To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any provision in the Education Bill, or elsewhere, to enable a local education authority to teach elementary subjects, paid for out of funds set apart for higher education, in evening continuation schools, without contravening the meaning of Clause 2 of the Bill. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) There is no such express provision. Whether any provision is in fact necessary, having regard to the words of Clause 2, is at present under consideration.

To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that 20s. postal orders cannot be purchased at the British post-offices at Constantinople, Salonica, and Smyrna; and, seeing that the French post-offices in Turkey charge the same commission on money orders there for France as is charged in France itself, he will, with a view to encourage British trade, give similar opportunities. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am aware that postal orders for 20s. cannot be purchased at the British post-offices at Constantinople, Salonica, and Smyrna. The rates of commission charged at those offices for the issue of money orders are the same as are charged in this country for money orders payable at places abroad, and it is not proposed to interfere with them. According to the latest information in my possession the rates of commission charged on money orders issued at French post-offices in foreign countries for sums of £1 and over are higher than the French inland rates.

To ask the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that, in the case of accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank, fractions of £1 do not receive interest, and that the £ must have been on deposit a clear calendar month to secure interest, will he state the amount actually credited by way of interest in the books of the Department to the 805,436 accounts which are stated to have shown balances over £50 during the year 1899, and will he quote the total amount credited by way of interest during that year to the whole of the 8,046,680 accounts open. (Answered by Mr. Austen, Chamberlain.) The total amount of interest credited to all depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank for the year 1899 was £3,023,821. No figures are at present available to show how much of this sum was credited to accounts having balances over £50, and to obtain the desired information would involve an amount of labour and expense which I should not be justified in incurring.

To ask the Postmaster General whether he will explain why the starting pay of telegraph learners has been raised in some of the largest offices in England, and whether he is prepared to extend the concession to the remainder of the offices throughout the country. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) As stated in the House on the 30th June last, a change has been temporarily made at some of the largest offices under exceptional circumstances, and it is not proposed to extend the change elsewhere.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the Committee appointed in 1899 have received ten applications for grants in aid of harbours in Scotland, will he state the names of the places for which grants were refused. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The names of the places in Scotland for which grants were refused are (1) Auchmithie (Forfar); (2) Boddam (Aberdeen); (3) Broadbay (Ross and Cromarty); (4) Buckpool (Banff); (5) Dunbeath (Caithness); (6) Noah Knapdale (Argyle); (7) Portmahomack (Ross and Cromarty); (8) Valtos (Ross and Cromarty.)

To ask the Lord Advocate whether he has any official reports showing the results of the efforts of the Congested Districts Board in the Island of Lewis to improve the breed of poultry; and will he state how many sittings of eggs have been sent to the Island of Lewis this year. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) It is very difficult for the Congested Districts Board to get replies to their inquiries from the recipients of eggs, but the general effect of those received is favourable. One hundred and forty-two fowls and forty sittings of eggs were applied for and sent to Lewis in the earlier half of 1902.

To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the name of the engineer who has been deputed to report on the condition of the harbour at Port Ness, Island of Lewis; and will he state when this gentleman proposes to visit the harbour. (Answered by Mr. Graham A. Murray.) Mr. William Shield. The actual date of his visit has not yet been definitely settled, but will probably be before the end of the year.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any precautions are taken by the Inland Revenue Department to ensure that those who shoot game in Ireland are provided with a game certificate; whether the attention of the Department has been directed to evasions of the law in King's County; and whether any steps have been taken in relation thereto. (Answered by Mr. Hayes-Fisher.) The officers of Inland Revenue in Ireland, with the co-operation of the Royal Irish Constabulary, take every precaution against evasions of the Game Licence Laws. The attention of the Board of Inland Revenue has net been specially drawn to evasions of these laws in King's County.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that in the Treasury, Colonial Office, Customs, Scotch Office, and Seamen's Registry. &c., Office certain assistant clerics (abstractor class) are in receipt of personal allowances or gratuities of £20 and £30 per annum, he will consider the advisability of extending this privilege to abstractors of meritorious service in other offices on the recommendation of the head of a Department. (Answered by Mr. Hayes-Fisher.) The Treasury is always ready to consider a recommendation from the head of a Department for an improvement in the position of an abstractor who is employed on work of a class higher than could otherwise be fairly required of him.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to resolutions recently passed by various poor law unions and conferences in favour of a central superannuation fund, and if in any Amendment of the Superannuation Act it will be made compulsory for poor law officers to retire at sixty-five: and whether, seeing that there are clerks connected with some unions who are nearly eighty years of age, the Local Government Board will suggest to the local board of guardians the need for paying greater attention to the retiring section of the Act. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My attention has been called to resolutions passed on the subject of a central superannuation fund. As to the second point, I am not aware that there is any proposal to amend the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act in the direction referred to. As regards the concluding part of the Question, it is competent to a board of guardians to require, any officer who has attained the age of sixty-five to retire if they consider that this would be expedient in the interests of the public service. It does not at present seem to me necessary to communicate generally with boards of guardians on this subject; but if representations were made to me that any particular officer is by reason of old age unfit for the discharge of his duties I would give the matter my attention.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has given any pledges or entered into any reciprocal agreements with any Foreign Power in regard to China or Japan, of which this House has not been made cognisant; whether it has given any such pledges or entered into any such reciprocal agreements in regard to the Mediterranean or to any country abutting on it with any Foreign Power of which this House has not been made cognisant. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) I venture to hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am only able to reply that I have no statement to make upon the inquiry which he has addressed to me. Any other reply, he will allow me to say, would be contrary to public interest.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of the police at Rathcormac on the 9th instant, on the occasion of a Gaelic tournament held in a paddock rented for the purpose by the President of the Gaelic Club, when a head constable and some policemen refused to pay for admission, and forced an entrance into the paddock; and, seeing that meetings of the Gaelic Club for various sports are held in Rathcormac week after week, will the police be instructed to exercise more discretion with regard to them in future. (Answered by Mr Wyndham.) The police did not use any force in entering the field, and no objection was taken to their presence by the owner. On many occasions disturbances arising out of these tournaments have taken place, and it was deemed prudent to have police in attendance at the meeting in question. They do not unnecessarily intrude on such occasions.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of recruits, exclusive of re-engaging Reservists, who have been enlisted, since the conclusion of the South African War, for the Regulars and Militia respectively, specifying in each case the numbers for each arm of the Service, and, in the case of the Infantry, the number of specials. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The following statement shows the number of recruits who have been enlisted since the conclusion of the South African War to 1st November, for the Regulars and Militia respectively:—Regulars: Household Cavalry, 62; Cavalry of the Line, 2,912; Royal Artillery, 5,157; Royal Engineers, 626; Foot Guards, 701; Infantry of the Line, 11,051; Army Service Corps, 484; Army Ordnance Corps, 172; Royal Army Medical Corps, 352; Total, † 21,520. Militia: Royal Artillery, 1,217; Royal Engineers, 148; Infantry, 13,736; Royal Army Medical Corps, 197; Total, 15,298. It is not possible to obtain figures for a broken period as to the number of specials without obtaining returns from all the districts, for which I am not prepared to call.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the physical standards for recruits enlisted for the Regular and Militia forces have been raised since the introduction of the higher rates of pay; and, if so, in what particulars.

† Exclusive of 964 re-enlisted under Army Orders 106 of 1900 and 59 of 1901.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the report of Mr. Fenwick's explorations and discoveries in British Honduras; and whether the names of the places discovered will be published in the British Honduras Government Gazette. (Answered by Mr. Secretary, Chamberlain.) I have received a Report on the subject of the hon. Member's Question. Mr. Fenwick does not appear to have added to the existing knowledge of the Colony.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a request for further financial assistance to the burghers of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony in addition to the sum already voted by Parliament; and whether he proposes to confer with the Boer generals on the subject.

I have no expectation of any further interview before I leave for South Africa. The views of the generals and my reply will be found in Cd. 1284.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state why a distinction was drawn between the Volunteer officers who went out to South Africa at the beginning of the war and those sent out between six and eighteen months before it was terminated, to the detriment of the latter in respect both of leave and pay, which were granted on landing to the one and withheld from the other; why Volunteer officers from the Mother Country were less liberally treated than Colonial officers in regard to decorations; and whether it is intended to continue the requirement that officers holding His Majesty's Commission in the auxiliary forces must be sworn in by recruiting sergeants as private soldiers, and answer the questions in the attestation papers, before obtaining temporary commissions in the Regular army.

As regards the first part of the Question, no such distinction was drawn. The Volunteer officers who returned with their units were given a month's leave with pay for the purpose of settling up with their men; those who came home individually were released from service from the date of disembarkation, unless retained in South Africa for the public service, when they were given a month's leave from date of disembarkation. As regards the second part, my right hon. friend gave the hon. Member a full reply to a Question which he put on the 12th instant,† to which I have nothing to add. As regards the third part, the practice was discontinued in 1900.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War with respect to the Volunteer officers employed in South Africa and who were mentioned in despatches and received rewards, if he will state the number of these officers who served with Volunteer companies and engineer detachments.

I will obtain the information requested by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that, owing to the conditions under which the King's South African medal is granted, some of the Auxiliary forces are debarred from receiving it, the conditions may be so amended that all those who served in South Africa during any portion of His Majesty's reign may receive the medal.

† See page 746.

Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my right hon. friend's reply to a Question put by my friend the hon. Member for York, on Monday last, † wherein it was stated clearly that there was no intention of altering the regulations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that certain of the battalions of Imperial Yeomanry that went to South Africa in 1902 arrived there too late for the grant of the Queen's medal, in consequence of the fact that they had been kept at Aldershot two months longer than it was stated would be the case in the warrant under which they enlisted, the same medal could be given to them as was given to the Militia employed at Malta.

No, Sir; this medal was given for service in the Mediterranean, and is not applicable to South African service.

I shall take the earliest opportunity of drawing attention to this matter.

Will the Government not grant them some medal?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Reservists who took part in the South African Campaign, and left the colours with an exemplary, very good, or good character, are to be re-admitted to the Army if so desirous and able to pass the medical examination, without distinction as to the date of transfer to the Reserve.

No, Sir. They must have been transferred or re-transferred to the Reserve between the 1st June, 1902, and the 1st January, 1903, the object being to aid those soldiers

† See page 1118.

May I ask whether consideration cannot be given to the case of men discharged in April last, who find great difficulty in obaining employment, and were misled by the public announcement?

I do not think they need have been misled. I will mention the case to my right hon. friend, but these men had three or four clear months in which to get employment before the mass of the Reservists came home.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that inconvenience is being caused to the public schools and other educational establishments by the uncertainty which now prevails as to the future syllabus of the Army entrance examinations; and whether he can now announce his intentions with regard to the syllabus unanimously recommended by the Military Education Committee.

I am most anxious to obviate any avoidable inconvenience, but the subject is a very important one, and I can only say that full time will be given before any change is brought into operation.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state how Welsh and New Zealand coal compare in the relation of bulk to weight, and in the effective development of steam; what percentage less weight of New Zealand coal can be stowed in a given bunker space, and how much more effective is a given weight of Welsh coal in developing steam; and if he can state approximately the actual and percentage difference in price between Welsh and New Zealand coal delivered at the China Station during the last few mouths.

The Admiralty do not think it is in the public interest to furnish detailed particulars with regard to the coal actually carried on ships of war. The results of trials made in foreign countries are not communicated to the Admiralty. I must ask, therefore, to be excused answering the hon. Member's Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give the results of any recent full speed trials by His Majesty's armoured twin crew cruiser "Cressy," made with New Zealand or other coal.

No report has yet been received at the Admiralty o any speed trial by H.M.S. "Cressy" during the present year. The last full speed trial of which the results are known took place in October, 1901, before the vessel left for the China Station.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the nature of the defects in the machinery of H.M.S. "Hyacinth" which prevent her having her new trial with H.M.S. "Minerva."

There are no defects in the machinery of H.M.S. "Hyacinth" which prevent her from proceeding with trials with H.M.S. "Minerva." As the object of these particular trials is to test various propellers of different form and dimensions, some time is necessarily occupied between the trials in changing the propeller blades.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman why proper screws were not designed for this ship at first?

The hon. Member knows that the question of screws is one which is being experimented on in almost every country, and we are experimenting in order to ascertain if better results are to be obtained from these screws than from the original ones.

The powers of the screws have been known for years, and no more experiments are necessary.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the effect on British trade in the French Congo of the grant of exclusive rights of proprietorship and trade by the French Government to the concessionaires, who now demand the expulsion of British firms from the country; and whether he can state what progress has been made with the negotiations with the French Government relative to the claims of British subjects for restitution and compensation.

His Majesty's Government recognise that this is a matter of great importance to British trade. It has for some time past been the subject of negotiation with France, and definite proposals are now under the consideration of the French Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to convey to the House respecting the Kabyle revolt in Morocco, and the steps taken by His Majesty's Government to protect British interests in that quarter.

His Majesty's Minister at Tangier reported by telegraph on the 12th instant that the Borgu tribe near Tetuan had cut the road and stopped traffic between that town and Tangier, on account of the Governor of Tetuan refusing to release some people of their tribe. Sir A. Nicolson does not appear to anticipate any serious trouble at present. We shall, however, be in a position to send ships in order to protect British life and property should occasion arise.

How can effective protection be afforded by British ships to persons in the interior?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many aliens have been charged at Metropolitan police courts in the last twelve months; and if, having regard to the number of criminal cases throughout the country in which aliens are concerned, he will consider the desirability of acquiring the power of expelling from the country aliens who have made themselves amenable to the criminal law; and further, what steps are being taken to prevent persons expelled from Belgium and other Continental States in consequence of anarchist outrages settling in London and other British centres in the absence of any other State consenting to receive them.

During the twelve months ending the 31st October last, 4,943 persons of foreign nationality were charged at the Metropolitan police courts. As regards the second and third paragraphs of the Question, it would be premature to make any statement or express an opinion as to the desirability of legislation pending the Report of the Royal Commission which is now inquiring into the whole question of alien immigration.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these figures show an increase on those for the previous year?

I cannot say.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state why the constables on duty in Palace Yard, on Monday 17th November, were obliged, having regard to the state of the weather, to remain on duty without greatcoats. The hon. Member added: It is not suggested that any complaint was made by any of the men concerned.

There was no such obligation as the hon. Member suggests. On the contrary, instructions that the men should wear greatcoats were issued early on the day mentioned by the responsible officer.

Then why did not the men obey orders?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom from 1887 to 1901, including figures to 31st March, 1902, was distributed to Members on 10th October, 1902; and can he make arrangements whereby these accounts may henceforth be distributed at a less interval than six months after the close of the period which they embrace.

The distribution of the United Kingdom Abstract was to some extent delayed this year owing to special circumstances connected with the revision of some of the financial Tables—circumstances which it is hoped will not recur. Every effort is made and shall be made t o issue the Abstract as early as possible.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is yet in a position to say when the extension of the Post Office Telephone System throughout the metropolis and suburbs will be complete; will he state the amount expended by the Post Office up to the present time on this service, the number of subscribers, and the amount of their rentals.

Seven Post Office Telephone Exchanges have already been opened in London since the 1st March. These serve districts which include more than half the previous users of telephones. Four other exchanges to serve large areas are well advanced. Owing to the rapidly increasing demand for a telephone service, it is not practicable to name a date when the system can be regarded as complete. The authorised expenditure on works now in progress is in round figures £1,261,000. These works provide not only for the service of existing subscribers, but to a much greater extent for future requirements. The number of subscribers' telephones now working is 5,160, and this number is being increased by from 150 to 200 a week. The receipts in respect of the local exchange service in London up to the 15th instant were £34,473, and £1,086 was received for trunk calls made by Post Office subscribers.

Are these new subscribers put into communication with the subscribers of the National Telephone Company?

Yes, Sir; that follows from the terms of the agreement which the House had under discussion early in the year.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a member of the family of the postmaster at Londonderry was recently supervised at Gravesend and Douglas, Isle of Man, by another member of the same family; whether this official was recently temporarily transferred to Belfast from Douglas, arid subsequently to Londonderry; and whether he can state the result of any inquiries that have been made into these matters.

A daughter of the postmaster of Londonderry was attached to the Gravesend and Douglas post offices, of which her father was postmaster. She has been recently transferred temporarily to Belfast and to Londonderry. Although the Department does not generally regard it as satisfactory that an officer should have to supervise a member of his own family, I do not think it necessary to insist in all cases that a daughter of a postmaster should be excluded from her father's office.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the provisions of the Education Bill, 1902, under which local education authorities are compelled to provide elementary public school accommodation, extend to the provision of evening elementary schools under Clause 18 of the Bill as reprinted.

The effect of sub-Section (1), Clause 18, of the Bill, will need consideration; but it does not appear that the duty to provide public elementary school accommodation under the Bill extends to the provision of evening elementary schools under that sub-Section.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will state whether the powers vested in the County Council under sub-Section (a) of Clause 13 of the Education Bill could under any circumstances, through the operation of sub-Section 7 of Clause 12 of the Bill, as amended, be applied to any parish or parishes in Wales or Monmouthshire.

The County Councils in Wales and Monmouthshire will have the powers given by sub-Section, (a), Clause 13 (1) of the Bill, with regard to expenses incurred under the Bill. But the provisions of Clause 13 of the Bill will not apply to money spent under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889. The effect of sub-Section (7) of Clause 12 of the Bill is merely to alter the constitution of the body who administer the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, not to alter the actual provisions of the Act.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of Bernard Kennedy v. Michael Moore at the Bagnalstown Petty Sessions, in which the Royal Irish Constabulary claimed the right to serve summonses for the Petty Sessions Court at Bagnalstown in cases at the suit of the Town Commissioners; and whether he will issue instructions to the police to have these summonses served by the proper officer employed by the Town Commissioners.

It has hitherto been the practice of the constabulary to serve summonses in these cases. That course was adopted to convenience the Town Commissioners. If, however, the Commissioners desire that summonses in all cases in which they are complainants, should beserved by their own officer, no objection will be raised by the constabulary.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the delay and expense caused to suitors by the accumulation of cases in the Recorder's Court in Dublin; and whether, in order to obviate this public inconvenience he would be prepared to introduce a new Clause into the Local Government (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill extending the jurisdiction of the Court of Conscience from £2 to its former limit of £10.

I am not aware that there has been any accumulation of cases in the Recorder's Court in Dublin. Whether the jurisdiction of the Court of Conscience should be extended is a matter for consideration, but any reform of the existing procedure would not be germane to the Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have received reports from the Bagnalstown medical officer as to the necessity of a water supply for that township; whether they have made any inquiry into these complaints; and what action they propose to take to insist upon the local authorities providing a water supply for the inhabitants.

