell the same premises, and to lay out the produce of such sale in purchasing other houses or lands of the like value in the county of York or bishopric of Durham.… The sum of £133 is now in the hands of Miss Lee of Staindrop, daughter of the late Sir John Lee, into whose hands it probably came as connected with the family of Huchinson. Miss Lee pays £5 6s. 8d. yearly, as the interest. For many years she paid this sum to William Lonsdale, a private schoolmaster in Barnard Castle, teaching in his own house, for which he taught ten boys free. For the last three or four years Lonsdale has been unable to teach school, and Miss Lee has paid the same yearly sum to the treasurer of the National School in Barnard Castle, where ten children, named by the minister and churchwarden, are taught free of any charge."

said the very object of this Clause was to prevent the money from being diverted. The obligations of the trustees remained just where they were. The hon. Gentleman need not be in any alarm that the Clause would divert any money from the purposes for which they were intended.

asked the right hon. Gentleman to elaborate the answer and make it plainer. Would he state to what purpose these endowments would be devoted?

It would be quite impossible and quite improper to answer that question here. It will rest with the Courts of Law to decide whether the money is being properly applied in case of dispute as to any particular trust. It would be perfectly monstrous for us to give any statement on the subject. All that we can do is to leave the trusts as they are.

This is a very old controversy. We are quite familiar with it in the country to which the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs and I belong. We have had a great deal to do with this very question. The right hon. Gentleman says there is no proposal to divert money from the original purpose, but the case is this. The circumstances are changed by your legislation. Supposing a pious founder leaves a large sum of money for a certain public purpose, which is otherwise not provided for in the parish, that goes on for a great many years, then Parliament says this public purpose shall be the duty of the whole community, and it is so enacted. This public duty is imposed on the whole community throughout the country. What, then, is the effect on the endowment which was given for this particular parish? Simply to relieve the community of the duty which Parliament thinks, and which, by the law of the land, ought to be placed upon them. But in this case there are two different classes of people who will contribute to the maintenance of the school. There are the ratepayers who are for the first time introduced under this Bill, and the other parties to the matter are the denominational subscribers—managers, or whatever you may call them. If there is to be adequate provision by the local education authority for secular education, for the ordinary maintenance of education, and for the maintenance of the school, and if that is prescribed by the Act for all the country in similar cases, then what is to be done with this money? We are told now that it should be handed over to the subscribers to relieve them of the duty [Cries of "No" and "Hear, hear!"] which they undertook and upon their undertaking of which they have been allowed to have the influence they have in this educational matter. The right hon. Gentleman has always been talking of the scheme of the Bill. The scheme of the Bill is this, that because the fabric of the school building belongs in certain cases—some of us don't admit so much—to a Church, therefore that Church is entitled to a certain standing in the administration of the education of the parish, and is entitled to enforce its particular views. That is the whole scheme of the Bill, but if that power is continued or conferred upon the Church and subscribers, and then if the endowments are employed for the purpose of relieving them of some of the obligations they have incurred, you ipso facto invalidate the bargain, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and the condition on which the whole Bill rests, so far as elementary education is concerned. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this Clause is not to divert endowments, but to continue things as they were. You may continue things as they were, in one sense, but the circumstances to which those arrangements applied have totally changed or passed away.

said he had some sympathy with the Bishop of London, who was under the impression that he had made a bargain. It showed the danger Spiritual Peers might fall into when they spoke in commercial metaphors. The real essence of the matter was this. There was £120,000 of public money to be given for public purposes in those different parishes. Under this Bill, the circumstances would be entirely different. It was quite true that in future they would be devoted to educational purposes, on the basis that the Church of England got four-sixths of the management For this it would contribute the building rent free, and keep it in repair. His complaint was that this public education money in future would be used for private denominational ends. If the Church people made a bargain, let them keep it. The Parliamentary Secretary said they could put their money by. Yes, but don't let them put by public money. This was a very important matter. It was another example of how the Church of England was going back upon its bargain. They had got all that they bargained for, but they were not giving all they bargained to give. He thought if the Committee had a free hand they would be anxious that this public money should not serve denominational ends, as it did under the Clause as it stood.

