To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what amount of time has been incurred in overhauls on the "Hyacinth" and "Minerva" respectively since the date of handing over of former by builders; how much of the time spent in these overhauls has been expended during the financial year ending 31st March, 1903; and what has been the mileage run on trials and commissions respectively by these ships since date of intimation to Boiler Committee that these vessels were ready for comparative trials. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) I am afraid I must ask my hon. friend to defer this Question for a few days longer. It is hoped that the information will be available by the beginning of next week, and I shall then be glad to give him a reply.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of extending to ground landlords who dishouse workers and refuse to grant sites for workers' dwellings the arrangement compelling railway companies to provide dwellings for workers who are dishoused owing to improvements or extensions. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) A railway company who acquire houses occupied by persons of the labouring class are only required to make provision of the kind referred to in the Question where the houses are acquired in the exercise of Parliamentary powers conferred on them. The requirement is regarded as part of the Parliamentary bargain under which the power to acquire the houses is given. The case of the ground landlord does not appear to be analogous, and I am not prepared to propose the alteration in the law suggested.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that forms are being issued by the Inland Revenue Office to landowners and others requiring them to state what their incomes from all sources amount to; and, if so, will he say whether it is compulsory for them to make this Return; and whether he will consider the advisability of dispensing with this Return in the case of landowners whose tenants pay the income tax and deduct it from their rent. (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The forms of Return issued to landowners for the purpose of the quinquennial re-assessment of land and houses contain a form of claim for exemption or abatement of income tax, whereon any intending claimant is required to state the amount of his income from all sources, and it is to this, presumably, that the hon. Member refers. There is, however, no obligation to fill up this form, which is added merely in order to enable any person entitled to exemption or abatement to prefer his claim at the same time that he returns the particulars of the lands or houses in his occupation.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the practice when Government offices are closed on occasions of public rejoicing, and the salaried clerks allowed a holiday on full pay, for an allowance to be made to the engrossing clerks and others who are paid for their work by results; and, if not, whether he will consider if such allowance can be made in future, so that such clerks shall not be losers through being forced to take a holiday. (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) In special recognition of the Coronation holidays of last year, an allowance was made to engrossing clerks paid by piecework in various public Departments. It is not, however, the rule that clerks employed on piece-work which does not occupy them throughout the year shall receive payment in respect of any particular day on which no work is done.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the weight and value of manufactured and partly manufactured steel and iron, and of pig iron exported from the United Kingdom from 1st January to 30th June this year and in the four previous half years. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The following are the figures required by the hon. Member:—

To ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the Return [C. 1638], stating the value of the trade of the various British colonies and possessions with the United Kingdom, other British possessions, and foreign countries during the year 1901, can he state the value of manufactured goods, raw material, and food stuffs respectively, imported into our colonies and possessions from foreign countries during that year. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) This information cannot be given without notice.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the extent of the preference given to colonial over foreign wheat in the Customs tariffs of this country from 1832 to 1845; and whether he has any official information showing how far the increase in the centesimal proportion of the declared value of British manufactures exported to our colonies, from 27·82 in 1832 to 28 04 in 1845, was a consequence of the preference shown by the mother country; and if he can state the percentage increase or decrease in the exports to the colonies of our total exports since the abandonment of any preferential Customs treatment. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The information asked for in the first and last parts of this Question cannot be supplied without notice. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade, will he state the total value of coal exported from this country during 1902, and state approximately how much of that amount represents labour and carnage, and how much represents the value of the coal in the pit. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The value of coal exported from the United Kingdom in 1902 was £26,307,351, exclusive of bunker coal. The last part of the Question is of a speculative character, and cannot be answered from official statistics.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the financial difficulties experienced by the Governors of the Beaumaris County School, owing to inadequate provisions in the Anglesey county scheme under The Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, the Board of Education intend to take steps to remedy the defect, either by means of the powers conferred upon them by the Education Act, 1902, or by some other method. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board have given the most careful consideration to the financial condition of this school, and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the case cannot be satisfactorily dealt with until Part II, of the Education Act of last year has come into force in Anglesey.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what is the reason for the recent discharges at the basket shop at the Mount Pleasant Factory; and if it is the intention in future to have the baskets repaired by private firms instead of employing the men direct, as at present. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) It has recently been decided to do more of the repairing of parcel baskets by contract at local centres, and this change has involved a reduction in the number of repairers employed at the Mount Pleasant Factory.

To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if the approval of the Land Commissioners has been given, or will be given, to the sale of the Fewston, Yorkshire, Glebe Lands; if Section 1 of Clause 8 of The Glebe Lands Act, 1888, has been complied with; what steps were taken to inquire if the sanitary authority for the district desired a portion to be set apart for the purposes of the Allotments Act; and what evidence was taken to discover if the price for the glebe land would be injuriously affected by its division. (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) We were satisfied, after inquiry, that the proposed sale of glebe land would be for the permanent benefit of the benefice of Fewston, and the formal approval of the Board to the sale is therefore about to be given. The requirements of Section 8 (1) of The Glebe Lands Act, 1888, have been satisfied. The Board ascertained by direct inquiry of the sanitary authority that no portion of the land was required for the purposes of the Allotments Acts, and they also ascertained by special inquiry in the parish that there was no demand for the glebe in small parcels by cottagers, labourers, and others.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the representations of magistrates and Reports of Departmental Committees extending back for many years as to the necessity for increasing the number of metropolitan magistrates, His Majesty's Government intend to take steps to enable additional appointments to be made. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) This question has been, as the hon. Member indicates, the subject of several representations and has engaged the attention of successive Secretaries of State. It is true that difficulties occasionally arise with the present number of magistrates, especially when one of the magistrates attached to a Police Court is absent on leave and the other is unable, e.g., by reason of sudden illness, to attend; but in view of the normal amount of work in the Courts my predecessors have felt great difficulty in pressing on the Treasury the appointment of additional magistrates. I do not, however, think that the matter has been considered as finally settled, and it shall have my consideration.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the Irish Local Government Board did not afford to Irish firms the opportunity of tendering for the work at Dublin Castle arising from the King's visit, and why workmen and materials were imported; and whether he can state the amount of money to be so expended. (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) The erection of a temporary building at Dublin Castle was entrusted to a London firm for reasons of urgency, as constant reference has to be made to the authorities at Buckingham Palace. The whole of the timber required for the building is supplied by a Dublin firm, and many Irish workmen are employed. Where reasons of urgency do not apply, the work in connection with the King's visit has been given to Irish contractors. I am unable to say the exact sum which will be so expended.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will give a Return of the number of ranges in the United Kingdom, giving the situation, range, and number of available targets for each range; also the number of Government ranges that have been closed during the last year, and the number that have been opened; also the number and description of ranges being constructed. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Return will be given if the hon. Member will move for it.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if it is possible for Militia and Volunteer officers to get pass school certificates without going through the course at a London barracks. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Militia and Volunteer officers can obtain a pass school certificate at schools other than that at Chelsea Barracks. There are schools for Infantry officers at Glasgow and Edinburgh, and others will be formed as required. Artillery officers can obtain certificates at the schools of instruction at Leith, Golden Hill, Sheerness, and Plymouth, and Engineers at the School of Military Engineering, Chatham.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the contract for locomotives recently given by Canada to a Glasgow firm, he will inquire from the Canadian Government and inform the House the difference in price between the accepted tender and the lowest tender of a foreign firm, and state the percentage of preference given by the tariff to the Glasgow firm as against the lowest tender from a foreign nation. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The locomotives were bought by the Canadian Pacific Railway, not by the Canadian Government, and it would be unusual to ask them to disclose either the amount of the successful tender or that of the lowest foreign tender. I am informed that the preference given to the British firm amounts in the case of each locomotive to fully £500.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that large numbers of men in the Army or recently discharged have not yet received South African war medals to which they are entitled, he will say whether this delay is caused by undue centralisation at Woolwich; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of despatching the medals to officers commanding units, making them responsible for the engraving and distribution of the medals.