The question of improving the water supply for this township is at present under the consideration of the district council, at whose instance a local committee is investigating the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds the Board of Works have refused to issue the final instalment on the loan for artisans' cottages in Newbridge to Kildare; and whether, in view of the public inconvenience thus created, he will direct the balance of the loan to he issued without further delay.

The Board of Works has not refused to issue the loan. The local authority has not yet completed the forms necessary to enable the Local Government Board to recommend the issue.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Inspector General has received any complaints from the Board of Guardians of Thomastown Union as to the recent action of District Inspector Fleming, and to the fact that he has relatives living in the district; and what has been the result of the inquiry into thin matter.

These complaints have formed the subject of a correspondence between the guardians and the Inspector General, whose decision had been communicated to the guardians. If the hon. Member has not seen the correspondence, I shall he glad to send him a copy.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the names, qualifications, previous experience, and previous employment, and the salaries paid to the valuers employed by the Commissioner of Valuation in making the recent revaluation of Belfast.

This information is being tabulated and, when completed, will be communicated to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many appeals have been made to the county court judges during the last twelve months against rating valuations made by the revisers under the new system of valuations; how many valuations have been decreased on appeal; and in how many has the original valuation been upheld.

There is no new system of valuation in force in Ireland. The number of appeals to Quarter Sessions during the past twelve months was fifty-seven. Changes were made by the county court judges in eighteen cases; I am inquiring as to the nature of the changes made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the names of the officials referred to by the Lord Chief Baron in the case of O'Keeffe v. Walsh and others, of Tallow, as having failed in the discharge of their public duties; and, if not, whether any public inquiry will be held into this matter with a view to discovering the parties responsible.

No, Sir. I am not prepared to debate the course pursued by the Executive more than three years ago by way of Question and Answer in tins House.

Why are not these officials prosecuted for breach of trust?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state if Members of Parliament sentenced to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, are permitted during their imprisonment to receive their Parliamentary Papers and to communicate with the authorities of this House as to Amendments and Notices of Motions standing in their names; and, if not, whether he will direct any modification of the prison rules in this respect.

No, Sir; the prison rules do not, I am advised, admit of the privileges referred to. It is not proposed to alter the rules, which are identical with those in force in English prisons.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will introduce provisions into the Education Bill, as was done in the case of The Finance Act, 1894, to prevent sham trust deeds being executed with a view to evading the provisions of the Bill.

I take it that if a trust deed is a sham it will not be upheld by the Courts, and no special provision is required in this Bill to provide against it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether sub-Section (4) of Clause 8 of the Education Bill would subject the decisions of the managers of voluntary schools in regard to religious instruction to an appeal to episcopal authority where the trust deeds at present provide for it.

Without attempting to interpret the hon. Gentleman's phrase "the decisions of the managers," I may observe that wherever a trust deed gives an appeal to the bishop to determine whether the teaching is or is not in conformity with the trust deed, that appeal will still remain obligatory.

Will there be any appeal to the Board of Education from the bishops?

No, Sir. I take it that the Board of Education will be quite out of this.

Will there be any circumstances under that sub-Section in which there will be an appeal to the Board of Education?

Perhaps it was rash to do so in answer to a Question without notice, but I have indicated my opinion for what it is worth, without consulting the exact phraseology of the Bill, that there will be no appeal to the Board of Education with regard to religious instruction. I do not believe there will be any such appeal.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now able to say whether the Report of the engineer sent to report on the harbour on the eastern side of the Rock recommended by the Gibraltar Committee in March 1901 will be laid upon the Table of this House; and, if so, when; and, if it will not be laid, can he state generally what course His Majesty's Government intend to take in order to render Gibraltar tenable, and to keep it open as a naval station.

Yes, Sir; I have much pleasure in informing the hon. Member that the Report can be laid immediately.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the Civil Service Appropriation Accounts for the year ending 31st March only reach the Comptroller and Auditor General on the next 30th November, and that the Army and Navy Appropriation Accounts for the same period only reach him by 31st December; and whether these intervals of eight months and nine months respectively can be shortened and the accounts delivered earlier, so as to admit of a. more complete examination of them by the Comptroller and Auditor General before he presents his Reports thereon to the House.

I understand that the dates 30th November and 31st December are fixed by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act of 1866. The Comptroller and Auditor General is not limited in the examination of the accounts to the time after he has received them in a complete form. The accounts of the spending Departments are rendered monthly, and so his examination of them proceeds throughout the financial year, while in the largest Department he has his own officers permanently located for the work. I understand the Comptroller and Auditor General himself has no complaint to make of the time allowed.

I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the dates are fixed in the Act only as the limit beyond which the time shall not be extended.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, is he aware that the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom for the year ending 31st March, 1902, and ordered by the House to be printed on 23rd June, 1902, were not distributed till 31st August, 1902; and can he make arrangements so to expedite the future printing and distribution of these Accounts that they may be distributed at a less interval than five months after the close of the period they include.

The Finance Accounts include the final Returns of revenue for the expiring year, which, coming as they do from all parts of the United Kingdom, require many adjustments, and cannot be ready until some time after the close of the financial year. The printing of the accounts has to be done at a time when the pressure on the Government is considerable, but although every effort will be made to expedite their distribution I am afraid I should be holding out false hopes if I promised any great acceleration.

said there ought to be some discussion as to the generally unsatisfactory character of this Clause before they came to the Amendments. On examination of this Management Clause they found it to be as narrowly denominational as it could possibly be. The trusts, as at present constituted, were of various characters, but in general they would either leave the appointment of the managers in the hands of the incumbent or else in the hands of the subscribers to the school. But one of the first things likely to occur as a result of this Bill was that the subscribers would become nonentities. At every stage of the Bill money was being put into the hands of the managers, thereby relieving them of the necessity for seeking subscriptions; and where now there were perhaps twenty or thirty subscribers giving a pound apiece, in future there would only be two or three. The rest of the money required for repairs would be obtained from other sources, such as the rent of the schoolmaster's house and from endowments, which, by the action of the Committee on the previous day, were largely put into the hands of the managers. The result of the disappearance of the subscribers would be that the appointment of the foundation managers would be in the hands of the parson in a great many more cases than at present. In many cases there would be no subscribers left, except the incumbent and his curate, who would for form's sake remain a subscriber to the school. This appeared to him to be a very unsatisfactory condition of things to perpetuate. What would happen with a large number of the villages, where at the present time persons other than friends of the incumbent were chosen to serve on voluntary school committees? This Bill had created in the minds of the clergy a presumption of hostility between themselves and the popular managers; and, in future, the parson, where he had the power, would do his best to choose four managers who would uphold his particular views and would follow his lead absolutely. He would deem that necessary, because he would regard the two managers chosen by the public as hostile to himself. The four foundation managers would probably be the parson, his favourite curate, the wife of the squire, whom he could depend upon to give an annual tea to the children, and one of the churchwardens. He contended that the members of the denominations concerned ought to have more freedom in the; selection of managers, and that there ought not to be left so much power in the hands of the incumbent of the parish. Was there any reason why two of the managers should not be appointed by communicants of the Church to which the school belonged? It would maintain the essential spirit of the trust. It would be very unfortunate if in future the managers were chosen from "the inner ring" of the parish, controlled by the parson. He had in his mind a case which occurred in the North of England in which the parson, because of his very High Church proclivities, lost nearly the whole of Ins congregation, and merely preached to the squirearchy of the county, who came from long distances in order to listen to his eloquent sermons. The people of the parish went elsewhere. But what would be the condition of things in a case like that? The incumbent would practically have the appointment of the whole of the four managers, and surely it would be better if his parishioners had a right to select at least two of them. It certainly would cause less friction. He hoped the scope of the Clause would he widened so as to ensure that the denominational managers were more truly representative.

hoped the Prime Minister would be kind enough to explain to the Committee how it was proposed to work this Clause. No one would know how to go about the appointment of the four denominational managers. It would be very difficult to make the appointments in accordance with the present trust deeds, because one of the constituencies named by the trust deeds—namely, the subscribers to the schools—would exist no longer, as there would be no need for subscriptions. The First Lord had on innumerable occasions told them that one of the main objects of the Bill was to destroy what had been called the one-man management of the school, but by practically placing the appointment of all four denominational managers in the hands of the incumbent they were deliberately giving more power to the one man than he had ever before had. It was boned to create a great amount of friction. It was not a healthy state of things that the majority of the managers of a school should owe their position to the nomination of the incumbent. The best people would not accept office on such terms; men and women of independent character certainly could not do so.

thought the First Lout would admit that the Clause required a good deal of amendment, even from his own point of view. What was the Government's idea as to these appointments? Under the model trust deed of the National Society which dominated the majority of the Anglican schools the management was vested in the clergyman of the parish and his curate or curates. There were to be four denominational managers under the Bill, so that where the incumbent had three curates he and his curates would fill the four places. As a rule in country parishes the incumbent had one curate. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."]

In the majority of cases the clergyman of the parish has no assistance.

Does the hon. Member tell me that in the vast majority of cases the clergyman has not assistance in the way of a curate?

Yes

said he would accept that statement from the hon. Member, but at any rate in thousands of parishes the clergyman had a curate; in those cases half the denominational managers would be, clerical. How were the others to be appointed? Under the model trust deed any vacancy was to be filled by election by the subscribers of 10s. and upwards of the current year. The Clause passed yesterday destroyed that constituency. There would no longer be any need for subscribers now that the only burden on the managers was the repairs. To bear that burden the managers would have the rent of the schoolmaster's house, which would alone be a larger sum than was generally represented by the subscriptions.

There are very few schoolmaster's houses in towns.

I am dealing with rural districts.