said that so far as he knew the denominational managers repudiated the idea

called attention to a charity in a parish which he knew, the greater part of which was to be devoted to educational purposes. It was originally founded by a Nonconformist, but it had now, after being in the Court of Chancery, become connected with the Church of England. In that case, what was to be done with the money? How was the money to be spent for educational purposes? The county would be responsible for maintaining the school, and that being so, the money should only be used for repair of the school building, which would not be required for twenty or thirty years. The population was not likely to increase, and the money would accumulate. Surely it was roost unfair that in regard to a great number of parishes the money should be used for relieving existing subscribers. If his right hon. friend went to a division he would support him.

said he wished to move, as an Amendment, "Provided that no part of the income of the endowment should be devoted to the payment of such repairs as under this Act are to be paid by the managers, provided also that."

said that the Amendment of the hon. Member was really an objection to the whole Clause. The object of the Clause was to enable the money to be used for "other purposes," and it had been discussed the previous day and this day on that ground.

said that surely there were many other purposes covered by the words besides that purpose—such as scholarships or improvements in the school in other ways.

said that the proposed Amendment raised the point which they had been discussing for two days.

said that what they had been discussing were the possibilities of the application of the money to other purposes, among which repairs might find a place. But it was not in the Clause; it was merely suggested that the trustees at their discretion might spend the money on something besides repairs.

said that the discussion ranged round the point that part of the money might be used by the trustees for the purpose of forming a building fund. Now the hon. Member for North West Norfolk proposed to say that no part of the money should be used for hat purpose.

said that many of the endowments were of considerable amount—much larger than could be exhausted by repairs—and, therefore, it was clear that they must refer to many cases besides repairs.

Then, under the Clause, the balance will go to the local education authority. The money will be apportioned between the local education authority and certain expenses which the managers will have to incur; and the only expenses they will have to incur will be for the upkeep of the school buildings.

said that the Government did not understand the Clause in that way, because, instead of handing the money over to the local education authority, the managers claimed to have the right to retain it.

I cannot conceive any discussion on the hon. Member's Amendment which would differ in the slightest degree from the discussion the Committee has had.

said he quite, agreed as far as the discussion was concerned; but he presented a concrete proposal.

I cannot accept a number of Amendments raising the same point.

asked if it was not a point of whether the Chair was to rule in this House or not.

said that the managers might wish to have a better equipment than the county authority deemed themselves justified in sanctioning. In that and other ways, the managers might desire to spend the money.

It is possible that the words of the hon. Member's Amendment may be better than the words of the Amendment which has been rejected. It is not, however, for me to choose. All I say is that it appears to me that a discussion on the hon. Member's Amendment must cover precisely the same ground which has been already covered: and, for that reason, I am obliged to rule the Amendment out of order.

said the Amendment he desired to move was short, was easily understood, and had not been covered by any previous discussion. It was to insert in line 2, after "where" the words "after the first day of January, 1901." His object was to fix the trust deeds and the provisions affecting endowments in the condition in which they were on January 1st, 1901. He moved his Amendment for this reason. During the course of last year the Bill was being negotiated by the bishops and Convocation on the one hand and the Government on the other. It was perfectly fair to say that the Bill was on the tapis during the whole of last year; and, therefore, the matter ought to be discussed from the position in which it was at the beginning of last year. That was why he proposed to fix a date. He might be asked why he put in any limiting words at all, and he would answer that it was because of the speech of tire Bishop of London on Friday last. Hon. Members who wished to understand the inner workings of the Bill should read the speeches of the Bishop of London, the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, and others at the Albert Hall meeting. The Bishop was dealing with tire Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, and he said he had been advised by competent authority—the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich let the eat out of the bag by saying that lie had been advised by the Government—that the trust deeds would not be changed, and that, where there was an appeal to the bishops, that appeal would still lie. Then the Lord Bishop said that he pressed that schools which had no trust deeds should have an opportunity of having trust deeds on the lines of the old trust deeds, before the Bill came into operation. The suggestion of the Bishop was that there should be new trust deeds, or altered trust deeds, in order that there might be an appeal to the bishops; but he thought that trust deeds ought not to be altered with a view to this Bill. They ought to remain as they were before tire Bill was introduced. It might be said that a trust deed could not be altered. In many cases trust deeds could not be altered; but in cases where the donor was still alive they could, in certain circumstances, be altered. They ought, however, to take the position as it was on the 1st January, 1901, without any manipulation of the trust deeds; and no opportunity should be given of altering the status quo with a view to legislation.