As I have already explained to the House, considerable time is required for checking the rolls which in many cases were not correct. Up to the 30th June 390,261 medals and 982,070 clasps had been issued. Commanding officers are now responsible for the distribution, but to make them responsible for the engraving would hardly appear expeditious. The greatest possible efforts have been made to expedite production both at the Mint and Woolwich.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the Report with reference to damaged tinned meats, he will ascertain whether such damage has been caused by bad meat being tinned, defective tinning, or inferior tin, and also state the amount of tinned meat that is held by the War Office in stock; and whether periodical examinations will be ordered in the future.

There is no reason to suppose that the damage was due to bad meat being tinned, defective tinning, or inferior tin, but inquiries are being made on the two latter points. The analyses made at home by the Government Analyst, Somerset House, of samples of the rations before they left England were all satisfactory. The stock of preserved meat maintained is 2,000,000 lbs. It is examined periodically according to the regulations.

How often does "periodically" mean—once a month or once a year?

I do not remember exactly, but I should imagine certainly once a year. Of course, only a percentage is taken.

Is it not the fact that an inquiry is taking place in reference to the damaged stores in South Africa which had to be destroyed?

Certainly.

And, in view of the enormous quantity of rations that had to be destroyed, will steps be taken not to employ the same contractors again?

That is the subject of another Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes acting upon the recommendation of the Report of the Board of Officers, which inquired into the destruction of meat and vegetable rations at Pretoria, and recover from the contractors the cost of the rations destroyed; which of the firms named, if any, of those who supplied these rations are to be struck off the War Office list; and whether rations supplied during the war by any of the firms named in the Report were condemned; and, if so, were the rations so condemned destroyed or returned to the contractor.

Until the full liability of the contractors is ascertained from South Africa it will not be possible to consider the question of recovery of cost. Very few complaints have been received as regards the various brands of meat and vegetable rations; it is understood that they gave general satisfaction. Contractors, when responsible for condemned rations, have to make good the loss either in money or in kind.

Were any of the rations returned to the contractors?

No, they were destroyed.

Who is responsible for passing these contracts, and what action are the Government going to take?

We are making further inquiries before we take any further action. With regard to who the contractors were and what proportion of what each contractor supplied was examined, I hope the House will excuse me at the present moment from saying what our course of action will be; but if we find that the contractors are liable the House may rest assured that we shall act fully up to our contract.

Will fuller information be in the hands of Members by Thursday when the War Office Vote comes on for discussion?

I hope so. We cabled for particulars on Thursday or Friday in last week.

The noble Lord has not stated whether he will also give information as to who were the responsible advisers of the War Office in accepting these rations?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that every officer on retired pay from the British Army has to make a declaration, before receiving his allowance, that during the previous quarter he has not held any place of employment or profit, civil or military, in the British colonies or possessions beyond the seas; and whether, seeing that officers who have been retired from the British Army and given their services to a colony enjoying responsible Government thereby do not in any way injure or impair the efficiency of the British Army or involve any charge upon the taxpayer, and that retired officers are allowed to become company directors, and that in two cases the colonies have been deprived of the services of matured Army officers, who would have been punished by being deprived of their half pay or pensions if they had taken service under the Australian Government, he will state the date of the Order referred to, and whether it was based on the Report of a Commission; and whether he can see his way to abolish the Order.

The answer to the first sentence of the Question is "Yes." As regards the second the regulation is based on the military ground that the colonies would, as a ride, obtain better military service from officers on the active list, and that retired pay should not be drawn concurrently with full pay. The rule dates from the 16th September, 1887; it was not based on the Report of a Commission. Officers on retired pay are bound to serve again up to the age of fifty if retired as lieutenant or captain; fifty-five if retired in other ranks below that of general officer, and sixty-seven if retired as general officer, if called upon, and it would seem inequitable that retired officers employed by a colony should be treated more favourably than those employed under the Imperial Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a pattern of quick-firing gun, for issue to the Royal Horse and Field Artillery, has been decided upon; and, if so, when the manufacture of the guns will be commenced and when they will be issued.

Trials of Horse and Field Artillery Guns are being carried out but a final decision has not been arrived at.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the allegations made against the administration in Fiji, he will appoint an independent Commission to report on the same, or refer the said allegations to a Committee of this House.

No, Sir. The recently appointed Governor is fully competent to conduct the inquiry, upon which he is actively engaged.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken or are proposed to be taken to remove the financial difficulties imposed upon Egypt by the Laws of Liquidation referred to by Lord Cromer in several of his annual reports.

The present arrangements must in any case remain in force till 1905. I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will not press me to make any statement on this subject at present.

Why must it remain in force?

Because it is the law.

It is not a matter of Convention then? Is it the law of England?

I must ask for notice.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that inconvenience, delay, and undue expense are caused in regard to the administration of justice in Egypt by the existence of divers jurisdictions; and whether any steps are being taken to simplify and unify the judicial system of Egypt; and, if not, will he state whether he will take any action in that direction.

The system of mixed tribunals in Egypt is an International arrangement, and the consent of the Powers would be necessary before any change could be introduced. His Majesty's Government are not prepared at this moment to take any initiative in the direction indicated.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the increased area of land which has been brought into cultivation by means of the Assouan Dam; and whether it is proposed to make any alteration in the dam or reservoir such as will admit of a greater storage of water.