And in many rural districts they have not a teacher's house.

said he accepted the hon. Member as an authority on curates, but on this point he could not agree with him. His hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell informed hint that out of 14,000 voluntary schools, there were 8,194 to which schoolmasters' houses were attached, and the rent of these buildings would provide a fund for repairs. In these cases certainly the subscribers were not needed. The second fund arose out of the endowments, and in many cases the endowments, unless they were earmarked for the school teacher's salary, would be at the absolute discretion of the trustees for the fabric and repairs. These two funds would render it unnecessary to appeal for subscriptions. [An HON. MEMBER: Then there are the fees.] With the fees there would be three funds which would enable them to dispense absolutely with subscribers. Supposing that they wanted a few pounds in cases where there were no endowments and no schoolmaster's house, what would happen? A big sum was not wanted, but a sufficient sum of money for the purpose. The clergyman would fix his own constituency. He would settle down with his curate to make out a list of the men who would probably subscribe. The curate might suggest Mr. So-and-So, because he was a rich man. The clergyman naturally wanted the control of his school. There was a good deal of human nature in Holy Orders. He would object to the gentleman named by the curate because he was a Low Churchman whose views did not correspond with his own. He would then pick out the members of his congregation of either sex who would be most amenable to his influence. All he had to do was to go to four or five members of the congregation who were his best supporters. He would ask them to put down £1 each, and the men so picked out would elect the managers in the district. But to say that this method of selection represented even the denomination itself was a perfect farce. Since the Government had decided that schools should be denominational let them be frankly so. Let them really represent the denomination. Did they propose that the trust deeds should remain as they were, the clergyman ex officio with power to appoint his own curate or curates, and the balance to come front the subscribers whom the clergyman himself selected? In the event of there being no subscribers at all, how did the Government mean to provide a constituency to elect the managers?

Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee that I should now reply on the points raised by the hon. Member for the Elland Division and the hon. Member for Carnarvon. A great deal of the argument of their speech is based on the assumption that no subscriptions or sacrifices will be required in future from those who support the voluntary schools. Well, as a friend of the voluntary schools, I almost wish that were the case, but I am afraid that it is very far from being so, and that it will be found when the Bill comes into operation that the idea that the various denominations interested in these schools will have to make no sacrifices to keep up the schools is an idea which has no foundation in fact. There may be here and there exceptionally constituted schools where the contributions of predecessors have put the schools in so good a position that they do not require to ask the existing generation to put its hand into its pocket to carry out the work of the schools. It is quite true that such cases exist. Cases exist, no doubt, where the endowments are of so large a character that the school is independent of outside support, or where the managers or trustees of the school were possessors of the fee simple of the schoolmaster's house, which they turned to some account. But though these cases undoubtedly exist, the broad fact remains that this Bill, while it does relieve much of the strain that presses on the managers of voluntary schools, and while it removes that particular kind of competition with rate-aided schools, of which the managers of voluntary schools have so long and bitterly complained, does put undoubtedly upon the managers of denominational schools the duty and the necessity of still deriving funds from private sources in order that the schools may remain allocated to the denomination. Therefore I would venture to point out to the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, that the financial basis on which they have proceeded is one which does not correspond to the actual facts of the case. I put the same conclusion in still more precise and explicit language. It is quite clear to me that it is a mistake to suppose that we have destroyed the constituency based on contributions to the school. It may be that annual subscriptions are not required in the same sense as before, but contributions undoubtedly will be required, and I see no reason why, in the schemes to be presented to the Education Department, the managers may not suggest a constituency, modified in some detail, but having for its basis the willingness of the constituency to subscribe for the support of the school of the denomination to which they belong.

Who does the Prime Minister suggest they should be?

Of course it is impossible to suggest who would be the people who would subscribe to the cost of any of the schools in the district, but it is perfectly possible, while modifying the trust deeds, to maintain, if not the precise provisions of the trust deeds, at all events, something on the same lines. I see no inherent difficulty in doing it. The hon. Gentleman gave a sketch of what he supposes will be the constitution of the Board with its four denominational managers. He said that the trust deed of the National Society contemplated, in the first place, that the clergyman shall be ex officio a trustee, to which, in the case of a Church school, I. think nobody would object. He further stated that the clergyman might appoint the curate, if he has only one, two curates if he has two, and three curates if he has three; the result of which manipulation of the body of managers would be that all the four managers would be gentlemen of his convictions. I cannot conceive that that would be the actual operation of the Clause we are now discussing. Of course, as the House knows, the normal board of management will consist of six members, four of them being necessarily denominational; but we do not limit by the Bill the possible number to six. Six is the contemplated number, but there are cases in which that would be exceeded, and if the number of six is greatly exceeded I do not see why there should not be more than one clergyman on that extended number. But I should be sorry to see an immense clerical preponderance on the board of management, and certainly that would be attained if the hon. Gentleman's prophecy were fulfilled. But I cannot believe either that the existing trustees would present any such scheme to the Board of Education for their approval, or that the Board of Education would be disposed to agree to it if there were three clergymen out of a body of four denominational managers on the general board of management. That certainly is not contemplated. It is the business of the Board of Education to have regard to the general scope of the intentions of the trust deeds, but I cannot see that such an arrangement would be desired by the National Society, or sanctioned by the Board of Education. One of the difficulties which must always be borne in mind is that the Clause is necessarily wide and indefinite in its character, because the number of trust deeds to be dealt with are almost infinite in their variety. If we had simply a single form of trust deed to deal with, this House might have a free hand to take it into consideration, to state the way in which, we intend to preserve the spirit of that trust deed, and to say, in view of the general provisions of the Bill, that we propose that such and such modifications should be made. That would be a possible policy, and it might be the right policy if we had only one corm, but as we have to deal with an infinite variety of trust deeds, I think we must draw the framework of this Clause so as to give the discretion of the Education Department and the existing managers the widest possible latitude. I think it was the hon. Member for the Elland Division who asked "what becomes of your protestations about one man management?" My answer is very plain. My answer in the first place is that one man management means, I presume, management by one man. For that we substitute management by six men. That, at all events, will be a considerable change. It is said that this is all a pretence and a delusion, because one is the clergyman and the others are the nominees of the clergyman. Why should there be this view of the relations between the various members of the Church? I cannot think that these men will all be dismissible by the parson, and, therefore, surely I am justified in repeating what I said before. In the first place, this Bill substitutes six men management for one man management, and in the next place it puts on the board two men who have no relation to the original trust deed of the school, and there is no reason to suppose that in regard to the four remaining managers there will not be sufficient breadth and elasticity of arrangement so as to make them properly representative of the denomination to which they belong.

said that one part of the speech of the Prime Minister he could not, for the life of him, understand. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that in such a case as had been put by the hon. Member for Carnarvon, where there would be more than one clerical manager that matter would be dealt with by the Board of Education.

Yes.

Under a scheme?

The word scheme is not used in this Clause, but, of course it is contemplated that the proposal would be made to the Board of Education, which would have something to say as to the constitution of the new body of managers.

No, Sir, that would not occur at all. The case put would be consistent with the trust deed.

No, I think not.

It is the commonest thing in the world for two clerical managers to act.

If we had cut down the denominational managers to four, then it would not be consistent that two or three of these should be clerical members. It would have been different in cases where the board of managers consisted, as was sometimes the case formerly, of fourteen or sixteen members.

said that that was an entirely new rendering of this Clause; and there again he was sure that the Clause would have to be interpreted by the Courts. It had never occurred to him that the case put by his hon. friend would be inconsistent with the trust deed. He did not think it was. There was nothing about the spirit of the trust deed in the Clause. If the Clause were read perfectly carefully, as it was now before he Committee, it would be seen that it had to be shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Education that the provisions of the trust deed as to the appointment of managers were in any respect inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, etc. The ordinary case was where they were consistent. The ordinary case was that the managers were to be communicant members of the Church of England and, in some cases, that they were to be communicant members of the Church of England and subscribers. He believed that it would be held by any court of law that the clergyman and the curate could continue to be put on the board of managers. In the ordinary rural parish there were only three managers. The forms attached to the church doors were more commonly signed by three persons than by any larger number, and of these three, sometimes two were clergymen and one a county gentleman or a leading farmer. He was sure there was nothing inconsistent with that in the spirit or letter of the trust deed. He could not think that the explanation of the Prime Minister was right on that point. Then, as to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that under the Bill things would go on as now in regard to Church management. Their point was that things did not go at all. At the present time there was no constituency. All that was done was that the clergyman asked two people to sign the forms with him. But they were starting afresh and introducing some form of public management of these schools and responsibility of management, and surely his hon. friend was right in saying that in doing so they ought to create some sort of a constituency. In his hon. friend's supposed case it was to be a Church constituency, subject to the conditions of the trust deed. There were two cases which commonly existed at the present time. First, that in which there was no management except one-mail management. The second was worthy of the consideration of the Committee, because it was common in populous parishes where there were small manufactures. In that second case there was a body of managers of Church Schools, but then the trust deed was not adhered to. Although the trust deed said that the managers must be communicant members of the Church of England, as a matter of fact some of them were Nonconformists. He knew of a case where two of the managers of Church Schools were Wesleyans. Of course that had been done with the view of securing liberal subscriptions from Nonconformists. In another case where the management had been so far popularised, the treasurer of a Nonconformist School was also manager of a Church School! That was more popular management, but it was inconsistent with the trust deed. Both these cases pointed in the same direction, and showed that they ought to create a real constituency.