said that the hon. Gentleman had discussed the speech of the Bishop of London, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman for the Newport Division of Shropshire, and the Albert Hall meeting; but he had not said much with regard to the new Clause, which had nothing whatever to do with the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that it was within the power of anyone, after a trust had been founded, to alter it at a moment's notice.

said his statement was directly opposite to that.

said he did not think that there was any case in which the deed could be altered, and, in cases where the deed could not be altered, the hon. Gentleman admitted that his Amendment was unnecessary. He presumed the Bishop of London was referring to cases where there were no trust deeds; but, whether he was or was not, the Bishop was not a legal authority, and never posed as a legal authority. He was not aware that it was possible in any case to alter a trust deed, unless there was a provision in it enabling a modification to be made. If there were such a provision it ought to remain. He doubted whether there was any such case; but supposing it was theoretically possible for a man to put money in trust with a provision enabling him to alter the trust deed, it should remain in that modification. If a donor deliberately intended that lie should have power to modify the trust, why should be be deprived of that power? If no such power were embodied in a trust, then the trust could not be altered, and the hon. Gentlemen's Amendment would have no practical effect. In these circumstances he hoped the Hon. Gentleman would not press it further.

said he did not think that the Amendment would be so futile in its character as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. Analogous cases arose under the Burials Act. It very often happened that a piece of land was given by the squire of the parish for educational purposes, or as a burial ground. A deed was not prepared, because it was not regarded as necessary; and the ground was utilized for the purpose for which it was given. Then an Act of Parliament was introduced, which was regarded as curtailing the privileges and prerogatives of the clergy of the parish. They discovered that there was no trust deed; and they went to the donor or his heir and said: "Will you make a trust deed in the form we require?" He would give a case in point, which came before the Court of Appeal, and, therefore, the facts were judicially established. A piece of land was given for burial purposes; no trust deed was prepared, as it was not regarded as necessary; and a great deal of parochial money was expended in fencing. The Burials Act came in, and the clergyman of the parish went to the landowner and said: "We want a trust deed;" and a trust deed was prepared, under which the Dean of Bangor, the Archdeacon of the district, and the rural Dean deprived the parish of the property on which parochial money had been spent. What was to prevent similar transactions being carried out under the present Bill? He had been examining the Charity Commissioners' report on charities in Wales; and he found—he would not say the majority, but a great number—of trusts for educational purposes had no deeds at all, because they were not regarded as necessary. Now that the time had come for carrying out the suggestion of the Bishop of London, the Prime Minister had repudiated it. The right hon. Gentleman came down to the House, and, in a speech which was made after advice, said that this was the authentic interpretation of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause—that they must get new trust deeds. That was what the Government wanted, and what had been done in several cases until it was stopped by the Courts of Law. What had been done with regard to the Burials Acts could be done with regard to these endowments. The Government were prepared to take "first use and wont" with regard to these endowments for their own purposes, and those opposed to the Government wished to do the same for their purpose. If these endowments had been devoted to educational purposes, why should they be diverted into another channel now? After all, the landowner was the arbiter; he could direct at any time what the trust should be. He simply had to say to the clergyman: "We want a trust deed," and the clergyman had it drawn as he wished. The local squire knew perfectly well that if in the future the endowment was used for the repair of the fabric and for building, he would be relieved in pocket pro tanto, and he naturally would prefer to see it used for that purpose. What they wished was that it should be made impossible for the trust to be diverted from the purpose for which it was originally intended. He knew of one endowment which was given for education, reading and writing, and "teaching Christian principles." It was a sectarian endowment. The Christian principles meant in that case the principles of the Church of England, but reading and writing came first. What would happen now? There was no trust deed, but the Squire, who represented the original donor, would soon discover that it was necessary to have a trust deed. He would have the bishop's sanction. The Bishop of London would tell him he must do it, and everyone in the Church of England obeyed the Bishop except the clergy, and although reading and writing were put first in that endowment it would all be used in the future for the repair of the fabric and for setting up a Church of England Sunday-school. The ratepayer would be no better off. So long as the ratepayers were not bankrupt the rate could be used for repairing the fabric. Where were the agricultural objectors? They were constantly talking about the burdens on the rates, and here they were allowing endowments to the extent of £120,000 to be taken away from the relief of the rates for a purely sectarian purpose. But no one had any confidence in the agricultural party since, if he might use the phrase without any Parliamentary breach of order, Mr. Chaplin's flying squadron of agriculturists ran away on the fight of the one half or one quarter. The agricultural party would see now that the rates were used to keep up the fabric, and the farmer, who was so heavily burdened by the rates, would see this £120,000 devoted to what were called Christian principles, and reading and writing would be left to care of themselves.