As the Assouan Dam was only opened at the end of last year any attempt to obtain statistics as to the increased area of land under cultivation would at present be premature and none have yet been received. I understand that it is not proposed at present to make any alterations in the dam.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what provision is made by the Government in Egypt for the housing and care of orphan children and destitute poor.

His Majesty's Government have not received any definite information, but Lord Cromer will be asked to report on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that the assent of Turkey, the Suzerain Power of Egypt, was not obtained to the Anglo-Egyptian Convention of 19th January, 1899, relative to the Soudan, and that by virtue of Lord Granville's despatch of 3rd January, 1884, the Egyptian Government could not withhold its assent, will he say whether the Convention is valid.

The answer is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will grant the Return of Corn Prices, notice of which stands on to-day's Paper.

I regret that I cannot grant this Return. The matter has been carefully considered in consultation with the Board of Agriculture, and it is found that part of the information desired cannot be supplied, and that the compilation of the remainder would involve great labour without yielding a satisfactory result. Appended is the Return referred to:— Return of (1) the average monthly price for each month of the years 1875 to 1903 of wheat, maize, barley, oats, and rye, at the following producing places, specifying in the case of wheat the accompanying standards: New York, No. 2 red winter wheat; Chicago, No. 2 red winter, wheat; Montreal, No. 1 hard Manitoban wheat; Buenos Ayres, Standard Plate wheat; Bombay, No. 1 Bombay wheat; Calcutta, No. 2 Club Calcutta; and at the following consuming places, specifying the above standards in the case of wheat: Liverpool, London, Hull, Havre, Marseilles, Paris, Hamburg, Berlin, Barcelona, Madrid, Amsterdam, and Antwerp; the prices to be calculated per 112 lbs. English, and to be the market price, and not the official values; the taxed and untaxed returns to be given at ports where both are mentioned; and (2) the tariff in operation at each period in each place.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the present number of post office savings banks and also the present number of savings bank depositors in England and Ireland respectively, the present number of trustee savings banks and also the present number of trustee savings bank depositors in England and Ireland respectively and whether greater facilities exist in England than in Ireland for trustee savings bank depositors.

The number of post offices at which savings bank business is transacted is in England and Wales, 11,626, with 8,469,000 depositors, in Ireland, 1,269, with 433,000 depositors. The number of trustee savings banks is in England and Wales, 157, with 1,076,000 depositors, in Ireland, 13, with 52,000 depositors. The Statute Law is the same for all trustee savings banks, whether in England or in Ireland; and if there are greater facilities in England than in Ireland for the more frequent deposit or withdrawal of money, this is due to the arrangements made by the banks themselves.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether it would be competent, in connection with the new model by-laws affecting attendance at religious instruction in the elementary schools, for local authorities to enact that religious instruction shall be given at the close of a school session; and whether such a course would be competent both in respect of non-provided schools as well as provided schools.

The time or times at which religious or other instruction should be given in a school should be regulated in the time table. The power to make by-laws is limited to the purposes specified in Section 74 of the Act of 1870. The time or times for religious instruction are prescribed in Section 7 (2) of that Act; and under Section 7 (1) (a) of the Act of last year the directions as to secular instruction which may be given by a local authority to the managers of a voluntary school must not be such as to interfere with reasonable facilities for religious instruction during school hours.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of the report of the county surveyor for Mayo regarding the usefulness of certain piers and harbours along the coast of Mayo, notably those at Clare Island, Louisburgh, and Mallaranny; and whether he will see that the improvements mentioned in the report are carried out; and can he state when the proposed works at Innishlyre and Tonragee will be commenced.

My right hon. friend has received from the hon. Member a copy of the report in question. It suggests improvements in a number of piers and harbours in South Mayo which are the property of the County Council. It is not proposed to expend any of the funds provided by the Marine Works Act on these works. It is competent to the County Council to undertake them at the expense of the county. In reply to the concluding inquiry my right hon. friend stated yesterday † that he is engaged in negotiations with the Midland Great Western Railway Company and that no conclusion has yet been arrived at.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any action has been taken on the conduct of foreign steam trawlers in Dingle Lay on the night of 15th June; whether, seeing that they not only fished within the line but chased and tried to run down a local sailing fishing smack, and that a statement was made to the coastguards giving the numbers on the boats, steps will at once be taken to punish the owners of these trawlers.

The occurrences in question have been carefully investigated by the new Department but no evidence is forthcoming sufficient to sustain a prosecution for illegal trawling within the prohibited area.

† See page 410.

Seeing that the lives of fishermen were endangered and that the numbers on the boats were given cannot further inquiry be made?

The matter has been investigated by the Department of Agriculture, but the evidence of the fishermen is not sufficiently definite.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for years, along the west coast of Kerry—

Order, order.

Then arising out of the Question—

That does not make it any better.

I want to know what steps the Government are going to take to protect the fishermen on the west coast? Cannot they spare a gunboat?

The hon. Member can bring that matter up on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Miss Maria Blanc, assistant in Portarlington Post Office for the past twenty-eight and a half years, has been called upon to retire without gratuity or pension; and, if so, whether, in view of her long service and conduct, he will state upon what grounds this official has been retired, and why she has been refused either pension or gratuity.

Miss Blanc's retirement was carried out because she was reported to be no longer capable of discharging her duties efficiently. The conditions of her employment were not such as to render her eligible for either pension or gratuity on retirement.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it to be in the public interest that an employee, after twenty-eight years faithful service, should be discharged without a pension?

The award of a pension or gratuity is regulated by statute, and I have no power whatever to vary the regulations.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what number of savings bank depositors in the United Kingdom in the year 1902, with Irish, Scotch, or English deposit books, made deposits or received withdrawals outside of Ireland, Scotland, or England respectively; and whether it is more economical and convenient to keep Irish Savings Bank accounts in London for the convenience of such depositors than to give Ireland greater facilities for Post Office Savings Bank business by having the accounts kept in Dublin.

I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the present number of officials employed on the Irish Savings Bank accounts in London would be sufficient to deal with such accounts if they were kept in Dublin; and, if so, in what way would it cost more to deal with Irish Savings Bank accounts by a special staff at Dublin if such accounts were kept there instead of in London.

I will answer these Questions at the same time. I regret that I am unable to give the figures asked for in the hon. Member's first Question. I do not think it would be right to diminish the facilities which the depositors to whom he refers now enjoy, and the transfer of the accounts to Dublin would not afford any increased facilities to Irish depositors. The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's other Question is in the negative. If the Irish Savings Bank accounts were kept in Dublin, additional controlling force would be necessary, and extra staff would be necessary to deal with the extra work which decentralisation would involve.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the railway station at Kells, County Kerry, is inconveniently placed for the needs of the district; and whether he will make representations to the railway company with a view to having flag stations constructed at Dooneen and Mount Foley.

