Commons Sitting of 9 July 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  WIGAN CORPORATION BILL [LORDS].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  STONEHAVEN TOWN HALL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Considered; to be read the third time; upon Friday.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [LORDS].
  Read a second time, and committed.

  PICCADILLY, CITY, AND NORTH-EAST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Report (8th July) from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Bill ordered to be read a second time.

  RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL TRAMWAYS BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PETITIONS.
  CHURCH PARISH COUNCILS BILL.
  Petition from Sion College, London, against; to lie upon the Table.
  CLERGY DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition from Sion College, London, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Walkley; Manchester; Clayton; Buttershaw; Queensbury; Low Moor; Clayton Heights; Bierley; Wibsey; Saltaire; Shipley; Greengates; Eccleshill; and Barnsley; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Blackburn; North Evington; Market Har-borough; and Leicester; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Liverpool, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Sion College, London, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF EAST SUFFOLK).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of East Suffolk altering certain Polling Districts in the County [by Act] to; lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF THE COUNTY OF YORK).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the West Riding of the County of York, altering certain Polling Districts in the County [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 355 (Gambia, Annual Report for 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Census of England and Wales, 1901 (County of Warwick) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  1. Inquiry into Charities (County of Carmarthen): Further Return relative thereto (ordered 10th February, 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson); to be printed. [No. 266.]

  2. Supreme Court (Rules): Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court, dated 8th July, 1902 [by Act].

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Ealing Voluntary School Rate—Inclusion in General Demand Note.
  MR. CREMER: To ask the President of the Local government Board whether he is aware that the Urban District Council of Baling, Middlesex, is in the habit of including in its demand note for rates a rate of 1½d. in the pound for the Ealing Educational Association, with an intimation that its voluntary payment will probably save a school board rate; and that, when complaint was made, the Local Government Board informed the Council that the practice was open to objection, and that the Board would be glad to learn that it would be discontinued. And, seeing that, although Mr. Gaskell, the Local Government Board auditor, has also taken objection to the inclusion of a voluntary rate made by another body, and for another purpose, in the demand for the Council's own rates, the practice I still continues, he will take steps to compel its discontinuance.
  (Answer.) I am aware that the Town Council have continued the practice which was adopted by their predecessors in this matter. I understand that in the demand note used by the Town Council it is distinctly stated that the payment of the school rate is voluntary, and the collector states that he does riot experience any difficulty, and that there does not appear to be any confusion in the minds of the ratepayers, on the subject. I have informed the Town Council that, in my opinion, a request for the payment of a voluntary school rate should not in any case be included in the demand note for the general district rate, but I have no power to compel the discontinuance of the practice.—(Local Government Board.)

  Tottington School — Local Government Board Inquiry.
  MR. FLOWER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will say when the Report of the inquiry into the management of the Tottington School will be published.
  1192
  (Answer.) I have received the Report-made by the inspectors appointed by me to hold the inquiry as regards the Tottington School. My decision in the case will be made known in the course of a few days. It would be contrary to the practice of the Local Government Board to publish the Report referred to. Such reports are always regarded as confidential.—(Local Government Board.)

  India (Central Provinces)—Pandhri Tar.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state to what amount the abolition of the Pandhri Tax in the Central Provinces of India will afford relief to agriculturists; and how many of the assessees are small shopkeepers with incomes of 250 rupees, or £16 13s. 4d. per annum.
  (Answer.) The Pandhri Tax was essentially a tax on petty traders and manufacturers; its abolition may have given some indirect relief to agriculture, but, if so, only to a small extent. The total number of persons assessed to the tax at the time of its abolition was only about 21,000; but I am unable to say how many of these enjoyed the income specified in the Question.—(India Office.)

  Coronation Stand at Westminster Bridge.
  MR. P. T. O'BRIEN: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the fact that the stand which was erected for the Coronation procession at this end of Westminster Bridge, adjacent to the statue of Boadicea, closes up the approach to the subway for Members coming to the House of Commons, he will give instructions to have it removed.
  (Answer.) This stand was not erected by my Department, and is not under my control.—(Office of Works.)

  Ultimus Hæres—Estate of Rev. W. J. S. Falconer.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Lord Advocate what is the amount or value of the estate of the late Rev. William James Stewart Falconer, Minister of Dunnet, Caithness, winch has fallen to the Crown as ultimus

  1193
  haæres, and is at present under administration by* the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer; find whether it is intended to dispose of the Estate by gift to the widow of the deceased.
  (Answer.) The estate amounts to —267. It cannot be disposed of until December next, when the period for sending in claims against it will have expired.—(Treasury).

  Army Reserve Officers He-employed after Retirement.
  LORD CHARLES BEEESFOED: To ask the Secretary of State for War if officers of the Army Reserve of Officers, who retired after twenty years service, and who have been re-employed during the late war in South Africa, are entitled to promotion or increase of pension, or both, when their services are no longer required.
  (Answer.) Such officers are eligible for promotion, and individual cases are considered on their merits, and the Commander-in-Chief will carefully consider the claims of these officers on demobilisation. As regards pensions, they have the option of a gratuity at the termination of their service, or an increase in their retired pay, if their service gives them a claim thereto.—(War Office.)

  Imperial Defence—Cabinet Committees.
  MR. YEEBURGH: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, or other body in any way answering to the Naval and Military Council advocated by the Hartington Commission of 1888, has, up to the present time, met before the Estimates of the year are decided upon by the Cabinet, for the purpose of discussing the establishments proposed for the Navy and Army respectively, from the point of view of Imperial Defence as a whole, and for considering the relative importance of any proposed expenditure.
  (Answer.) I have always declined to answer any Question respecting Committees of the Cabinet, and I am still of opinion that this general rule is one which, in the public interest, it is desirable to maintain.—(Treasury.)