said he wished to apologise to the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs for having interrupted him in the course of his speech, but he was rather led to it by what he considered the exaggerated statements of the hon. Gentleman. There were certain cases of wrong or hardship, but these were the exceptions; and it would be a pity to proceed with legislation on the assumption that the exception made the rule instead of proving it. The hon. Member for Carnarvon said that it was possible under the trust deed for the parson and three curates to form all the denominational members of the board of management, and then the hon. Gentleman proceeded to argue that in all the country districts of England the parson was blessed with one, two, or three curates. Now, he would point out that almost half the country parishes had not got a curate as well as a vicar, that in a small minority there were only two curates and a vicar, and that in scarcely any at all were there a vicar and three curates. He thought that these facts would puncture in some degree the contention of the hon. Gentleman. Then the hon. Member for Carnarvon went on to point out what a conspiracy there would be between the vicar and his curates to get control over the school endowments; but in many parishes they had no other endowments than the school house, while in the towns very few of the parishes had school-houses; so that both from a rural and a town point of view the hon. Member had been misinformed. The hon. Member for North Camberwell said that in 8,000 parishes there were school houses, but he inferred that many of these were board school houses [Dr. MACNAMARA: No; voluntary school houses.] He hoped that the general case against the Government Bill would be more accurately stated in future, in order that the country might know the facts of the situation and the great difficulties with which the Government had to contend.

said he was led to suppose from the hon. Member for Stowmarket that his case was much more the exception than he anticipated, because the country parish with which he was most familiar had one curate, also a schoolmaster's house which could not be claimed under this Bill; and the school had an endowment of £20 a year. His parish might be from that poin of view more favourably situated than the generality; but it must not be supposed that the ordinary type of parish had not a curate and a schoolmaster's house as well. He did think that the country parish with one curate was not at all an exception. [Mr. MALCOLM: I said one half.] If they could have had a Return of the number of voluntary schools throughout the country, giving the composition of the managers and how far they were under clerical control, it would have astonished many hon. Members.

said that six months ago he had asked for such a Return, and the Government actually refused to give it.

said that there were a large number of instances in which the managers were nominated by one man, and he was quite sure that the figures of such a Return would have been a revelation to Members of the House. They had been told that a breach was to be made by this Bill in one-man management, and he understood that the Prime Minister had said that a breach ought to be made in the practice of one-man nomination of the majority of the board of managers. But what he wanted to know was. How was that to be carried out? So far as they could see, this Clause increased the power of one-man nomination, because the amount of subscriptions was to be diminished. They were going to give a large additional sum out of the public funds for the purposes for which the subscriptions were required before, and by diminishing the subscriptions they were placing into the hands of one man, in a great number of cases, the power of nomination of the whole board of managers. He knew of managers instance where the board of managers was entirely at the disposal of the vicar, who said that he was anxious to give that board of managers a broader foundation. That was to be done by giving a nomination of one manager to the Parish Council; but when the Parish Council inquired into the matter they found that whoever they elected as manager must remain at the disposal of the vicar. How was that going to be altered under the present Bill? The Prime Minister said that there would not be a clerical preponderance on the board of management, but the majority would be clerical nominees. He did not see that the Prime Minister made out his case. Supposing the man who hitherto nominated the whole board continued to nominate four-sixths of the Board, how would there he anything in that inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill? That could only be cured by widening the constituency from which the managers were to be selected. The Committee might or might not accept the particular constituency, proposed by his hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs; personally, he should support it. But what lie contended for now was some sort of constituency, and unless the Government could see their way to introduce something in the nature of a constituency, then they on that side of the House should propose a constituency for themselves. The ease for widening the trust deeds, and for not being bound by the provisions of the trust deeds was an immensely strong one. The foundation managers would not be solely appointed for the purposes of the trust; they would be the executive of the local education authority. The trust deeds were drawn up before the State had taken on itself the duties of education. The situation now would be entirely altered. The trustees to be nominated under the trust deeds were to be invested with powers of a far wider character; and the only fair way of compromising, in the public interest, was, while securing the denominational education demanded where the trust deed required it, and foundation managers of a particular denomination, to introduce an element of a constituency which would give some guarantee that these managers, in carrying out the provisions of their trust, would be people who would be worthy to be the executive of the local education authority, and who would feel that they had responsibilities, not merely under the provisions of the trust deeds, but to the wishes of the parents themselves in a particular parish.

said he rose, not so much for the purpose of answering the criticisms from the other side of the House, as to point out one or two things relevant to the discussion. The idea on the other side of the House appeared to him to be that it was just and fair to take full advantage of the existence of school buildings built for a particular purpose and use them to the utmost for educational purposes, and yet not have any regard for the intentions of those who had built and supported those buildings as expressed in the trust deeds. That appeared to him to be a most unfair principle. If the State wanted the buildings, they ought to pay for them. But that was not the principle of the present Bill, and it was rather late to enter on that now. The present Bill contemplated using the buildings without paying for them; therefore, they roust be used subject to the provisions of the trust. That was an argument he was entitled to use; it was not an argument which his right hon. friend could use; because he had already disregarded, or attempted to disregard, the trust deeds on a very important point. The Government would least of all be able to claim that they had been faithful to the principle of the trust deeds. They had disregarded and violated them; and, in the process, they had disregarded, violated and outraged the religious convictions of a great portion of their supporters. That was so. But if they had a grievance against the Government in respect of that and other matters, they were not blind to the fact, which was very clearly emphasised in the debate that evening, that there might be another Government still worse. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Berwick Division was likely to be the most moderate Member of any Government that could possibly take the place of the present Government. Yet, the right hon. Gentleman thought it would be quite legitimate to upset the trust deeds, and have a constituency giving some form of popular control, which had been already rejected in Clause 7. Before, however, the system set up in this Clause could come into operation and a new set of managers were appointed some months must elapse. If any change of Government were to take place, if—he was sorry to put so lugubrious a hypothesis—a distinguished Member of the present Government were to die in the interval, the whole situation might be changed, and the whole of the denominational schools throughout the country would be at the mercy of those who succeeded. He really thought that that was a position open to criticism by those interested in denominational schools. It was to be observed that there was to be some obscure, yet undefined, power given to the managers over religious instruction in the schools. Therefore, the matter was more important than it was before that ill-fated Friday when the Government turned their backs on their own principles, and admitted the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment. That being so, there was ground for the very keenest anxiety. If anything happened to the Government between now and the time those orders came into force, every denominational school in the country might lose its character. Therefore, he earnestly pressed on the Government to consider whether it was fair to those who had built the denominational schools and had supported them, to leave the whole character of those schools at the disposal of any Board of Education which might come into existence between now and next July. That was a very haphazard way of legislating. He did not want to press the Government now; and owing to the situation in which they were placed through the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was very reluctant to move Amendments at that stage; but he hoped the Government would consider whether it would not be possible to introduce some provision which would allay the very reasonable apprehension which was entertained. If a hostile Board of Education came into power every denominational school in the country would be altogether changed.

said he sympathised with his noble friend, who had evidently spoken under the stress of contending emotions. His noble friend was in some doubt, he gathered, whether the Government were more to be reproached for their imaginary change of front, of which he complained, or their reckless dealing with trust deeds; or whether, on the other hand, their preservation was more to be prayed for in order that an even worse Government might not come into existence within the next few months. If his noble friend could suggest any reasonable alteration consistent with their view of their own Bill, which was different from his noble friend's view of the Bill, which would carry out the object which his noble friend and himself had in common, the Government would gladly consider it; but, apart from that, and until he saw that Amendment, he would only say he would do all he could to preserve his own health and that of his colleagues.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had given expression to a purpose with which the Committee would heartily concur; and he might, perhaps, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that the time was approaching when the debates would no longer expose hint to the strain which had excited the apprehension of the noble Lord. He must leave the noble Lord and the Government to settle between themselves the grievance of the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment. He really did not know that that deadly arrow had struck so deep; and he supposed they should hear more about it at a later stage. He should, however, like to assure the noble Lord as to what would happen if another Government came into power. Looking at the Clause, he could not imagine that there could be any considerable discretion given to the Board of Education. It was perfectly clear that, under the Clause, the trust deeds would go on as they were going on now; and that it would have practically no application except in cases where there was no trust deed. If there was a trust deed which could be made compatible with the Bill, it would continue to exist. It was also plain that there would be no power on the part of the Board of Education to alter a deed, unless it contained provisions inconsistent with the Act; and that would, he believed, be only in a small minority of instances. The result would be that practically the powers exercised under the trust deeds hitherto would continue to exist. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that in the majority of cases there was now one-man management; but that one-man management would continue because the clergyman would have the power of appointing. What difference would there be whether he appointed his wife or his daughter or his churchwarden?

asked in how many cases would the clergyman have that power.