No complaints appear to have been received by the Board of Trade with regard to the position of this station, but a copy of the hon. Member's Question has been communicated to the railway company concerned. The company have replied that the station at Kells is not, in their opinion, inconveniently placed for the needs of the district, and that there is no prospect of sufficient traffic to justify the creation of flag stations at the places mentioned.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will give the particulars of the inquiry into the fiscal policy of this country, stating the various headings under which information is required, and what the Government wish to ascertain by the grand inquest of the nation.

With regard to all these Questions I have only a negative answer to give.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering that the House has been invited to join in the inquiry which the Government is making, he does not intend to give the House any information whatever with regard to the nature, method, topics, and time when the result of the inquiry will be announced.

I was not asked that Question, but I am perfectly ready to answer it. Of course, we shall be ready, in due time, to give the House and the country all the information at our disposal.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "due time."

The right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware that to prepare tables of statistics is not a thing which can be done in twenty-four hours, or even forty-eight hours.

Then is there reason to expect that we shall have some result of the inquiry before the end of the present session?

Oh, I should think that there is reason to hope that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what fresh statistics are being prepared which do not exist?

The hon. Member will have every means of gratifying his curiosity when the Papers are laid.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that the food imports of the country have increased during the last half-century from £35,813,613 to £162,776,280, and also that during the same time there has been a decrease in the cultivation of land, measures will be taken by the Government to prohibit land from being held in extensive areas for purposes of amusement.

I have no opportunity of testing the accuracy of the statistics which the hon. Gentleman has put in his Question, but I do not think it would be desirable to propose any legislation for restricting the area devoted to public amusement.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has understood my Question. I refer to land hold for private amusement.

I do not know what land the hon. Gentleman refers to.

Deer forests.

I confess that was the first interpretation I put on the Question, but it occurred to me afterwards that the two Gentlemen who knew the Highlands so well were probably aware that deer forests are not very well suited for growing wheat.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that they are suitable for cattle breeding and sheep?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of a possible change in the fiscal policy of the country, and the consequent necessity for raising in the United Kingdom as large a food supply as possible, will the Government make such arrangements as may be necessary to enable the people of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland to settle on the lands which have been scheduled in the Report of the Deer Forests Commission as suitable for occupation by the people.

As I have already indicated to the hon. Gentleman, I see no connection between legislation for doer forests and fiscal reform. I have already answered Questions several times on the subject of deer forests, and I have nothing to add.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that they will support cattle and sheep?

And men.

I do not see the relevancy.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in connection with the Colonial Secretary's proposals for revision of our fiscal system, the Cabinet is inquiring into the expediency of establishing an Imperial Council on which the colonies as well as the mother country may be represented.

No, Sir. Any such inquiry is evidently extremely premature, and it would be foolish to attempt to ask for statistical information on this subject from any Government Department.

Then do I understand that the Government contemplate interfering with the fiscal arrangements of the colonies without even considering the question of allowing them representation in the councils of the mother country?

I do not know on what the hon. Member bases his theory that we are going to interfere with the fiscal arrangements of the colonies.

Is it not implied in the proposals of the Colonial Secretary?

Order, Order!

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now fix the date for the introduction of the Bill to deal with certain matters affecting the housing of the working classes.

I hope the day will be an early one. I will give the hon. Gentleman full notice.

said he thought it well to make a short statement as to several of the proposed new clauses. The body of the Bill applied the Act of 1902 to London and proposed to make certain provisions as regarded the management of schools by the London boroughs, and anything in the way of Amendment to, or modification of, the Act of 1902 as applied to London was put into a schedule. The whole of the new clauses, with the exception of one or two, which were down on the Paper would be out of order as new clauses and should be brought up as Amendments to the schedule, possibly in a somewhat altered form. There were some, however, to which that remark did not apply—for instance, the second, standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, which would involve an increase of rates. The same observation applied to the clause dealing with compensation to teachers of voluntary schools, and also to the two last clauses in the names of the hon. Members for Haggerston and West Islington. Proposals involving rate expenditure could not, as the hon. Members knew, be made on the Report stage.

When will it be possible to raise the question embodied in the first new clause, as to the right of the public to inspect official documents?

By moving an Amendment to the schedule. As the hon. Member knows, in the Act of 1902 there is provision made for keeping Minutes, and it would be perfectly in order on that to move that they be open to inspection.

May I inquire whether the effect of your ruling is that the points embodied in the new clauses will have to be handed in as Amendments to the schedule?

Yes, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that many things dealt with in the new clauses are already provided for in the Act of 1902.

Would it be in order for me on that point to address a few observations to the Government and to the House with regard to the difficulty, owing to your ruling, of proceeding with the Bill at this moment?

I think that had better be done when the Amendments are called on.

May I call attention to the new clause providing that the Act shall not apply to the City of London? Is that affected by your ruling?

I omitted to mention that. It should come on as an Amendment to Clause 1.

moved to omit Clause 1 (Application of the Act of 1902 to London), to give the House an opportunity of repeating by a division its protest against the application to London of the Act of 1902. What had happened since the passing of that Act had not in any way diminished, but rather increased, their objections to it, and it was their duty to register their protest against the application of the principles of the Act to London. He asked the House to re-affirm its condemnation of the Bill of 1902.

said he thought the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman was surely one of the most singular that was ever taken in that House. He was not going to ask the House to come to a decision on the merits of the clause, or even on the merits of this Bill. He was asking the House to come to a decision on the merits of an Act passed into law after several months of hard debating last year. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that anything was to be gained by a protest of course he was at liberty to make it; but he did not understand, he never understood, that their Parliamentary procedure lent itself to the particular interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman had put on his own Amendment, when he moved to leave out a clause, not because he objected to the clause, but because he objected to some other Bill which had already become an Act.