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Sandhurst College—Incendiary Fires and Disturbances — Indiscriminate Punishment of Cadets.
  Colonel NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if all the cadets of "C" Company at Sandhurst, who were able to prove that they were playing cricket at the time of the last fire, are permitted to pass their examinations for commissions; and whether all the cadets who affirmed that they were studying in their rooms for the impending examination when the fire broke out are rusticated, and will have their commissions dated subsequently to those of the cadets who were playing cricket.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): All the cadets of" C" Company who could prove that they were not in a position to cause the last fire at Sandhurst were exempted by the Commander-in-Chief from rustication. As regards the cadets rusticated who were to undergo examination this term, the Commander-in-Chief is prepared to allow them to be examined during this month in London, so that, if subsequently cleared, they should lose no seniority in the Army. No promise can be given as to commissions in these cases pending discovery of the actual culprits.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Have these cadets been proved guilty of anything?
  MR. SPEAKEE: Order, order ! That does not arise out of the Question.
  Colonel NOLANinquired if the punishment would be removed in the case of cadets who could prove that they had nothing to do with the outdoor irregularity.
  MR. BRODRICK: The fact of net being connected with the outdoor disturbance does not affect the decision of the Commander-in-Chief. The question is where the cadet was at the time of the last fire. A series of fires had occurred in the same block, and it is in connection with these that this Company was selected for punishment.

  Naval Gunnery.
  MR. HARMSWORTPI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state whether the reward received by the late W. Grounds for his proficiency in the prize firing in 1901, whereby he was proved to be the best shot in the Navy, was the sum of 1s. 9d.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): As I informed the hon. Member for Devonport on the 15th April last, a sum of £21 15s. 0d. was provided for prizes for shooting with heavy guns on the occasion in question, the distribution being left entirely to the discretion of the commanding officer. Of this amount £1 13s. 9d. was awarded to the Gun's crew, of which Grounds was captain, but I have no information as to the amount of his individual share. It may be of interest to state that at the prize firing referred to, the gun of which Grounds was captain made nine hits in ten rounds. Another gun made eleven hits in eleven rounds, and two others ten hits in ten rounds. Equally good results have been obtained by particular guns in other ships. While, therefore, the Navy has to regret the loss of a very excellent shot in this petty officer, it would be a mistake to suppose that there are not many other shots of the same class still serving in the Royal Navy.

  H. M. S. "Resolution"—Serious Charge against an Officer.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that, on Tuesday 17th June, a Reserve man, working under an officer on board H. M. S. "Resolution," was kicked in a vital part, the injury producing unconsciousness, and that the injured man is now in hospital, will he say whether any previous instance of ill-treatment of men under the orders of the same officer has occurred; and, seeing that two men are at the present time undergoing two years imprisonment as a punishment for striking this officer, can he state what punishment, if any, has been inflicted upon the officer concerned.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I must ask the hon. Member to-put down this
  1196
  question again. The "Resolution" has proceeded to sea, and it will not be possible to obtain a reply to the enquiries which have been made with respect to the allegations in the question until she returns.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: When is the vessel expected to return?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In a short time.

  British Coal Exports.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Consul General Sir W. Ward, in his Report on the Hamburg Coal Trade, states that while the importations of British coal in 1901 experienced a falling off of 307,777 tons, as compared with 1900, the imports of Westphalian and of American coal showed increases last year of 130,762 and 9,586 tons respectively; and whether, in these circumstances, he will reconsider the question of the coal tax.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): It is true that there was a diminution in the exports of British coal to Hamburg in 1901, as compared with 1900; but the 1901 figures were still greatly in excess of those for the years 189–98–9, and in the Report to which the hon. Member refers, Sir W. Ward observes that the falling off was due to the unfavourable condition of most branches of German industry in 1901, which attracted to Hamburg the surplus output of Westphalian coal, for which there was no demand in, German inland towns. I do not, however, think that a falling off in our export of coal to a single German port affords any argument for a reconsideration of the coal duty. The export to Kiel and Lubeck showed an increase in 1901; and from the recent report of H. M. Consul at Nantes, I find that the amount of British coal imported to that port in 1901 forms "a noteworthy increase in so bad a year, and shows how little the article was affected by the export duty of 1s. which, where charged, has been paid by the foreign consumer."

  National Gallery, Edinburgh.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the balance available for Imperial expenditure from Scotland for the year ending 31st March, 1901, was £9,958,000, as compared with £2,199,000 from Ireland, he can see his way to making a larger grant to the National Gallery, Edinburgh.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think the figures quoted by the hon. Member would form any justification for a larger grant to the National Gallery. Edinburgh, than the grant to the National Gallery in Dublin.

  Imperial Coronation Bazaar—Lotteries.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to certain lotteries, one of which is in 200 parts of £5 each, which have been publicly advertised in connection with the Imperial Coronation Bazaar, which is being held in the Royal Botanical Gardens during Thursday, Friday and Saturday of this week; and if so, [whether he intends to take any action to prevent these being proceeded with.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Police, having had their attention drawn to the published programme of the Bazaar, explained to the secretary of the bazaar committee that the drawing of raffles would be a violation of the law. He stated, in reply, that it had already been arranged that no raffles should be drawn

  Employment of School Children.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be in a position to introduce the Bill promised by him for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the out-of-school employment of school children.
  MR. RITCHIE: I propose to ask leave to do so tomorrow.

  Housing Loans—Period of Repayment.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of submitting proposals to the House this session embodying the recommendation of the Select Committee on Repayment of Loans by Local Authorities, to the effect that the period of repayment in the cases of housing loans for land should be extended to eighty years.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The Report of the Committee referred to has only just been issued. It is receiving my careful consideration, but I cannot hold out any prospect of my proposing legislation on the subject this session.

  Indian Press Telegraphic Rates.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that arrangements have been made under which the rate on telegrams to and from India has been reduced from 4s. to 2s. 6d. a word, will he say whether any proportionate reduction has been made in the case of Press messages to and from India which have hitherto been sent at special rates.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): As stated by the Secretary of State for India on 25th February last, the Press rate has been reduced from 1s. 4d. to 1s. The new rate came into existence on March 1st last.

  Applecross (Ross-shire) Deer Forest.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, seeing that the acreage of the Deer Forest of Applecross, Ross-shire, consists of 75,000 acres, whereas in the amended Deer Forest Return issued by the Crown agent for Scotland the forest is stated to contain no more than 37,000 acres, will he take steps to ascertain the approximate acreage of this deer forest.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): The figure 37,000

  1199
  was supplied by the assessor. I do not know from what source the hon. Member derives the figure 75.000. I must refer him to the answer I gave on the 6th of May, 1902. What I then said of the general case applies equally to the particular.

  Kintail Estate, Glenshiel.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board have received an application from the tenants on the Estate of Kintail, in the parish of Glenshiel, Ross-shire, urging that Glenshiel should be included in the congested districts area; will he state whether there is any objection to this course being adopted; and, if so, will he state the nature of the objection.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: On the 2nd instant the Congested Districts Board received the application alluded to by the hon. Member. It will be put before the next meeting of the Board for consideration, and their decision will be intimated in due course.