said he gathered the clergyman would have that power in a great many cases. The one-man management would continue on account of the facts of rural life. There were three kinds of rural parishes. There was the parish in which there was conflict, which he was afraid would be more acute under the Bill; there was the parish in which the clergyman enjoyed the complete confidence of the laity of his own church, and in which things would go on as at present; and there was the parish—and it was in a great majority—where there was neither conflict nor harmony, but apathy. Thirty years ago the clergyman, speaking generally, was the only man who cared about the education of the parish, and he had a great incentive to making his management effective. He had a strong spiritual motive. The Kenyon-Slaney Amendment showed how exceedingly keen and warm and strenuous were the feelings of the district in a large section of parishes with regard to the spiritual prerogative of the clergyman, and where-ever the clergyman was able he would use that spiritual prerogative to his utmost in the endeavour to get three other managers on the Board who would conform to his views. One could not complain of that, because he would be acting according to his conscientious convictions. But it was for that reason, because there were so few people in the rural parishes who cared for education or who took the trouble to watch over the clergyman, that he believed the one-man management would continue. The charge on subscriptions was a perfectly insignificant charge. He had endeavoured to get an estimate of the charge on subscriptions. In a district covering 100 children it would be very small indeed; it would be a charge quite easy for four or five people to meet, without any strain, out of their own pockets. Added to that there was the fact that in 8400 of these schools they had the rents of the school houses, and in at least 1500 there were endowments and school fees. So that in one half of the voluntary schools there were other funds from which the cost of repairs could be defrayed without touching the subscriptions. He believed the thing would remain, so far as the Bill was concerned, even more in the hands of a small number of persons than heretofore, because hitherto it had been necessary to call for subscriptions from a wider area than now. One other observation suggested itself to him. For twenty-five years they had had in the House a demand, which had latterly become less articulate and less effective, for some recognition of the power of the laity in the Church of England. If one who belonged to another country and was able to look dispassionately at these matters might express his feeling, he would say that it was a pity that in this Bill some better recognition was not given to the rights of the laity. The view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was that the Bill was promoted to secure that denominational teaching which the Church, as a whole, desired. He was sure he did not ignore the laity, but the Bill did. If it did not, it would have provided for a universal rule under which in every parish, whatever the terms of the trust deed, there should have been an election by members of the Church of England in the parish of these denominational managers. If that had been adopted it would have rendered the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment entirely unnecessary. If the right hon. Gentleman would even now admit an Amendment to that effect he would do a better stroke for the Bill than any he had yet done. He was convinced that would be the best way of solving the difficulty, and therefore, in the interest of peace in the Church of England and in the interest of the rights of the laity he very much regretted that some such course had not been taken.

said that the words of the Clause as to the provisions of the trust deed being in any respect inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill obviously pointed to those, the great majority of cases, in which the deed provided for a larger number of managers than was allowed under the Bill. In the great majority of these trust deeds four managers were provided for. The principal task of the Board of Education would be to cut down the number of managers, and he thought they might look to that Department to see that the claims of the clergy and the laity were properly balanced. One very important aspect of the question had not been discussed, and that was the very large number of cases in which there were no trust deeds. How were the Board of Education going to meet such cases? He would be glad to have a little more light thrown upon that. This brought them to a set of cases in which there was no trust deed and the school was private property, which might be diverted to any other purpose by the owner at any time. It was very curious that there was no allusion to the owner of a school throughout. He thought that some words would have to be inserted directing the Board of Education to have regard to ownership in these schools.

appealed to the House to bring the discussion on this Amendment to a conclusion.

regretted he could not accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman. His case against the Clause was that where there was no proper constituency the Clause did not create one, and that where there was a constituency it would destroy it. The Prime Minister had said that the broad fact remained in the Bill that the duty and necessity of still providing proper funds for the repair of denominational schools would rest on the denominational managers. That was true of the original form of the Bill. But from March 24th right down to the present moment it was notorious that the Church, through its leaders, had been attempting to whittle away the financial obligations which had been put upon it by the Bill. As the Bill now stood, the Government had destroyed the constituency by taking away any obligation to maintain voluntary contributions. As the Bill originally stood, there was a considerable obligation on the managers to maintain the fabric out of voluntary contributions, but the obligation had now been practically removed. ["No, no."] First of all, under the Clause adopted on the preceding day the managers were to have a considerable pull on the income from endowments. That income amounted to £151,000. He could not say how much the managers would get of that sum, but whatever the amount, it would go towards the upkeep of the fabric. Then there was the rent from voluntary school teachers' houses, of which there were 8,494. Most of those houses were in the country, and worth, perhaps, only £4 or £5 a year, but those in the towns were worth £25 or £30. Even at the moderate figure of £5 each, the rents would amount to more than £42,000. Then the next Clause to be considered proposed to give the managers a right to a share of the school fees, which in the past had gone to the relief of local rates, and had amounted to £232,000. In addition to that, the Board of Education had agreed that in future there should be fees in night schools. Therefore, from endowments, rents and school fees, there was roughly £500,000 of money, which, together with the £800,000 in voluntary subscriptions, made £1,250,000 upon which the managers would have some claim under the Bill. He had gone carefully into the question of the cost of maintaining the fabric, and considered that an average of 2s. per head would amply meet the charge.

pointed out that, according to the last Report of the London School Board, the charge was 5s. 3d. per head.

thought the hon. Member must surely be aware that all charges in connection with building operations and so forth were much higher in London than in the country. He could point to hundreds of cases in rural districts where the expenditure per child was not more than a penny or two pence, and the Committee might rest assured that 2s. was a generous estimate. On 3,000,000 children, that worked out at £300,000 for the upkeep of the fabric—a charge which could be easily met out of the share of the £1,250,000 given to the managers in the manner he had described, with a considerable sum left over to form a building fund for future use in connection with Clauses 9, 10 and 11. According to the model Clause now in existence, in all respects other than the superintendence of the religions and moral instruction of the scholars, the control and management of these schools was to be vested in and exercised by a Committee, consisting of the principal officiating minister of the district, his licensed curate or curates, and a certain number of other persons who continued to be contributors to the amount of 20s. a year. With this obligation to maintain the fabric practically removed, how many of such contributors would there be? The constituency was practically destroyed, and they would have to fall back on the clerical element. The Prime

said it was generally recognised that the more popular the management the better was the education, but under this Clause all idea of popularising the management of denominational schools was given up. As the hon. Member for North Camberwell had conclusively shown, voluntary subscriptions would practically be unnecessary in the future. That being so, under the provisions of the trust deeds, they would go back to the bad system of one man management—either directly by one man, or by one man and his nominees. The great bulk of the trust deeds would still be consistent with the principles of this Bill, and the managers would be appointed under the provisions of those trust deeds, which meant they would be appointed by the clergyman. In the event of there being no trust deeds, how did the Board of Education propose to proceed? On what principle would the Board provide either trust deeds or for the election of managers? As the existing constituency was to be destroyed, would the Board map out a constituency in the various areas by which managers should be elected, or would they themselves appoint managers? The Clause was extremely vague, and the Committee ought to have some information on this point.

said they had been discussing the question of the constituency that should elect new foundation managers. He wished to make it clear why he was selecting a constituency which was a denominational one. He took it that the decision of the House had been that these managers must be denominational managers. The question was what was a proper denominational constituency for the election of the four managers of a denominational trust? He selected two different bodies. First of all, the parents. The whole case in favour of dogmatic religious teaching had been that it was the demand of the parents. They argued that the parents wanted to bring up their children in their own faith. He knew the state of things that existed in Wales, and he understood that in England about four-fifths of the parents were not concerned much about any faith at all. In Liverpool about 90 per cent. of the population were outside any place of worship on Sundays at the morning or afternoon service. The accommodation in London would only provide for one-fifth of the whole population, so that if they crowded all the churches in London they would have four-fifths of the population outside. It was an extraordinary thing that these places he had mentioned were the keenest about providing dogmatic teaching for the people of Wales, although they did not attend their own places of worship. The people who did not care enough about dogmas to subscribe a penny towards religion in London, nevertheless returned Members to Parliament who demanded that the ratepayers of Wales should give definite religious teaching to their children just to save them from paganism. Was there any other basis on which the Prime Minister, or any other defender of the sectarian faith, could justify this proposal except that the parents wanted their children brought up in a certain faith? The parent was the best jadge, and no one had a right to judge for him. The parent was the guardian of the spiritual interest of his child. If the parent did not want his child brought up in any particular faith why should it he forced upon him by outsiders? Why not leave the parent himself to select? The subscribers had been gradually wiped out by several Acts of Parliament of which the present Bill before the Committee was the climax. The subscriber had been gradually abolished. He suggested that the parents should select two of the managers for the purpose of administering the trusts in which they had a much larger interest than anyone else. It was a great mistake—and the noble Lord opposite was constantly making it—to assume that the only interest they had got in a school was the interest they had in the subscriptions. The most precious interest was that which the parent had got in the faith of his child. If they were going to give the subscriber of 10s. the right to manage the school and to declare what sort of instruction was to be given in it, the man who sent his child to the school had a right to a voice in declaring what sort of instruction should be given, and especially what sort of religious instruction he wished his child to have. Now he came to the second branch of his Amendment. They should not leave it to the minister practically to elect his own colleagues. This was carrying cooperation rather too far. The Prime Minister would not trust the County Council to this extent. The right hon. Gentleman would not trust one member of the County Council to elect the whole of his colleagues, but that was practically what he was doing with regard to the Board of Management. With all the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman, his reply on that matter was very inadequate and slightly irrelevant. He respectfully challenged the Prime Minister to point to anything in the trust deed that would diminish the one-man power of the clergyman. The clergyman selected the curate, and he could select the subscribers. Really, this was very important, because the whole thing turned on it. The clergyman was cognisant of the needs of the school, and if he wanted £10 he would pick out the people who would subscribe the amount. If anyone went to him and obtruded a, subscription on him—a very unusual thing in any kind of business—he might refuse it. He might say that he had already got his £10 and that he did not want more. The hon. Member asked the Prime Minister to say whether the clergyman could refuse a subscription. In any case, he need not collect subscriptions every year; and the trust deed said that the elected managers were to be elected by "the subscribers of the current year." On the question of the denominational character of the management the Committee had decided; but, accepting that decision, he urged that the laity as well as the clergy should be represented. Otherwise, it was a perfect imposture to put this proposal forward as anything but clerical control.