I object to the application of the principles and rules contained in the Act of last Year to the population of London.

said if the right hon. Gentleman's speech had been confined to that thesis it would have been perfectly within the practice of the House. Of course, it amounted to a Second Reading speech compressed, and he supposed the right hon. Gentleman desired to take a Second Reading division upon it. But, at all events, half the speech he made was not concerned with the clause nor with the Bill at all. His object was to renew the protest which he and his friends made last year. He thought there was not an educationist in the country who did not think the Bill of last year and the Bill of this year were of the greatest educational importance. (OPPOSITION cries of "Oh.") He was not speaking of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but of educationists. He knew the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite because he heard them expressed for seven months, and education was the last topic that they ever discussed. They talked a great deal about voluntary schools and denominational teaching, and other matters indirectly connected with the substantial interest of education, but education pure and simple was the last thing they spoke of. (OPPOSITION cries of "Oh," and an HON. MEMBER "Nonsense.") He would qualify his phrase by saying it was the thing about which they spoke least. As to what was in their minds he knew nothing, but their speeches he did hear; and he had an absolute right to say that if the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite were rightly interpreted by their speeches, it was not the educational aspect of the Bill of last year, or the Bill of this year, which chiefly interested them, but certain controversial subjects which unhappily could not be dissociated entirely from any Bill dealing with elementary education in this country. It was on those subjects that they had agitated the country, and topics relating to the really great interest of education they had left severely alone. If the right hon. Gentleman thought he was adding to his fame as an educational authority by the line he had taken on the Bill of last year and the Bill of this year he was, he could assure him, very seriously mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman said he was moving to omit this clause because it extended the Bill of last year to London. He could understand, though he did not sympathise with, those who thought that the Bill of last year, whatever it might have done for education, nevertheless did certain things in other directions to which they objected, and therefore desired that the Bill should not become an Act. But as it had become an Act, he could not understand how any hon. Gentleman could desire that it should not be extended to London. He believed that hon. Gentlemen opposite anticipated that the time would come very shortly when they would be in a position to remodel the Act of last year. When that time came he should wish them joy of their task. He should look forward with great interest to the course which they would then desire to pursue. But the remodelling of the Act of last year would not be rendered more difficult by the fact that it had been extended to London. On the contrary, their task would be easier if the whole of the country were under one principle. They would gain nothing if London was left out of the Bill; and, meanwhile, London would be left as an educational derelict. Unless this Bill was passed, London would be deprived of the fund which that House desired to give for educational purposes; not only the voluntary schools, but also the provided schools in London would suffer, and the whole system of educational co-ordination would be left in a condition which no one in that House could view with satisfaction. Was it the policy of the Opposition not merely to modify the Act of last year, but also in the meanwhile to keep London under the old system? Such an idea was absurd, and he could not understand the right hon. Gentleman's lending the authority of his name in educational matters to a proposal which he was certain would be rejected by all London if London had a chance of expressing its opinion. He would not dogmatise by discussing whether London liked or disliked the general principle

had the following Amendment on the Notice Paper—

"In Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'shall,' insert 'except as respects non-provided schools.'"

said this Amendment was in the same position as those which he had already ruled out of order.

asked whether he would have an opportunity of raising the question on the schedule.

I will not give a precise definition now as to whether it will be in order on the schedule or not, but it may be capable of discussion on the schedule.

had also the following Amendment on the Notice Paper—

"In Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end, add 'Provided that all public elementary voluntary schools within the area shall be maintained by the local education authority as if they were provided schools, provided that the local education authority shall by agreement rent the school premises from the trustees, free use of the premises being granted to the denominations under whose auspices the schools have hitherto been conducted for purposes of denominational religious teaching outside the ordinary hours of the school time-table to the children of such parents as make written application for the same. If any question arises under this section between the local education authority and the managers of a school not provided by the authority in respect to the use and rental of the premises the matter shall be determined by the Board of Education.'"

said this Amendment was also out of order.

moved an Amendment with the object of excluding the City of London from the scope of the Bill. He did not know whether he should have the approval of the Government in reference to this proposal, but he really thought it was one that might be accepted. The City of London had always been an authority by itself. It had always been treated as a county by itself for most purposes. If it was not so treated under the Elementary Education Act it was given a large representation on the School Board—he thought it was one-twelfth of the whole—to compensate for its not being separately treated. At present there was no special representation of the City of London provided for on the Committee. He appealed to the Government to consider the question with a view to something being done in the way of giving effect to his proposal. He begged to move.

said he fully recognised the valuable work that had been done for education by the City of London, and the great position which the City had occupied in the higher education of the country. But he thought the hon. Member would see that there were almost insuperable difficulties in taking the City out of the general purview of this Bill. The City had been one of the School Board areas and it had not been in any way differentiated from other parts of the Metropolis. The same had been the case under the Technical Education Act. It had fallen in with the work of the Technical Instruction Committee of the London County Council and had not asked for different treatment under that Act. He thought the difficulty of taking the City out of the Bill in the matter of elementary education was even more apparent. Under those circumstances to take the City outside the Bill and make it an educational authority by itself would be a new departure, having regard to the Elementary Education Act and the Technical Instruction Act. It would not only be a new departure, but a new departure not justified by the educational situation in the City. The number of children educated in the elementary schools of the City was small, while the great secondary schools in which the City was interested were wholly outside the Act. He hoped his hon. friend would recognise that there was no reason for treating the City in this special manner, and that what was proposed did not arise from any want of appreciation of the educational work done by the City.

said he would like to call attention to the remarkable fact that a representative of the City had put down an Amendment of this character. The representatives of the City had supported the Bill throughout, and immediately that was done, in order to show the extent to which they appreciated this legislation, they proposed that the City of London should be excepted altogether from the provisions of the Act. This demonstrated clearly that really the Act had no real supporter in any part of the House of Commons. He trusted that the hon. Member would proceed to a division.

I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

expressed the hope that the hon. Member would not withdraw the Amendment. The representatives of the City were acting on the unanimous request of the Common Council of the City of London. The Common Council examined the Bill and took exception to its provisions just as hon. Members did on this side of the House. The Amendment was really a very important one, because even hon. Members on this side of the House who did not agree politically with the Common Council knew that every representative body throughout London viewed the Bill with horror and alarm. (Cries of "No, no.") Therefore the hon. Member was only doing his duty in proposing the Amendment. He wished that the hon. Member moved against the Bill from the same righteous motives that animated the opponents of the Bill on this side of the House. The hon. Member did not desire to see it applied to the City of London in order to preserve the autonomy of the City, but he did not object to the Bill itself. He ventured to say that that was a narrow ground on which to claim the exception of the City from the Bill. He himself and others on this side thought the Bill was very bad and unsuited to every part of London. London had got a peculiar system of local government, quite different from other places to which the Bill had been applied. The City, whatever faults it might have, had an honourable educational record, and it had been shamefully treated by the Government in the proposals in this Bill. The City did not come to the Government and say. "Give us representation and control." The Government thrust power and honour on the City Council in the Bill as first introduced, and then suddenly, for no reason that had been explained to the House, the City was struck out of that representation. This was a matter very well worth discussing from the standpoint of the Government. The House had had no justification whatever from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education for the new treatment they were giving to the authorities which were to be represented. The precise authority which would be left to the City Council was embodied in Clause 2, and he thought that the humble duties left to them might well give rise to the contempt of hon. Members opposite. Although the Amendment was one which he could not himself support he was a little surprised, that the hon. Member's colleague in the representation of the City of London was not here to support it.