  Clyde Herring Fishery.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he can state whether it is intended to hold an inquiry during the autumn into the condition of the herring fishery in the Firth of Clyde; and if so, if he can see his way to extend the scope of this inquiry to include all the coasts of Scotland.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The scope of the inquiry referred to is limited to the Firth of Clyde, and the Secretary for Scotland is not prepared to suggest to the Fishery Board to extend it to the whole coast of Scotland.

  Technical Instruction Grant—Kingstown Technical School.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Treasury have refused to continue the equivalent grant, without which the school could not have been equipped, to the Kingstown Technical School; and seeing that the school cannot be carried on without it, he will advise the Treasury to reconsider their decision in the matter.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): This Question relates to the grant in aid of technical instruction under the Acts of 1889 and 1891, in respect to which I would refer the hon. Member to the statements made by me on the 2nd May and 18th June, when replying to Questions of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and the hon. Member for East Mayo.†

  Irish Resident Magistrates—Mr. Harrel.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the date of the appointment of Mr. Harrel as resident magistrate, and how many times he has adjudicated in Courts under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and will he state by whom he was ordered to attend ! these courts, and by whom he Was appointed to adjudicate at Sligo recently in the case of Mr. M'Hugh, M. P., who was committed to prison by him for three months for contempt of court.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Harrel was appointed a resident magistrate in August, 1900. He had previously served as an officer in the Constabulary for fifteen years. He was called to the Bar in 1891. He has adjudicated in courts formed under the Act mentioned on eight occasions, details of which were given in my reply to the Question of the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal on Monday last.‡ He was detailed for duty on each occasion in accordance with the ordinary necessities of the public service by official Minutes issued either by the Under Secretary or the I Assistant Under Secretary. the circumstances which rendered it necessary to send to Sligo two resident magistrates unconnected with that district, of whom Mr. Harrel was one, have already been explained by me.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: And was not Mr. Harrel directed to act in nearly I all these instances by his father?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Sir David Harrel is, as the hon. Member knows, the Under Secretary.
  †See (4) Debates cvii., 568; cix., 971.
  ‡ See page 918.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Yes, but perhaps the House is not aware how the trick is done.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question has been fully answered.
  MR. SWIFT MACNKILL: With great respect, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has referred to an answer given to me, and I wish—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It does not arise out of the Question.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then may I ask—
  MR. SPEAKER: Then the hon. Member must give notice.
  MR. SPEAKER: No, the Question has been fully answered.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: This arises out of it.
  MR. SWIFTMACNEILL: With great respect—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !
  MR. WILLIAM. REDMOND: On a point of order I wish to ask if an hon. Member is not entitled to ask a Minister a Question arising directly out of the reply just given.
  MR. SPEAKER: Not if the Question on the Paper has been fully answered. It is only repetition.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am not proposing to ask the same thing. I will put down my Question.

  Marine Works (Ireland.) Bill.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Second Reading of the Marine Works (Ireland). Bill will be taken.
  MR. WYNDHAM: My right hon. friend the Leader of the House will, no doubt, take an opportunity of expanding the statement which he made on Monday on public business. Until a further
  1202
  statement is made it is impossible to forecast the day for which this Bill can conveniently be set down.

  Rents in West Wicklow.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the agents of two owners of laud at Kilcoagh and Kilbaylet, in West Wicklow, called upon the tenants and asked them to sign consents to have their second term routs fixed by two valuators; that the tenants signed the papers, and that the valuators fixed the rents on all the tenants, eight in number, at an average increase of 22.½ per cent, on the judicial rents fixed in 1887; and whether, in view of the fact that the tenants have served notice requiring the cases to be hoard, the Land Commission will, as soon as convenient, appoint Sub-Commissioners to investigate the cases with a view to fixing fair rents.
  MR. WYNDIIAM: In these eases the parties agreed to refer the fixing of fair rents for second statutory terms to Court Valuers. The tenants in each case have served notices requiring a hearing. According to practice the cases will be hoard by the Commissioners themselves on the first opportunity, but may be delegated by them to a Sub-Commission.

  Irish Departmental Reports.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Annual Reports of the following Irish Departments for the year ending 31st March last have not yet boon presented, viz.—the Land Commission, the Local Government Board, the Board of Works, and the Congested Districts Board; and whether, in view of the impending discussion of the Irish Estimates, he will have copies of the same laid in the Library for the use of Members.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Reports of the Land Commission, Local Government Boaad, and Congested Districts Board are in an advanced stage. Every effort will be made to complete them at as early a date as possible, and, I hope, in good time before the Votes for these Departments are taken. With regard to the Report

  1203
  of the Commissioners of Works, it is not presented through the Irish Government, but through the Treasury.

  Boarded-out Children.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state the number of Roman Catholic and Protestant boarded-out children respectively, including those in public institutions, and the number in the several provinces of the country.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. I have not this information. It will take a considerable time to prepare it but I propose to do so.

  Irish Local Councils—Ministers of Religion as Members.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received resolutions from a number of County Councils and Poor Law Boards in Ireland, asking to have ministers of religion declared eligible for membership of local councils in Ireland, the same as in England; and whether he will take steps to give effect to these resolutions.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. I have received a certain number of resolutions. The Irish Act differs from the English Act in this respect. The expediency of making it conform is worthy of consideration, but that is by far too contentious to be raised in connection with the Bill before the House.