The hon. Member, in moving his Amendment, told us both at the beginning and the end of his speech that he frankly accepted, for the purpose of argument, the decision at which the Committee arrived earlier in the debate that four of the managers should be foundation managers, but either I misunderstood his speech or misunderstood his Amendment, for I thought the first part of the hon. Member's speech advocated not denominational management, but management including two representatives of the parents irrespective of their denomination.

I accepted for the purpose of argument the statement of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, that the parents were eager for denominational teaching.

The hon. Gentleman will admit, I think, that it is part of the complaint he makes against the whole of the Bill that in many Church schools in the country there are children whose parents do not belong to the denomination.

indicated dissent.

That is the actual fact. It has never been denied by any of the advocates of the Bill, and it has been undoubtedly proved by the opponents. It is a notorious fact. These grievances exist sometimes on one side and sometimes on another. The hon. Gentleman will admit that if his Amendment were carried it would not secure that denominational representation of four foundation managers which he professes to be ready to take for the purpose of argument. I do not deal further with that branch of the Amendment because I think it is dealt with in the ten our of the hon. Member's own speech. The remaining part is directed at preventing what the hon. Member regards as absolute clerical domination over the four foundation managers. I am quite unable to understand from the hon. Member's explanation what there is in the normal trust deed of the National Society to give the clergyman this power of nominating all his colleagues for the foundation management. The hon. Gentleman said that the clergyman would hardly ever require subscriptions, and if he did they would be very small in amount. He said that all the clergyman would have to do would be to go to some subservient person in his parish—

Sympathetic, rather.

Some sympathetic person in the parish and say to him "Give me 10s. or £1," or whatever is the qualifying sum, and in that way get a constituency who would only return persons in absolute sympathy with himself. I do riot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The task which will devolve upon the managers of the National Society's schools is that of devising a scheme which will as far as possible carry out the intentions of the trust deed. Now the intentions of the deed of that society are plain on the face of it. They are not intended to give clerical control or a clerical majority on the managing body. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that the clergyman of the parish is ex officio a member. It is also true that he may appoint his curate or curates as managers. There might be on the board of management one, two, or possibly three clergymen, but the number of managers of whom this clerical element would form a part was a large and indefinite number. There is no question under present circumstances of dominating any large body of subscribers, and therefore what the National Society managers will have to do is to try to frame a scheme in which the four denominational representatives shall be a reflection of the kind of body contemplated by the original trust deed, and as that original trust deed does not contemplate a clerically dominated body, so I hope the reflection or copy of that trust deed, which will be embodied in the future trustees or governing body of the schools, will not be any more than its prototype clerically controlled or with a clerical majority. Therefore I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is justified in his contention. I do not think I need go any further in the matter. I do not think the hon. Gentleman in his speech, whatever may be said of the Amendment, described the actual kind of constituency he would wish to have for the election of denominational managers, I content myself with the hon. Gentleman's speech, and with showing, I hope with some force, that just as the existing trust deeds of the National Society are not intended to give this clerical domination of which he is afraid, so the trust deeds which are to replace them will be framed on the same model and will be intended to carry out the same result.

said that what they desired was that the Government should make some suggestion as to the manner in which the managers would be selected. The right hon. Gentleman did not really seem to appreciate the point of the Amendment. In a large number of cases at the present moment there was a good deal of elasticity in the working of the trust, and managers were brought in who did not fulfil the conditions of the trusts. If this Clause passed as it stood the managers would be the persons signified by the trust deed. He did not wish to go over again the arguments which had been so admirably stated, but it was quite obvious that this possibility of choice would be very much limited indeed, for it would not be necessary for a particular school to have so many subscribers as in the past. The hon. Member for Stow-market said that there was no conspiracy on the part of the clergy on this matter. He did not wish to impute any blame as to why there had been one-man management hitherto; but what the hon. Member opposite wanted to retain was that one-man system, while what they on that side of the House desired was to bring the lay element into the management. There were many cases where it had been very difficult to bring on to the board of managers a man of independent mind. The possibility of choice by the clergyman would be so limited that practically all the foundation members would be under his control. It seemed to him that the Clause, as it stood, was contrary to the spirit of the Bill, and even to what the Government desired; and he hoped that even now the Government would enlarge the letter of the Bill by which the trustees would not be absolutely limited in their choice. There was no doubt that of the four denominational managers there might be two clericals and in some, cases three. The Chairman was to have a casting vote, so that all that was necessary was that the Chairman should secure the appointment of two supporters, and that would give him a permanent majority. Another important point was that it was desirable to have the lay element on the board of management, and the only way in which that could be secured in small country districts would be by enlarging the terms of the trust.

said they were all agreed on one point, and that was that the model trust deed would remain in force after this Bill became an Act of Parliament. The question, therefore, was how this trust deed would operate in rural parishes. Any one who read the trust deed knew that the qualification of a manager was very difficult to attain. First, a candidate for managership must subscribe 20s., and the franchise for the election of a manager was a subscription of 10s. for every manager the subscriber wished to vote for. That franchise was very much out of date and ought not any longer to remain in the country. He understood that where the trust deed could not be carried out in its entirety it was, according to the Chancery doctrine of cy pres, to be carried out as near as possible. So far as he understood, this Bill was intended by the First Lord to remove what he called an intolerable strain—which was the subscriptions—from the shoulders of the subscribers who had to bear it. If that were so, what became of those subscriptions and subscribers? They knew now that the voluntary schools had a fund at their disposal sufficient to meet their requirements, and even to leave a profit. When that took place the necessary successors of the subscribers were the ratepayers, and the power of the subscribers ought really to fall into the hands of the ratepayers. The First Lord said that they ought to disregard the trust deeds, but he thought they ought to enforce them, for there was a certain popular element in them. The First Lord admitted that under the trust deeds one-man management was possible; but what was wanted to be enforced was that there should be some general popular denominational element amongst the four members elected by the denomination. They wanted to make these four members not representative of any one man in the parish, but of the denomination itself; and he thought it ought not to be beyond the wit of man to devise some scheme whereby that would be secured. There were representatives of the Protestant Laymen's League in the House, and surely these Gentlemen were anxious that the Protestant laymen should be represented on the board of managers. He asked the hon. Member for East Toxteth, where the Laymen's League was particularly strong, was he really content with the Government scheme on this point? Did he not think that there should be some popular element in the choice of these four denominational managers? It was quite true that in a great many parishes the majority of the parents were Nonconformists, although their children attended the Church schools. But it was open to the hon. Gentleman to move an Amendment to the Amendment, that the parents who elected the denominational managers should belong to the denomination. They had heard of the inalienable rights of the parents, and here was a case where some justice could be done to them.

said there seemed to be a misunderstanding between the two sides of the Committee as to what the intention of the Clause was, and he should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education which was the right interpretation. He really thought the hon. Member for Carnarvon had based his Amendment on the assumption that what would happen in a certain number of cases, after this Clause was passed, would be, that under the typical National Society's trust deeds, where subscriptions would be no longer required, the incumbent would remain the one person nominated by the trust deed on the Committee of managers, but three other managers were to be appointed, and in a case where the subscriptions which had been given were withdrawn, and there were no subscribers left, the incumbent would have it in his power to select those three by simply going to three different people in the parish and saying, "If you will each give 20s. you will become the other three managers." In that way those three would be his nominees, and if he should be displeased with any one of them, all he would have to do would be to say that he did not want his £1, and to apply for the amount from somebody else. Their reading of this Clause was that after the Bill was passed, the appointment of managers under the trust deeds would go on automatically as before, except in a case where the Board of Education was appealed to on the ground that the trust deed was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The reply of the First Lord of the Treasury was that in every such case the Board of Education would draw up or approve a scheme. But where was that to be found in the Bill? The Board would have to approve a scheme for the appointment of a committee, but not every scheme for management. His contention was, that except in exceptional cases, where there were no trust deeds, or where the management under a trust deed was inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill, the Board would not come into the matter.

thought it was no doubt the case that under this Bill a great number of Orders would have to be made, as had been suggested by the right hon. Member for East Somerset, and, under those circumstances, asked whether it would not be worth while to endeavour to arrive at some uniform system. He admitted that the effect of the Bill would be to somewhat diminish the danger of clerical domination. But the question now was, the old constituency being destroyed, how should a new constituency be created? Much was heard of the rights of the laity and their lack of interest in Church matters, and so long as the clergyman remained the autocrat in the parish it was difficult for a Church layman to take such interest. The clergyman was very apt to talk of "my" parish, "my" church, and "my" school, though, on the financial side, it was "your" debt. But debt after the Bill passed would become non-existent and subscribers unnecessary, and he agreed with his hon. friend that two managers should be elected from the parents of children attending the school. But among the strong supporters of this Bill there were some who cared a good deal more for the unalienable right of the parson to dominate everything in the parish than anything else. The probability of the representatives of parents being Nonconformists, and their appointment being inimical to the denominational character of the school, would only arise where there was but the one school amid a population largely Nonconformists, and in such a case he should be prepared to say, let the denominational character of the school cease. It was only fair that the parents of the children attending the school should have a voice in the management.

in reply to the right hon. Baronet, said that where the foundation managers were neither more nor less than the number mentioned in the Bill, there would he no further trouble, and no necessity for application to the Board of Education; but if the managers were too many or too few, or if there was no trust deed, upon application made, the Board would follow the trust deed as closely as possible, or the past system so far as it was in conformity with the Bill, so as to obtain four foundation managers.