said he thought the point his hon. friends behind him had raised was well worthy of the consideration of the House at this stage of the Bill. There were in London two great municipal bodies. One was the Corporation of the City of London and the other the County Council. The Government proposed to municipalise education in London as they had done in the country districts. In the country districts the matter was a comparatively small one. The population there was something like one-tenth of what it was in London, and therefore the question ought to have been treated from a different point of view. What did they find? The County Council was made the central body, though they said they did not see their way to carry out the work. He would ask the hon. Member what he proposed to do supposing the County Council found themselves unable or unwilling to carry out the provisions of the Act. He believed that was a position which would be arrived at before very long. Then the City of London had declared that they did not desire the Bill either, and that they wished to be outside its provisions altogether. He was surprised that his hon. friend representing the City had made such an uncommonly bad case for the City. He thought it was unbecoming the dignity of the City that one of its members should come down here and move an Amendment and then allow it to be negatived without a division, and indeed without debate. This Bill was obviously, so far as London was concerned, incompatible with our municipal system. The City of London and the County Council rejected it, and under those circumstances he should have thought that it was the duty of the Government to reconsider their position and withdraw the Bill.

said he considered this Bill from the machinery point of view a thoroughly bad Bill. They could not municipalise education in a great area like that of London. Good or bad, however, whatever this new Bill might be, the City of London was not coming out of it. For financial reasons the City of London had got to make a contribution to the education of the children of London as a whole. The City of London had always been wanting to be struck out of the Bill, partly because it had not the representation it wanted, and partly because of finance. The London School Board had memorials from the City, week by week, complaining against the cost of education. What was the position? They had 2,000 working class children and they paid an Education Rate of 1s. in the £, which amounted altogether to £200,000 a year. That was £100 per child. But it did not really cost £100 to educate each child; it cost only £5; and therefore the City paid £95 each for educating nineteen children in Camberwell. The City ought to rejoice in being able to carry out the Apostolic injunction that they should bear one another's burdens. The City had got to pay the unified rate of 1s. in the £, or £95 out of every £100 for the education of children in every part of London—children whose forebears originally lived in the City. What would happen if this proposal were carried? The City of London would have to spend £10,000 a year to educate 2,000 working class children, and even supposing they voted £10,000 additional for secondary education, that would only amount to a rate of ¾d. in the £. He was bound to insist that whatever the machinery of the Bill might finally be the City had got to stay in it.

said that there was a well-known maxim in the House of Commons, that it was better to avoid attributing motives. Was there any reason why that almost sacred maxim against attributing motives, which were sometimes charitable and sometimes less benevolent, should not be respected in the case of the action of his hon. friend in behalf of the City of London. He could assure his hon. friend opposite that though he had not the honour of representing the City he knew something about the City where he was born and had passed the greatest portion of his life, and that the spirit which prompted the Amendment of his hon. friend was as far as possible removed from that which the hon. Gentleman thought ruled it. If there were any part of London where one should have been less disposed to attribute a sordid motive to any proposition that emanated from its representative, it should have been the City of London, which was the fountain of all benevolence. [OPPOSITION ironical laughter.] Hon. Members sneered rather derisively, but they did not abstain from having recourse to the Mansion House when they desired to appeal to the benevolence of the whole Empire. It should be remembered that the City had secured the freedom of Epping Forest and had built the Tower Bridge. Therefore his hon. friend might have been less ready to attribute unworthy motives to this Amendment than he had done. The City of London objected to being included in the operation of this Bill, not at all because of the reasons which were incorrectly, and, he thought, rather unworthily, attributed by his hon. friend opposite, but simply because they carried on education of their own in a most admirable way, which did not involve any expenditure on the part of the ratepayers of the other parts of London, and because they had no representation in the administration of those large funds which they contributed. Therefore, they were abundantly justified in proposing this Amendment, and if his hon. friend went to a division he would most cordially support it.

said he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the habit of attributing motives was one inconsistent with Christian charity, but the counsel of perfection he recommended, if acted upon, would reduce the debates in the House to very slender dimensions indeed. He assumed that the motives of the City of London were admirable, and free from all suspicion, but there was another Amendment lower down on the Paper which was to him a wonder, viz.—

"And for the purpose of such application the City of London shall be a county, and the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of that City in Common Council assembled shall be a County Council."

said that most of the questions which had been raised in regard to the second clause of the Bill which he proposed to omit would be raised again on the schedule. He asked the Government whether they would not get rid of all the difficulties which had arisen by abolishing Clause 2 altogether. He did not believe that any mortal man knew why Clause 2 existed in its present shape. When the Bill was first introduced there was a scheme in the minds of the Government which justified such a clause. The idea then was to give the municipal authorities scattered all over London full control over the education authority that was to be set up. But they got rid of Clause 2 and began to attack Clause 3, which corresponded with the existing Clause 2. Some hon. Gentlemen who might have some veneration for the ancient City Corporation and the other bodies might consider whether Clause 2 should remain. But there was no precedent for it in the Act of 1902. It was simply a fraudulent pretext kept in the Bill by the Government to make these bodies imagine that they had got some resemblance of power when it was actually all taken away from them. The Government had in the debates in Committee to give way, and at last they concluded to abandon all the splendid powers which they had given to the Borough Councils of appointing the teachers, the taking of sites, and the vague powers of management. Now they had got a clause which allowed the Borough Councils to appoint managers although they had no duty of management. How could the Borough Councils tell what size the body of managers ought to be, for they had no kind of information on the subject. The present shape of the clause was perfectly ridiculous—so ridiculous that the Government themselves had put down one or two Amendments in regard to it. No good whatever would be obtained by retaining Clause 2. It would be a constant interference with the quiet working of the Act. He begged to move that Clause 2 be omitted from the Bill.

said that the House ought to have some sort of statement from the Government as to what was their final intention in regard to this question of management. They had had so many changes on this clause at previous stages of the Bill—and now the Government themselves were about to propose Other Amendments—that really the House ought to have a clear statement whether the Government intended to proceed with this fantastic method of management by the Borough Councils under the County Council. This clause still left to the minor authorities certain powers which were likely to lead to friction with the superior authorities, and he was amazed that the Government should propose that the House should go to a division on this Motion without showing the faintest signs of telling the House whether they had any policy on this matter.