  Education Bill.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that under the Education Bill, if passed into law, the term "school district" will mean the whole area under the local education authority, that is, in the case of County Councils, the whole county, any provision will be made in the Bill or in the Code to give some equivalent grant to the local authorities of those districts where there are at present many schools receiving the small population grant (Article 104, Code) so that the new. local education authority shall not lose the sum which is now distributed throughout these districts, as now existing, under the head of small population grants, and which sum is often in rural counties a considerable figure.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): If my hon. friend will look at the first paragraph of the third schedule of the Bill he will find the point he refers to already provided for, and that the areas referred to will still be eligible for the grant.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, in interpreting his Amendment that the total Parliamentary grants to any local education authority shall not exceed three-fourths of the total expenses, the grants under the Agricultural Rates Act will be reckoned as contributions from Imperial or local sources.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is in the negative.
  MR. LAMBERT: I asked Question No. 27, Sir.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is the Question I answered, and I say the answer is in the negative.
  MR. LAMBERT: My Question is whether these grants will be reckoned as contributions from Imperial or local sources. Which is it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My answer is that they will not be reckoned.
  MR. LAMBERT: But are they to be reckoned as Imperial or local?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They will not be reckoned in calculating the amount of the Imperial contribution.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I wish to put a Question with reference to the printing of the Education Bill. This morning we have, following a good precedent set in connection with other long-contested Bills, a reprint of the clause as amended in Committee. But we have no reprint of Clause 1, which, after all, is about the most important clause of the Bill. I would ask that all the clauses be reprinted, whether amended or not, so that we may know exactly where we are. The second point I

  1205
  wish to raise is whether it is necessary—and it was not considered so in the case of the Home Rule and Local Government Bills—to reprint and circulate every morning some fifty pages of Amendments which can by no possibility be reached the same day. Why not confine the reprinting to those which may be reasonably expected to come on?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is, I think, a good one. I will consult the authorities of the House to see how far it can be met. I have no doubt it can.

  Business of the House.
  MR. BRYCE: As the right hon. Gentleman has announced that he intends to take the London Water Bill on Friday, may I ask if he proposes to proceed with it de die in diem.
  MR. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of what the business will be next week?
  MR. LOUGH: And, in fixing the date for the London Water Bill, will the right lion. Gentleman bear in mind that the evidence taken by the Joint Committee has not yet been circulated. It is perfectly impossible for us to consider this Bill until we have the evidence.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it is usual to have the evidence printed before the House is in possession of the Committee's Report, and I certainly should think the House is in possession of all the relevant facts to enable it to discuss the Bill. I must not be taken at this moment to give an absolute pledge as to the business for next week, but I should think the Education Bill will be taken on Monday and Tuesday, and Supply on Wednesday and Thursday.

IRISH VALUATION ACTS.
The Lord Advocate, Mr. Clancy, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Charles Douglas, Mr. Duke, Mr. Goulding, Sir James Haslett,
1206
Mr. Hemphill, Mr. Hozier, Mr. Leo, Mr. Lough, Mr. M'Cann, Mr. W. M'Killop, Mr. Macartney, and Mr. Randles nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Irish Valuation Acts.
Ordered, that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, that Five be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 5:—
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he wished to move the postponement of this Clause, because the treatment of it depended very much on what was done with subsequent Clauses—on whether they were altered or whether they were retained intact. For instance, in the case of Clauses 9 and 10, much would depend on whether or not it was to be optional on the part of the County Council to say whether or not it would act as the local education authority. Again, Clauses 12 and 13 dealt with financial questions and the adoptive principle necessarily had an important hearing. Clause 18 too involved important consideration, and he did not see how hon. Members could be expected to deal with Clause 5 until these various points had been cleared up.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Clause 5 be postponed."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
MR. CBANNINGsaid the reasons advanced for postponing Clauses 1 and 2 were far less forcible than those which could he urged in regard to this Clause. The very serious state of uncertainty in which they were placed as to the probable outcome in Part III. of the changes admitted in Part II., rendered it very desirable to postpone the Consideration of Clause 5. Therè were now some 1,100 or 1,200 autonomous centres with regard to secondary education, and the concessions which had been made in Part II logically and even à fortiori

1207
involved similar concessions in Part III. It would make a serious difference in the whole construction of the Bill, and in the working out of the imperfectly formed machinery contemplated to be introduced under the Clause, if they had anything like the same system of local autonomy introduced in regard to elementary education as had been introduced for secondary education. The discussion of the Clause at present would therefore be singularly inopportune. If, however, the First Lord were to intimate that to the principle of the Clause he proposed to adhere—that was to say, the principle of referring the decision to the localities—then he would be ready to give him his support, and not press for postponement, and pass at once to the other clauses of the Bill.
MR. BRIGGsaid he had put an Amendment on the Notice Paper to postpone Clause 5 at the request of the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, a body which he claimed had some right to be heard on the point. He did not say that it had done more than any other County Council ought to have done, but it certainly had accomplished very excellent work. It had distributed large sums of money for educational progress, it had devoted.£5,000 to the 51 secondary schools in its district, £9,000 to evening technical schools, £2,000 to continuation schools, £9,500 to exhibitions and scholarships, and £1,400 in grants to teachers, some of whom pursue their studies abroad. The County Council was so overburdened with work at present that the members felt it would be impossible for them to take over elementary education unless some modifications were made in some of the subsequent Clauses dealing with the powers and duties of the local education authority.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon Member must confine his arguments to the question of the postponement of the Clause.
MR. BRIGGsaid he was putting forward arguments for postponement. There were over a thousand schools in the Council's district which would have to be dealt with, and they would find it absolutely impossible to make the necessary arrangements if this Clause was carried at once.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is an argument for postponing the operation of the Clause—not for postponing its consideration.
MR. BRIGGsaid he was pointing out that if the Clause as it stood were passed, the County Council could not possibly give effect to it, and they were anxious to hear what modifications the right hon. Gentleman proposed to suggest. He believed the progress of the Bill would be facilitated by postponing the Clause.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,)said it was quite clear that if the Government had reversed the order of the Clauses, and had proposed to deal first with the composition of the Education Committee, it would be said that the Clause ought to be postponed, as it was necessary to consider first the duties of the Committees before discussing their composition. The question raised by the Clause now before the Committee was one of extreme importance, and went to the root of the other parts of the Bill. That question was whether the local authorities were to be charged with the control of the business of elementary education — whether they were to be left to take the function upon themselves or not, according as they themselves decided. If the Committee were to continue to treat the Bill in the businesslike fashion in which they had treated it up to the present, they would proceed at once to settle that very important question, which would greatly affect their determination as to the position of the schools under Clause 8, and as to the constitution of the Education Committees under Clause 12.
MR. DILLONsaid that the Government were simply inviting the Committee to waste the whole afternoon in discussing the Amendments to the Clause, without giving to the Committee the slightest indication as to what they themselves proposed to do. The Notice Paper showed that Amendments to omit the Clause had come from all quarters of the House—from representatives of the Liberal Unionist Party, of