moved the substitution of the words "original trusts" for the words "trusts or other provisions." The object of the Amendment was to render to Cæsar the things that were Cæsar's, and at the same time to prevent Cæsar annexing the property of other people. Many elementary denominational schools enjoyed incomes from charities to which they were not entitled by the terms of the trust deeds. The position had arisen through the partial or total failure of the objects of the trust. When such a failure happened the trustees went to Charity Commissioners for a scheme, and usually the education of the district was decided upon as being a laudable object to which the money might be devoted. In days gone by, the Charity Commissioners, when maturing schemes with regard to trusts of that nature, had been more influenced by the question of education than by denominational zeal; otherwise, instead of giving the money to the managers, they would have given it direct to the rector and the church-wardens. But if the Clause were carried in its present form, the income arising from such trusts would he divided into two portions, one going to the maintenance of the school, and the other being claimed by the manager for the repairs. That, in his opinion, would be an entirely improper state of affairs, because it had to be remembered that all the money spent by the managers under the Bill would be spent on denominational purposes, whereas the money under these trusts was not originally left for such purposes. By this Clause the aim of the pious founder would not be carried out, nor would the schemes of the Charity Commissioners be strictly complied with. When these schemes the were framed, the Charity Commissioners could not possibly have anticipated that the whole of the maintenance of the elementary schools would be paid out of public funds; therefore it was not fair that the income from these trusts should be divided in the manner he had indicated. Since 1870, all such trusts had been devoted to secondary education, but prior to 1870 there were a great many applied to elementary education. He could not say the amount of money that was involved, as the Charity Commissioners were too busy to supply a Return, but that was simply another instance of the way in which the Committee were legislating in the dark on this Bill. The proposal of the Government afforded a further illustration of the efforts of the denominations to get hold of money out of the public purse. They had been foiled in their attempts to get the school fees, and to avoid their liability for the repairs of the schoolhouse, but they had succeeded in getting the rents of the schoolmasters' houses towards the cost of repairs, and he was afraid that under this Clause they would succeed in getting for denominational purposes money which was never intended to be so used.

said that if he rightly understood the object of the hon. Member's Amendment it was of a somewhat alarming character. It was proposed to go behind the Charity Commissioners and the Education Department for the last, thirty or thirty-three years, to rip up all the schemes made in that period, and, so far as was possible to work the schemes of the original trusts into the arrangement of tins Clause. He really thought it a monstrous proposition. He could not at the moment state the amount of money involved, but there were at least 1500 elementary schools working under schemes made since 1869, and the pro-position that at this period of the discussion, and in a Bill already so large and complicated, they should undo the work of the Commissioners who had been working all this time for the benefit of education, was one which he could hardly think the hon. Member was serious in putting before the Committee.

said the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that this alarming proposition was contained in the Clause which they were now discussing, for it proposed in the case of all, those elementary schools to rip up the schemes and alter them to the extent suggested under this Clause. The hon. Member was proposing now to do something which was quite different to the schemes under the Charity Commissioners—and this proposal was merely an Amendment of the scheme suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Education in his own Clause. He did not think the hon. Gentleman had done justice to the Amendment moved by his hon. friend. Hitherto the Charity Commissioners had been called in to make new schemes where others had failed, but now it appeared that the schemes of the Charity Commissioners had also failed and it was necessary to provide something fresh. His hon. friend asked that in making this fresh provision they should go back again to the intentions of the pious founders and not hold themselves bound by the schemes of the Charity Commissioners. To those who looked upon the public interest and the interest of the Church of England as one and the same thing, an Amendment of this sort, of course, would not commend itself, but they ought to look to the public interest apart from the Church of England. They should ask that these trusts, intended to further some public object, now that they were being ripped up, should once again be considered, and, having regard to the intentions of the pious founders, should be used for some public interest and not necessarily for the Church of England interest. Where the Church of England had been the sole supporter of education in a parish this might be reasonable, but the Church of England no longer occupied that position, because the public had come in, and it was, therefore, reasonable that the trusts should be reconsidered and devoted to purposes purely public.