said he really thought that it was hardly necessary to explain why the Government desired his clause to stand part of the Bill, not wholly in its present form, because an Amendment was accepted in Committee which it would have been somewhat rash to endeavour to put into final shape in the Committee in the circumstances of the debate, and which must therefore be amended now. The Amendment which had been put down by his hon. friend the Member for South Manchester would come up for consideration in due course. The policy of the clause was perfectly clear. From the very first the Government desired to associate Borough Councils with the education of London. It was thought that by giving them powers of management they would be able to excite more local interest in the elementary education of London, and that this would be done without diminishing the efficient working of the machinery which would be dealing with the general education of London. In that way he had confidently hoped that they would do a good deal for elementary education. In the debates which had taken place it became clear that the House did not desire to see statutory powers conferred upon Borough Councils, but nevertheless the Government did desire to see the Borough Councils take some definite part in the elementary education of London, and for that reason they would proceed with this clause. He reminded the House that what was left to the boroughs was to take part and initiate arrangements for the building of schools, to determine the number of managers, and to choose the managers up to a certain number. His hon. friend had various Amendments on the Paper, one of which was an Amendment of substance which, on behalf of the Government, he should be prepared to accept and which would diminish this perpetual fear of friction. It was an Amendment providing that these arrangements should be made after consultation with the local authority. He did not think anything would be lost by bringing together the various local authorities in the common work of the education of the children. On the contrary he believed that great good would come from it, and that under the conditions which this clause laid down these local authorities would work together in a friendly manner, and if the boroughs should not take the initiative there would be a residuary power in the County Council to do what was necessary for the management of the schools. He did not wish to go further into the subject, because they would have to discuss this clause upon the various Amendments on the Paper. He wished, however, to impress upon the House that the Government had no intention whatever of departing from the desire with which they originally embarked on this clause, namely, to associate the boroughs with the education of London.

said it was very surprising that the hon. Gentleman had not given some information to the House in regard to this matter. This clause had not been remodelled once or twice, but four or five times, and the hon. Baronet had now told them that he was prepared to accept other Amendments which would entirely alter the clause. Surely his hon. friend was entitled to ask for further information. The onus of proof in this matter lay upon the Secretary to the Board of Education when he departed from the Act of last year. This Bill was absolutely irreconcilable with the Bill of last year when it was introduced, but the common sense of the House had licked it into shape on the lines of the Act of last year. The only difference which was left was that if this clause disappeared and the Bill proceeded upon the lines of the Act of last year, the local education authority would have the nomination of four, and the Borough Councils two, managers. The hon. Gentleman proposed that the Borough Councils should have three-fourths and the education authority only one-fourth of the nominations. Therefore, it remained to the Secretary to the Board of Education to prove that that would work better than the proposal of the Act of last year. He should like to know why the Government had altered their mind in regard to this matter? When they were discussing this question in Committee he ventured to quote a paragraph from a speech made by the Prime Minister, who was then in charge of the Bill of last year, in which the right hon. Gentleman gave a totally different idea as to what ought to be the rights of the case. It was very important that they should have the Government speaking with one voice upon this question, and he would read the words of the Prime Minister.

There will be later on Amendments raising this very point, and therefore I do not think it will be in order to discuss this question upon the Motion before the House.

said the hon. Baronet had given them no argument in favour of this proposal. He said the idea was that there should be a link between the Borough Councils and the County Council, but in his opinion this clause would be the one source of friction in the Bill between the local and minor authorities. In order to avoid that they wished to make the Education Committee the supreme authority, and therefore they desired that this remaining shred of authority which was now given to the Borough Councils should disappear. He had no desire to cast any aspersions upon the Borough Councils, but he thought the Government had put them in a most humiliating position. The Government gave the Borough Councils these very large powers which they never asked for and then took them all away. In regard to this particular clause he hoped the Government would reconsider the matter so that they might have the Act of last year applied to this scheme in London from the top to the bottom.

said he did not wish to represent this clause as one which would do a great deal of good, but he did not think it would do a great deal of harm. It was a clause which related entirely to provided schools, that was, schools of the education authority, and did not touch on the burning question of voluntary schools. The action of the House of Commons in regard to these schools had throughout been rather strange. One would have thought that the most successful course would have been to have left the local authority to settle the very simple matter of how its schools should be managed, especially as they had before them the example of the London School Board, which, whatever its shortcomings might have been in this respect, had established a very good system of management for the schools. The House of Commons, in its wisdom, thought that they should settle how many managers there ought to be for a provided school, and they settled last year that there should be six managers for every provided school all over the country, no more and no less. There was a sort of provision that the number might be varied, but it was fixed at this by the House. In one respect this was better than the Bill of last year because it did allow variety, and it did not require six managers in every school, but the number was to be adapted to the wants and peculiarities of the schools. Then there was a most extraordinary freak—freak he really must call it. Instead of the local education authority determining how many managers there should be it brought in an entirely foreign body which had nothing to do with it, which had to decide the matter, a body which had had no educational experience, which was not elected for the purposes of education, and which had this entirely extraneous and strange duty thrust upon it which it never had before. The Common Council of the City of London was a body for whom he had the most profound veneration, but this House had decided that it should be engaged in the duty of determining how many managers there ought to be for the few elementary schools in the City of London, which were the schools of the London County Council, and which were managed by it and controlled by it in every respect. Therefore it seemed to him that they had chosen the worst body in the world to determine this matter. Practically, although the power was given to the Borough Councils it would be exercised by the consent and approbation of the County Council, therefore this clause, if accepted, would do no harm, because after all the County Council would be supreme over the schools. In order to make the Bill work well they would have to secure that these managers, however fantastic the manner of their appointment was, should be people who really had the confidence and trust of the County Council. He believed, however, the managers when they were appointed would work cordially with the local authority for London, and they would have a body responsible to the local authority and in consonance with the local authority.

said the right hon. Member for the Cambridge University had made a characteristic speech, in which he had used every argument against the vote he intended to give. For himself, he sincerely hoped this Amendment would not be included in the Bill. He held this view although he was most anxious that the education authority should have full powers, and that there should be no just cause of friction between the education authority and the Borough Councils. He did not wish to pledge himself to this proportion of managers being appointed by the education authority and that by the boroughs; but, he asked, would it not tend to the efficiency of the education of London if the Borough Councils had some voice in the appointment of the managers? The total number of managers would be very large, and the appointment of managers for all the districts of London was a delicate and difficult duty to impose on the County Council. He was convinced it would be wise to allow Borough Councils to have a large voice in the appointments, as they would be able to assist the education authority by their own local knowledge. It was a good thing to give some interest to the boroughs, partly for educational and partly for administrative reasons. He had done all in his power to make the County Council the education authority, but he thought it would be a pity if the House accepted the Amendment. He hoped the Government would adhere to the clause.