1209
the Educationists, of the Church Party, of the Radical Party, of the Liberal Party, and of the Nationalist Party—they all desired to reject the Clause. In all probability the whole afternoon and evening would be spent in discussing Amendments to a Clause which would ultimately be rejected altogether by a majority of 3 to 1. They were in blank ignorance as to the position of the Government in reference to Clause 5. He did not desire to unduly press the Government, but if there was any truth in the rumour that the Government intended to leave the decision of this Clause to the judgment of the House without naming tellers, the Committee ought to know that. He had not yet quite made up his mind as to which way he should vote, but he thought the facts he had stated made up a case in favour of the postponement of the Clause, because then they might proceed with the other Clauses, and if the Government were made aware of the feeling of the House in regard to this particular Clause, then possibly the discussion on Clause 5 might be avoided. Although he was strongly against this Clause, he thought the House ought to have the courage to settle this question one way or the other. To treat it in this way was an admission that the House of Commons was afraid to settle it. He was in favour of the deletion of this Clause altogether. He was rather afraid of changes in Clause 12 which might alter his attitude in reference to Clause 5. That was a strong argument in favour of the postponement of the Clause. On the other hand, such alterations might be made as would convert opponents into supporters of Clause 5. He would put it to the Government whether it was a rational course to embark upon a prolonged discussion, carried on in the dark, as to the position of the Government, with the result that at the end Clause 5 would be struck out by an overwhelming majority.
SIR SAMUEL HOAREhoped the Committee would not agree to the postponement of the Clause. There was no doubt whatever that they had now to consider a very difficult question indeed, and he could not see that any advantage would be gained by postponing it. He thought
1210
it would be much better to at once approach the question and settle it. As one who had supported the First Lord of the Treasury warmly throughout all the proceedings in regard to this Bill, he appealed to him whether it would not be possible at this stage to define the position which the Government intended to take up in reference to this Clause. The question involved a great many difficulties which were anticipated on all sides of the House, and it would materially help this question if the right hon. Gentleman could give them some guidance as to whether the Clause was to be optional or not. If he was able to do this, he could not help thinking that this Clause would advance much more quickly. No doubt the First Lord of the Treasury wished to hear the views of various sections of the House, but there were many Members on both sides of the House who believed that it was not advisable that there should be any optional Clause. It would be a source of satisfaction if they know whether the Government were going to treat this as a question upon which all hon. Members might give their independent opinion. So much of the working of the Bill in future depended upon this Clause that he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in the hope that he might make some statement which would clear the way, and prevent what must otherwise be a very lengthy discussion.
MR. BRYCEsaid it would not be in order now to discuss the merits of the Clause, nor the merits of retaining or dispensing with the option. He desired, however, to correct the misapprehension of his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo, who seemed to think that there was a general disposition on both sides of the House to get rid of this Clause. He did not think that was so. Upon this point there was not unanimity upon the opposite side, while on the Opposition side there was a large preponderance of opinion in favour of retaining the Clause. He was bound to say that the Government were adopting a very judicious course in endeavouring to allow hon. Members to express their opinions on this question of retaining the option before announcing their views upon it. Two things must be remembered. In the first place, this was a question upon which many hon. Members could contribute opinions which would be worthy of the attention of the

1211
House; and, in the second place, the form in which it would be amended would alter their opinions as to the retention of the Clause.
MR. BARTLEYsaid it seemed to him a pity that the Government could not give the Committee some indication as to whether they intended to keep to this Clause. It was a waste of energy this hot weather to go on debating a Clause like this, unless the Government gave them a decided statement upon it. It seemed to him that the option must be given up, for everything turned upon that. He thought it would expedite business if they were told whether the Government were going to stand to the Clause or not. As for saying that it should be left to the House to decide, that did not seem to him the way in which a strong Government should act—for they ought to lead. It would facilitate matters very much if the First Lord or the Vice President gave them some definite idea as to whether the Government had made up their mind upon this subject or not.
SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid that this Clause went to the root of the elementary part of this Bill, and it would need very considerable alteration to make it suit the general feeling of those on his side of the House. Amendments were down on the Paper which might not go as far as his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo desired, but they indicated that improvements might be effected in the Clause.
MR. DUKEhoped the Leader of the House would not accede to the proposal to postpone the Clause, but he trusted that he would accede to the request to leave this an open question. He did not agree that the Government Whips should be brought in upon every possible occasion, so that matters might be decided without any reference to their individual judgment. He did not agree that the Clause should be postponed. He submitted that the reasonable course was to have the shorter discussion first. The House should make up its mind whether the provisions with regard to primary education should or should not be optional. That was a matter which ought not to occupy any
1212
great length of time. The Government had not themselves come to an irrevocable decision on the subject, and the proper course was to deal with this in a commonsense and, if possible, amicable way.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid an appeal had been made to the Leader of the House to declare what position the Government were going to take up in regard to the option clause. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not accede to that request at the present moment. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would first listen to what was to be said in regard to the various Amendments of which notice had been given. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give serious consideration to what he proposed to do on the question of option. If the Bill stood as it was at present, he was certain that if County Councils were compelled to rate themselves for the purpose of education without management, there would be such strife and contention—he was not sure that there would not be such scenes of lawlessness—in this country as we had not seen in connection with religious matters for a long time past. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] The hon. Gentlemen said that was nonsense. He was perfectly certain that the men who had said that they would resist to the utmost of their power the rate if imposed on them, were not men who were simply indulging in bluff or rant. He would appeal to the Government before they made up their minds finally to consider whether they would compel County Councils to undertake duties which would be obnoxious to many of them if Clause 12 stood as it was. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo that it depended entirely on what was done with Clause 12. He did not despair that some arrangement might be arrived at when they came to Clause 12, but if it was left as it was there was no power the Government had got to compel County Councils to impose a new church rate against their will. He ventured to say the central government would not do it. What happened in regard to Clause 12 would influence his judgment, and he