gave an instance of a school in the South of England where the voluntary subscriptions amounted to £60, all subscribed by two or three people, and where the managers were elected by virtue of their being subscribers. As a result of the introduction of the Bill, all the subscribers had fallen off except one, and the clergyman was in a position to select his own managers. What would happen in the future would be not the one-man management of which they had heard so much, but more black-cassock management. The "grouping" Clause would further increase the tendency to clerical control, because where six or seven parishes were grouped together for the purposes of appointing one Committee of management, it was not unreasonable to suppose that the clergyman of each particular parish would insist upon being put on the Committee. What were the Government afraid of? Unless there was very good reason for not doing so, parents and communicants would naturally desire that the clergyman should be appointed to the management. After the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment the other side need not be in the least afraid of outside unclerical members coming on the board of management.

said he did not think hon. Gentlemen opposite who had suggested a great number of cases in which difficulties would arise had sufficiently considered how overwhelming were the difficulties in the way of their proposal or any possible proposal on the same lines. As to their suggestion that the other managers, apart from the incumbent, should be representatives of the denomination, if they had been following closely the controversy about Church reform for the last four years, they would know that nothing was so difficult as to say who was and who was not entitled to be regarded as a member of the Church of England. A great many people were anxious to increase the power of the laity in the Church, but in order to determine who were the persons who ought to have extended powers in the management of the Church itself, they must first determine who the laity were, and to attempt to do that by a Clause in this Bill would lead to widespread opposition. Then it was said, why not fall back on the parent? It was perfectly true that the rights of a parent over his child were the greatest rights that could be conceived. But a parent, because he was a parent, had no rights over other people's children. His position was very different from that of a citizen. A citizen was part of a larger whole, and in respect of the whole had certain rights, and therefore there was no impropriety in a majority of citizens determining what was good for a minority of citizens. Therefore they could not have the system of the representation of the laity until they determined who the laity were, and they could not have representation of the parents, because the parents' rights were purely individual over his own children, and consequently they must fall back upon the trust deed, on respect for which the Clause was founded.

said he always listened with considerable interest to the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich because he always tried to bring back the Committee to questions of principle, and more particularly on this occasion because the noble Lord had said two things well worth the saying. He had pointed out how excessively difficult it was to find what the definition of a member of the Church of England was, but the difficulty of finding a definition of what constituted a member of the Church of England, did not alter the general proposition that there ought to be lay control. If the Government admitted that, it was for them to suggest a method which would give some satisfaction to the claims of the laity. He did not gather from the noble Lord whether the laity should be represented or not.

said, as the Bill stood at present, that would depend largely on the trust deed.

said the trust deed was simply a document which determined the destination of certain property, and he denied that the right of looking after bricks and mortar was to prevail over the lives, wishes, and liberties of individual living men. He was sick and tired of hearing this right of property continually brought forward as if it was to supersede and over-ride the rights of living beings. He would far rather buy out or rent the school. The right hon. Gentleman said that was not the scheme of the Bill, but if the Government would come forward with a proposition of that sort, they would find there would be no difficulty about the money. The bricks and mortar would not stand in the way of what was called for in the interests of justice. The argument of the noble Lord as to the rights of parents being individual was very subtle, but because parents might conceivably have different wishes with regard to their children, were all the rights of the parent to be altogether extinguished and denied because he was an individual man, without the right of saying what should be done with regard to every other individual man's child? The idea was absurd. Parents were a kind of solidarity, and, speaking broadly, the wishes of the parents belonging to the Church of England were substantially the same. They would only obtain substantial justice if they adopted the representative system. Therefore, the dilemma put by the noble Lord did not touch the needs of the case. It was no answer to the proposal, and the only answer that could be made by the Government was a better proposal which would more adequately meet the wishes of the parents. Until that was given they would continue to ask for a scheme, and, in default of receiving one, they put forward this scheme, which was better than nothing. With regard to what had been said by the Secretary to the Board of Education as to the cases where there might be too many managers or too few, in the former case, he supposed, the simple course would be to cut oil one. In that case the existing system would remain, and the clergyman would retain such right of nomination as he at present possessed. If there were too few managers, he assumed that one or two would be added in the same manner as persons were now elected, viz., by the subscribers. In neither of those cases would there be any change from the present system; and all that had been said on that side of the House about the position of subscribers, about the clergyman being able to have many or few subscribers as he pleased, and about the subscribers being few and probably immediately connected with the clergyman, still held good, as the management would be substantially the same as in the past. He assumed, and he thought they had a right to assume after the events of the last fortnight, that every possible advantage would be taken by the clergy of the power given into their hands by the letter of the law, and therefore it might fairly be taken from the answer of the Secretary to the Board of Education that the system would remain substantially unchanged.

said that one satisfactory feature of the debate was that it had definitely put an end to the assertion made earlier in the proceedings that the one-man system of management was not interfered with by the Bill.

dissented.

did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to repeat the assertion.

said he repeated it in another form.

thought it was hardly possible for the assertion to be repeated after this debate. First, there was the control of the local education authority over all the secular part of the education; secondly, on the board of managers, who had the control of the religious education, there were two managers nominated by the local authority; and, thirdly, the clergyman would be one of four foundation managers—there being three others who would certainly put an end to the idea that, even as regarded the foundation managers, it was simply a case of one-man management. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen had entered into the question of whether the alternative scheme of buying out the Church schools would not have been better than the scheme in the Bill. But to a sale there must be two parties. It was not enough for a person to be willing to buy; the owner must be ready to sell. If the owners of the Church schools valued the distinctive teaching for which the schools were established so highly that they declined to sell, what was to be done? Were they to be forcibly expropriated? Was Parliament to take these schools, which were provided for one purpose, and apply them to another, thereby violating convictions strongly entertained by those interested in the schools? He ventured to say that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that that was a feasible solution of the difficulty was one which would be rejected by the bulk of Members on his own side who would object to the expense, and by those on the Government side who were interested in the maintenance of the distinctive principles for the teaching of which these schools existed.

said he did not give it as his suggestion. What he said was that the Government ought to have made the offer. The First Lord of the Treasury had spoken as if the difficulty in the way was these schools, but, as he had not made such an offer, he was not entitled to say that that was the difficulty.

thought the considerations to which he had adverted were a sufficient explanation of why such an offer was not made. It was totally impracticable, and would have been rejected by the commonsense of both sides of the House. With regard to the alleged difficulty of framing schemes for the election of foundation managers in the future, he would point out that the provision that the clergyman was to be ex officio a member and was to appoint his curates, was only a portion of a trust deed which contemplated a considerable number of other managers. The National Society's trust deeds provided that there should be original managers—subscribers—and that future vacancies were to be filled up by election by the body of subscribers. So that, as compared with the body provided for in the Bill, a committee of considerable dimensions was there contemplated. The presence of the clergyman, even with two or three curates, on a large body of that kind, was not at all of the same significance as it would be on a body in which there were only four foundation managers. The effect of any order made by the Board of Education under this Clause would be as far as possible to reflect the true intent and purport of the trust deed, although, of course, it would have to be modified to meet the changed circumstances. It would not fairly represent the effect of the trust deed if, where there were only four managers, it gave three places to the clergyman and his two curates. Obviously, if anything like the proportion contemplated in the Bill was to be preserved, provision would have to be made by which the representation of lay subscribers provided for in the trust deed was perpetuated.

put the case of a trust deed which contemplated five managers, of whom the clergyman was given power to nominate one, and asked whether, in the view of the Attorney General, when those five managers were reduced to four, the clergyman's power of nomination should be taken away.

did not think it desirable to enter into details of how any particular case should be dealt with. It was sufficient, at the present stage, to say that the function of the Board of Education would be to make an order that would fairly carry out the true intent of the trust deed, having regard to the altered circumstances. Then the right hon. Gentleman appeared to contemplate that, in future, in a great many cases, there would be no subscribers.

That there would be very few.

apprehended that in future there would be a considerable demand for the purpose of meeting the cost of repairs. There might be individual parishes so happily situated in regard to endowments applicable to repairs that subscriptions would be wanted either not at all, or to a very small extent, but throughout the county generally he thought there would be a large demand to meet the cost of the repairs thrown on the managers by this Bill. It was not for him to forecast the future, but one of the possibilities certainly was that the churches interested in these schools would find it convenient to establish something in the nature of a central fund, either for the whole country, or for considerable districts, to which subscriptions might be paid. It was quite within the range of reason that subscriptions might be given either for the repairs of an individual school, or to a central fund available, as required for the repair of any school within the sphere of the operations of the fund. He did not say whether it would be done or not. It would be for the Board of Education to determine these matters according to the circumstances of the case, but it would be perfectly practicable to say that those who were willing to enter into a legal obligation to subscribe, when required, a certain sum per annum for the purpose of repairs, should count as subscribers, as also should those persons resident in the district served by a particular school who agreed to subscribe either to the particular school or to a central fund available for the purposes of the school. He threw out these suggestions simply to show that the difficulties were not by any means to be assumed to be of the nature supposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he felt tolerably confident that the questions, as they arose, would really solve themselves, and that there would not be any great difficulty in making the necessary orders.

asked, in reference to the hon. and learned Member's last suggestion, whether, if there was a diocesan school repair association, the members of the association would be entitled to vote for the managers of a particular school.

said his suggestion did not go to that extent. It was simply that they might be considered as subscribers for the purpose of electing members of the board of a particular school any persons resident in the district served by that school who had entered into an obligation to pay a reasonable subscription, although that subscription might go to a central fund, so long as the fund was available for the purposes of that school.