said he did not think there was much in this Amendment, and expressed the opinion that the Borough Councils would not thank the House for taking this course. This was part of an ambitious scheme which the hon. Gentleman was responsible for in the first instance. The very last word of the Government was that the Borough Councils were to come in, and then, for some mysterious reason, the hon. Gentleman was compelled to stand up and say, "Very well, we throw them over." He felt very sorry for the hon. Baronet, and equally sorry for the Borough Councils, because the way the Government had treated them in connection with Clause 2 was simply abominable, and if he were a member of a Borough Council he should feel the greatest contempt for the Government in this matter. In Clause 2 the Government first gave the Borough Councils thirty-two seats, then twelve, then eleven, and finally no seats whatever. Then they were to have the appointment of the managers, now they were to have the appointment of three-fourths. He thought such a suggestion was absolutely impracticable and entirely useless. He thought it would be better if Clause 2 were dropped altogether. What would happen in that case? The present boards of managers would go on, and when vacancies occurred the local education authority would be asked to fill them up, and they would no doubt consult the Borough Councils, but it would be left entirely in the hands of the local education authority. That was the only fair course to pursue.

said he must express his surprise that the hon. Baronet would not drop this clause. Why should any distinction be drawn between the London County Council and the other County Councils of the country? There were no general or managerial reasons for it. The reasons for it were political. He challenged hon. Gentlemen opposite to point out a single reason that was not political. If experience had taught the hon. Baronet that he could trust the County Councils throughout England and Wales, why should he not trust the London County Council in this matter? It was this sort of sulky distrust of the London County Council which had marred the whole of London government. It was said that they had 2,000 managers to appoint, but even so it was easier to select 2,000 managers in a small area within four miles of the central office than for a country County Council to select 1,000 over a wider area. Why should not the London County Council be trusted? Was it really because its political complexion was not such as commended itself to the Government? If so, that was a very poor reason when legislating for all time. Nothing could be worse for the management of education than this divided control. County Councils, Borough Councils, managers and trustees—all had a finger in the pie, but none had supreme authority. The County Council was supposed to control, while the Borough Councils appointed the managers. What was the distinction between control and management? The two bodies would be in constant conflict, to the detriment of London education. The selection of sites might be taken as an example. Owing to a dispute between the Vestry, the Board of Education, and the School Board, Streatham went without a school for years. By this clause the Government would perpetuate difficulties of that kind. It was perfectly ludicrous, when boroughs of 10,000 inhabitants were trusted in this matter, that a council representing 5,000,000 people should be treated with so much suspicion. Nothing was to be gained by the clause; it would not give the Borough Councils either dignity or power; it would simply enable them to interfere and make themselves a nuisance. He hoped that even now the Government would reconsider their decision and drop the clause.

thought the hon. Baronet and the House hardly realised what actually was at issue in this matter. The debate had proceeded on the assumption that the only matter involved was, who should appoint 2,000 private persons to sit in groups and manage, under the London County Council Education Committee, either single schools or small groups of schools, the inference being that such persons would take their instructions from and act according to the will of the County Council. But that did not by any means represent all that was involved. The clause would enable a Borough Council to determine that all the provided schools within its area should be managed by one large Committee, upon which it would have three-fourths of the representation, thus setting up a sort of School Board for the whole district. What would then happen? If a sufficient motive were given, a degree of friction amounting to positive warfare would arise between the Management Committee and the Education Committee of the County Council. The motive for refusing to obey the behests of the County Council already existed in the fact that the Borough Councils were not satisfied with the course the Government had taken, so that the danger to which he referred was a very real one. He appealed to the Government to remove the possibility of that danger; the clause satisfied nobody, and he hoped it would be dropped.

said that although he agreed as to the undesirability of retaining this provision he would be unable to vote for the Amendment, because he thought that London stood in a somewhat different position from the County Councils under the Act of 1902, and that special machinery was required to deal adequately with the important question of how the bodies of managers in London should be constituted. There were no minor authorities in the Metropolis similar to those contemplated by the Act of 1902. He thought the better course would be to discuss the clause and see how far it could be modified and made suitable to the needs of London. He hoped the Borough Councils would eventually be eliminated from the clause; otherwise it might be a source of considerable friction.

said that if the hon. Member for West Nottingham was correct in the view he had put forward, this clause involved a danger which had not been anticipated. A large Committee managing all the schools within the area was a very different body from a body of managers concerned with only two or three schools, and if such a body set itself up in opposition to the will of the Council great danger might ensue. If managers found they were to be merely nominal they would not act, while if they were to be more than nominal they would in many instances come into collision with the local authority. He would be more content if a majority were appointed by the local authority, as its will might then be carried out, but that was not the case. Nothing gave rise to more disputes than the selection of sites. All sorts of interests were opposed to the educational authority, and he could conceive nothing more dangerous than to allow the Borough Council to have any practical vote, or even a delaying power, in this matter. A variety of objections might be raised to the selection of a particular site; and the members of the Borough Councils might be induced to act in a manner which would cause great friction. Further, the Borough Councils would not know the educational needs of the locality as well as the education authority. Speaking from a lengthened experience as regarded the selection of sites, he thought this power should not be given to the Borough Councils. If it were given to them it would be certain to be a hindrance to the work of education rather than a help.

said that he thought it might fairly be said that the balance of opinion and argument was against the Borough Councils having anything to do with the matter. That was strongly felt in Committee, and the large proposals originally made as regarded the Borough Councils had been whittled down until only this power remained. The Government had set an ample feast for the Borough Councils, but one dish after another was whisked away until there were only a few crumbs left. There was no reason to believe that the Borough Councils wanted this power. There had not been, either in Committee or on Report, any possible reason of an educational kind given to show that this work could be better carried out by the Borough Councils than by the education authority. He had heard a great deal about its being interesting to associate the Borough Councils with the work of education. That might be all very well for the Borough Councils, and if this were a Bill to improve the Borough Councils he could understand the argument. But it was a Bill for education, and he did not think any argument had been advanced to show that the work of education would be better for the interposition of the Borough Councils. It was not suggested that they possessed any greater knowledge or experience than the School Board now had; and that the local education authority would have in the future. The hon. Member for Chelsea called attention to the magnitude of the task of appointing 2,000 managers. But the School Board now appointed managers all over London, and had their finger on every part of the Metropolis. The local education authority would also have their finger on every part of London through their members, who would be able to suggest suitable managers. It was not suggested that the present managers were inferior. The only criticism ever made on the School Board was that it had not power enough. That, however, was a criticism which could be remedied by the new