1213
thought the judgment of many hon. Members, on the question of option. He would ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it would not be reasonable, first of all, to decide what they were going to do in regard to the machinery of the Bill, and if the machinery commended it self to the majority of the House he would have no difficulty in dropping the option clause. It would be the most serious step the Government had taken for some time, if they compelled responsible representative bodies like County Councils to enforce an Act of Parliament which, in their judgment, imposed injustice and wrong upon the majority of the people they represented. He did not think they could do it. He did not know a single case where a local authority had ever put into operation an Act of Parliament which created an injustice for the majority of their constituents. Why should they decide this question now? The usual method was to put in a clause at the end of an Act of Parliament declaring the extent of the application of the measure. That was the principle of draftsmanship which ought to apply here.
MR. A. J. BALFOURhoped the Committee would now bring the discussion to a close. It was perfectly true, as his hon. friend said earlier in the afternoon, that excellent and solid arguments might be brought forward to defer this Clause, or any clause in any Bill. A Bill was an organic whole, and it was perfectly true that they could not judge of any one part of it until they knew what the whole was to be. By postponing clauses, they only went round like a squirrel in a cage, and they never got on at all. It was perfectly true that the question whether the Clause should be compulsory was one which might be relevantly urged on such and such a proposition, but the converse was also true, and it was very difficult to decide what ought to be, or ought not to be, the provisions of the Bill, and whether it ought to be compulsory or not. They might bandy these contradictory arguments one against another the whole afternoon, and never come nearer any conclusive decision. He had been asked by one or two friends behind him to declare the Government policy on
1214
this matter; but he thought that would be introducing into a debate, which ought to flow in a narrow channel, considerations of very much wider scope. An opportunity would occur early in connection with the Amendments on the Paper, when it would be the duty of the Government to say what they thought on the question of option or no option, and perhaps, in the meanwhile, the Committee would now be willing to come to a decision as to whether the Clause ought or ought not to be postponed.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he had not voted for the postponing of any Clause of the Bill, because he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was a process by which they did reduce debate to something like the action of a squirrel going round in a cage; but there were occasions when they must go round, and he thought this was one, because it was impossible to go forward with any satisfaction. From the point of view of education, which they would come to discuss later on, it seemed to him the most blighting clause that could possibly be introduced in the Bill. He was not prepared to lay upon County Councils a duty of this kind until he knew what were the powers, and under what conditions these powers were to be exercised. In this case he thought there was some special reason for taking this clause later, so that they might know, before being asked to make the clause compulsory, under what conditions these powers would be laid upon the County Councils.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he wished to make one observation which he thought was important. The difficulty which everybody felt could be remedied. The Report stage would provide a way out of the difficulty. Let the Committee decide on this Clause now, and if there should be any very vital, drastic, and revolutionary changes in that part of the Bill, the House would have an opportunity of discussing them on Report and of deciding whether these changes justified, or did not justify, the making of the Bill optional.
MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the Motion before the Committee related to the application of the

1215
Bill. Hon. Members knew that a clause relating to the application of a Bill invariably came at the end—and quite rightly. They wanted to know, in the first place, what sort of a Bill it was. He thought if they voted for the Motion of his hon. friend they would be voting strictly according to precedent.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid the illustration of the right hon. Gentleman of the squirrel in the cage was not a very appropriate one.
They were balancing opposing considerations. There were reasons for taking the Clause in its order; but, on the other hand, there were, in his judgment, stronger reasons for postponing the Clause until they knew what duties were to be imposed on the County Councils.
(3.28.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes, 167. (Division List No. 279.)

AYES.

Allan, Sir William(Gateshead)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Paulton, James Mellor

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Rea, Russell

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Rickett, J. Compton

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Brigg, John

Harwood, George

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Broadhurst, Henry

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Runciman, Walter

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Helme, Norval Watson

Russell, T. W.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Schwann, Charles E.

Burns, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Burt, Thomas

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Buxton, Sidney Charles

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R.(North'ts

Caine, William Sproston

Jacoby, James Alfred

Stevenson, Francis S.

Caldwell, James

Joicey, Sir James

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Cameron, Robert

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan. E.

Cawley, Frederick

Kitson, Sir James

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Channing, Francis Allston

Labouchere, Henry

Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower

Crombie, John William

Lambert, George

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Tomkinson, James

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Toulmin, George

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leng, Sir John

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Elibank, Master of

Levy, Maurice

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Emmott, Alfred

Lewis, John Herbert

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Lough, Thomas

Wier, James Galloway

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Grant, Corrie

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Sir Edward Strachey and

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Mr. Lloyd-George.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Bill, Charles

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cranborne, Viscount

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Arkwright John Stanhope

Boulnois, Edmund

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bousfield, William Robert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Bain, Col. James Robert

Carlile, William Walter

Denny, Colonel

Baird, John George Alexander

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Balcarres, Lord

Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire

Digby, John K. D., Wingfield-

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wor.

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Chapman, Edward

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Duke, Henry Edward

Bartley, George C. T.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. Hicks

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Fardell, Sir T. George

Beresford, Lord Chas. William

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r

Finch, George H.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

Fisher, William Hayes

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Flower, Ernest

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Galloway, William Johnson

Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Gardner, Ernest

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B(Cambs.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Gordon, Maj. Evans- (T'r, Hlts.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Gore, Hon. S. F.(Ormsby-(Linc.)

Mather, Sir William

Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Mevsey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Grenfell, William Henry

Middlemore. John Throgmort'n

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

Gretton, John

Mitchell, William

Spear, John Ward

Gunter, Sir Robert

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Morgan, DavidJ.(Walthamst'w

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Mount, William Arthur

Talbot, RtHn. J. G.(Oxt'd Univ.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham(Bute

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Myers, William Henry

Tollemache, Henry James

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Heaton, John Henniker

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway N.)

Valentia, Viscount

Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Parkes, Ebenezer

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(Taunt'n

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Pease, Herbert Pike(D'rlington

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Hoult, Joseph

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hozier, Hon. JamesHcnryCecil

Pierpoint, Robert

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Plummer, Walter R.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wylie, Alexander

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Kennedy, Patrick James

Randles, John S.

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Rankin, Sir James

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

Reid, James (Greenock)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Lee, ArthurH.(Hants. Fareham

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Sir William Walrond and

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Renwick, George

Mr. Anstruther.

SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid he trusted that the discussion which would ensue on the Amendment that he was about to propose would enable the Government to say what they proposed to do in regard toy Clause 5. He thought that in all parts of the House it was agreed that Clause 5 could not stand as it now appeared in the Bill; it must be amended, and even the Clause might be removed, and a new one put in its place. The object of his Amendment was to secure that the provisions of this Clause should not apply
"in a borough with a population of over 10,000, or in an urban district with a population of over 20,000, where there is a School Board at the commencement of this Act, and, save as aforesaid, shall apply."
Then there would have to be added at the end of the Clause two sub-sections, in order to make the scheme executive, which he proposed to add in a subsequent Amendment in the following words—
1218
(1) "Where a School Board continues in existence in a borough or an urban district, the School Board shall have all the administrative powers and duties of a local education authority under this part of the Act, but the expenses of the School Board shall be defrayed as hereinafter provided. (2) A School Board shall not have power to raise money by serving a precept on the rating authority, but the Borough Council or Urban District Council shall pay to the School Board such money as they think fit for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the School Board."
They were all agreed that it was necessary to place elementary education in this country in such a condition that it could be carried on most efficiently. The Government had provided for that, as they thought, by Part III of the Bill. Part II of the Bill provided that secondary education should be undertaken by the County Borough Councils and by the County Councils when the Bill was passed; but before these authorities could undertake elementary education it would be necessary for them to adopt Part III of the Bill. It was a somewhat complex question to say precisely what

1219
was the action opened up to these county boroughs and County Council authorities, if the County Councils throughout England and Wales did not adopt Part III of the Bill, then all the voluntary schools within their area would remain exactly as they are now, and so also would the board schools. They could not tell how long that condition of things would go on; and that would be very detrimental to the cause of elementary education. Then as to county boroughs. If the local educational authority did not adopt Part III, what would be the result? Voluntary schools would remain without any aid beyond that they now got for their secular education, as compared with the education in the board schools supported by the rates; and that would be a very serious defect in the educational system of the country. There were three existing classes of authorities who, under the Clause as it stood, would have the right to adopt or reject the option, just as they thought proper. He would endeavour to explain a middle course between the absolute adoption or rejection of the permissive powers of the Bill, and things remaining as they were. He would propose his Amendment to Clause 5 stipulating that all the School Boards now existing in certain areas with populations above 10,000 and 20,000 should constitute the administrative educational authority. He did not tie himself down to the figures he had mentioned, and it would be competent for the Committee to alter them. What would happen if the Amendment were accepted? They were all aware that the School Boards in towns, and in urban districts of a considerable size, had for the last thirty years conducted education with the utmost possible efficiency in the schools over which they had entire control; and he had no reason to believe that they would not provide equally efficient education in the voluntary schools in their districts, if they were made the sole educational authority. His Amendment was that such School Boards should be constituted the executive administrative authority for all board and voluntary schools in their district, and should distribute money provided by the Municipal Councils to the support of such schools.
1220
The point of this Bill was that it was necessary and desirable, in the interests of education, that the starved voluntary schools should have the same amount of popular support as the board schools had had for thirty years; and, therefore, his Amendment would rid the question of a very great difficulty. Every denominationalist in the House might accept an Amendment of that kind, because it would at once bring the voluntary schools into the position it was desired that they should occupy; and the School Boards would have the right and duty from the rates to bestow their support on all schools alike for the purposes of elementary education. The local authority or Municipal Council as provided in Clause 1 would still retain its paramount position; it would be the source of all expenditure, and, therefore, would have the control of all expenditure, the executive action for educational purposes only resting on the School Boards. Very large benefit would, in his opinion, result from the continued action of the School Boards as the administrative educational authority. They had behind them thirty years of educational experience; they had dealt systematically with the elementary education of the country, with the result that, in some respects, it was second to none in the world; they represented enlightened public opinion in reference to education in their localities; they had enlisted among their members some of the most respected representatives of all denominations, especially of the Church of England, in the large centres of population; and, with one or two exceptions, these representatives of various religions had sunk their differences on the School Boards, and had worked together for the common good of the elementary training of the children in their respective localities. There were over 2,000 members of School Boards devoting most of their time to educational work, and they had two and a half millions of children in their schools. It was impossible, from a business point of view, to find a better or more equitable system of representing public opinion in reference to elementary education, than was to be found in the action and experience of the School Boards. They might, of course, not be theoretically

1221
perfect—the Leader of the House admitted that few schemes were—but whatever scheme was adopted, they would not have in the country, for the next twenty - five years, an equally practical authority. Why, then, throw away at once all the splendid experience, all the ripe knowledge, and all the perfect confidence of the people of the country, as regarded educational administration, which the School Boards possessed, when, by retaining them, they could accomplish all the Bill aimed at, namely, equal treatment for the voluntary schools under popular control, efficient education all round, with the local authority as the fountain head for the money necessary for education, and also the authority to control and finally decide what money should be spent on elementary education? He could not conceive how any business community could throw away such splendid power of direction, such experience and knowledge in the conduct of educational affairs, as would be thrown away if the Clause, as it stood, was passed. Even if the option were withdrawn, he should still object to Part 111 of the Bill, as the local authorities would at once be the responsible directors of elementary education, without any knowledge or experience, and many of them with riot much goodwill, he could conceive that the local authorities would have great difficulty in appointing committees, and that, in appointing such committees, they would not satisfy the public opinion of the locality. The Amendment would satisfy public opinion immediately; it would satisfy, he believed, every voluntary school manager, and would satisfy the demand for the public control of public funds. Under the existing system there was great friction. The School Boards demanded from the rating authority any sum of money they liked to spend in their own way; but, under his Amendment, that authority would be withdrawn, and the amount of money to be spent would rest entirely with the local authority while the School Boards would carry out education to the best of their ability. Every demand of the Bill would be satisfied if his Amendment were accepted; and the least possible disturbance would be created in the country by the great
1222
changes, they were introducing. He submitted that the case for his Amendment was overwhelmingly strong from every point of view. Under it there would be practical business management, the best knowledge arid experience would be enlisted for the purposes of elementary education in the more populous areas, the voluntary schools would be put on the level of the board schools, and the local authority would decide what money was to be spent in carrying on education. If the Amendment were accepted, it would enable them to pass on to and settle some very difficult questions more easily than would otherwise be likely to be the case if the Clause were not amended in the direction he had indicated. He himself should be willing to have the option withdrawn for localities below a certain population, but so far as the great centres of population were concerned, his Amendment would very much strengthen the advantage which the country would derive from the change which they were endeavouring to make in this system of national education, and would give great satisfaction to all educationists. It would also rid every School Board election of anything like religious strife, because the School Boards would be elected for educational purposes only, and would not represent any particular religious denomination. There would be no quarrel between voluntary and board schools; and the best men interested in education would endeavour to make their own locality the best educated in the Kingdom, with the greatest possible advantages, not only to particular localities, but to the country generally.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 26, after the word 'shall,' to insert the word 'not.'"—(Sir William Mather.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'not' be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, as he understood the Amendment, it was the preface or introduction to a scheme which in certain selected communities would substitute the existing School Boards for the local education authority proposed by Clause 1 of the Bill. Under those