said he found himself in complete disagreement with the Amendment of his hon. friend. The effect of this Amendment would be to go back to the original schemes, and in many cases the original purposes of the trusts had fallen into desuetude. The Charity Commissioners, although he did not agree with all they did, had modernised the trusts on fairly commonsense lines, and the bulk of the money affected was now applied to the purposes of education. Therefore, to go back to the original purposes seemed to him to be not a very practical proposal and it would rob elementary education of something like £100,000 a year. That being so he could not support the Amendment.

said he agreed with the Amendment of his hon. friend in favour of the pious founders. They said that this money should be given to the poor. If they diverted this money into its original channel, where did they rob education? All they said was that the ratepayers who could afford to pay should bear the burden of education; and that, to the extent to which they lost the endowment, that money should be made up out of the rates. On the other hand they would be giving by this Amendment to the people who could not afford to pay rates—that was the poorest of the poor in the district—money which was originally given to ameliorate their misery. Take the case of the charity he had referred to, given for the purpose of erecting cottages for the poor. By some mysterious process the Charity Commissioners had diverted that money to pay a sewing mistress. That was no doubt an excellent purpose, but it was not the object for which the charity was established. What would happen under this Amendment? They would get back to the old principle of cottage homes. Would the sewing class suffer? No, for it would be just the reverse, because the rates would pay for a sewing mistress. Why did his hon. friend wish to rob the poor in Wales for the purpose of providing sewing mistresses, for any other purpose? He stood for the pious founders in this matter. He had got an excellent authority in this matter, namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley, who some time ago denounced a similar proposal to the one now made by the Government as one which was using money originally given for the poor for the establishment of scholarships and schools; and the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that this was simply robbing the poor. And the right hon. Gentleman the Member of Bordesley was right. He was then denouncing the utilisation of money given for the poor for the purposes of scholastic institutions. He said those charities were the private property of the poor of the country, and if they could show that one single farthing of that money was applied to other purposes it was a robbery of the poor. Now the Government were promoting a Bill for the robbery of the poor. This money was not given for the church organ or for sewing mistresses, or for relieving the rich subscribers to voluntary schools, but for the purposes of the poor, and this proposal now made by the Government was one of the schemed denounced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley as a gross robbery of the poor. A good many of these endowments included sites and property allotted by the Enclosure Commissioners under the Allotments Act. He knew a case of that kind where the site given was common land which the poor of the parish had a right and freehold in. That land was given for the purpose of a school for any sect or denomination, but for the whole parish. What was done with it? A deed was prepared for it under which it was given to the National Society. This was property which belonged to the whole parish. A Committee of Management was set up, all of whom had to be members of the Church of England. That was an instance of the diversion of trust property from its original purpose. He did not say anything about the particular form of the Amendment, but he was voting for the substance, and he did not cavil at the words of the Amendment like the hon. Member for North Camberwell. His leader in this matter was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley, and acting upon the great principled he had laid down in this House, he proposed to go into the Lobby to support the Amendment of his hon. friend.

said he did not think his hon. friends were right in supposing that there were many cases in which endowments had been diverted form educational purposes. The Amendment was really directed to cased in which the Charity Commissioners' schemes had sectarianised trusts when this was not intended by the founders. It was from the point of view that he proposed to support the Amendment. It was very difficult for him to raise the question conveniently upon this Amendment, but that was the fault of the conditions under which they were discussing this Bill. If they had had any prospect of dealing with this question by another Clause they would have done so. They had to take such chances as the indulgence of an autocratic Government gave to them, and his hon. friend had taken this opportunity with his Amendment, which submitted to the Committee the fact that there were a good many trusts intended for the parish generally which had been made sectarian in their character. If the Government would propose another Amendment dealing with this injustice, he believed his hon. friend would be willing to withdraw his Amendment, but if they persisted in this non possumus then he would have to divide the Committee.

asked the Hon. Member not to press the Amendment. It was really not a practical Amendment. He was on a committee that administered an endowment in so far as it related to school purposes, the scheme under which they acted having been sanctioned seven or eight years ago by the Charity Commissioners. If the money were to go to the poor a great deal might be said