1223
circumstances, he asked for a ruling as to whether the Amendment as interpreted by the speech of the hon. Member opposite was really in order, and whether the Committee had not already determined that it was not the School Board who was to be the local education authority, but the various bodies mentioned under Part I of the Bill.
SIR WILLIAM MATHER, interposing, said it was not his intention by the Amendment to establish a local education authority independent of, or varying from, that established under Clause 1 of the Bill. All he suggested was that when they adopted Part III of the Bill, the manner of the adoption should be such that the. School Boards existing in these places today should be the executive administrative authorities of local education authorities. Inasmuch as, all the financial power was retained in the hands of the local education authority, he thought the existing School Boards might well be retained as an administrative School Committee.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR, on a point of order, submitted that the scheme of the hon. Member must be one of two things. The School Board in such a case must either be a new local education authority, or it must be a new education committee. If it was the first, it was contrary to the principle of the Bill; and if the second, the Amendment would come up more properly under Clause 12.
MR. BOUSFIELDalso expressed the opinion that this Amendment should come under Clause 12.
MR. BRYCEsaid the Amendment was not open to the dilemma raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because it dealt with districts in which the system might not be exercised; and if the option was not exercised, then the School Board would remain the education authority.
THE CHAIRMAN: It seems to mo, having regard to the explanation of the hon. Member, that this would not be a fresh education authority, neither would it be a Committee; it would be a nondescript sort of an arrangement, which would not come under the term either of a fresh local education authority or that
1224
of a committee, because it would not be elected or appointed by the local education authority. Therefore, I hardly know what name to give it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Under the scheme of the Bill, the Education Committee is to be arranged by the County Council. It is not necessary under the Bill that it should be elected by the County Council.
SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid his contention was that where this option was not exercised by a district, the School Board continued to exist. By Clause, a local education authority was created, but if the authority did not adopt the power under the Bill, the School Board continued. That point was brought before the House on the occasion of the First Reading, with great power and lucidity, by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University. The anomaly was far greater than he or anyone else could hope to correct by an Amendment. He only tried to help the Government out of their dilemma.
THE CHAIRMAN: It seems to be a doubtful point, and I think the best course is to give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid as the lion. Member had been given the benefit of the doubt he would endeavour to answer the Amendment as briefly as possible. The plan of the Government was perfectly well understood. The hon. Gentleman opposite proposed to leave the education authority as established by Clause 1 and to give it no power at all. All power was to be exercised by the School Board except the power of the purse. Did the power of the purse mean, as it ought to mean, that the Borough Council were to have the right to review the decisions come to by the School Boards? If so, then the School Board, an elective body like themselves, elected by the same constituency, was to be put under the thumb of the Borough Council. If, on the other hand, the Borough Council were to have no power to review the schemes of the School Board, then it would be found that the School Board was the real education authority, and

1225
the Borough Council had no authority except to find the money the School Board demanded.
SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid it was quite a simple matter, well understood in America. It worked extremely well in Massachusetts.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had not lately refreshed his memory as to the educational practice of America, but was he to understand that in that very practical country one of two bodies elected by the same constituents was subordinate to the other?
SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid they were both answerable to the ratepayers.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid every elected body was ultimately answerable to its constituents. He did not know whether it worked well in Massachusetts, but it was not a plan that he should recommend the Committee to adopt.
MR. BRYCEsaid the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to realise that his lion, friend's object was to improve the Government scheme and make it workable. His hon. friend realised that the Government were in a considerable difficulty in this matter, and he suggested that if the option was to be a reality it was only fair that something should be substituted for it, and that the voluntary schools should be given the small amount which they were to receive under the option, if that option were not exercised. The right hon. Gentleman had not appreciated that part of the hon. Member's argument. The hon. Member wished to provide for the case of the voluntary schools in districts where the option was not exercised, and where, in consequence, the voluntary schools would be placed in a position of difficulty if some such plan as was suggested were not adopted. The hon. Member, at the same time, wished in the case of boroughs where the Borough Council desired to retain the School Board for the time being, and at the same time desired to retain their voluntary schools, to enable this to be done. Under the plan suggested, both those objects could be attained. The right hon. Gentleman
1226
had said he could not see how it would work, but his hon. friend had given the example of Massachusetts, which he himself was in a position to confirm. There they had a Municipal Council and an elected School Committee which was the administrative committee which carried out the whole of the school work, and was not interfered with. The only part in which control was exercised by the Municipal Council was on the question of money. If the School Committee made an excessive or inordinate demand for money, that demand could be refused by the Council. There was no difficulty in practice, for the reason that the law of the State regulated the standard of education which the School Committee was bound to give, and if the School Committee was prepared to show that it had given that education and no more, that it had not indulged the people with educational luxuries, then the municipal authority would be bound to meet the demand which the School Committee made upon it. In point of fact, that system worked well not only in Massachusetts but in all the States of New England, and no difficulty arose. It was quite true that any one studying the theory of the system could suggest endless difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman's ingenuity might suggest difficulties in that system, but in point of fact it worked to perfect satisfaction. The suggestion of his hon. friend was neither that of an educational authority nor that of a Committee, so that it was not upon to the objection that it interfered with Clause 1, on the one hand, or with later clauses on the other. It was an attempt to deal with a case which the Bill omitted to touch—the case in which local option was not exercised—and he hoped it would be accepted.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman made the meaning of the Amendment clearer, but he was still not certain that those who agreed with the mover as to the admirable character of the work which had been done by the existing School Boards, and as to the superiority of that work over any they were likely to get from the rural counties, would be

1227
well advised to support it. If the option clause remained, they would be left alone for the present, and from what he knew of rural counties, they would far rather be left alone than have this intermediate plan by which they would be put financially under the control of the County Council. Personally, he feared the discussion was only of academic interest, as it seemed extremely probable that the Government intended to allow the option to be knocked out of the Bill. But the Committee had to consider the matter as it stood, and, on the very grounds of efficiency urged by his lion, friend, his judgment, as at present advised, went rather against the Amendment than for it.
MR. BOUSFIELDagreed as to the immense importance of utilising, as far as possible in the new education authorities, the experience of those who had hitherto done so much in the work of education. There were men of all denominations and of all shades of opinion, who were devoted to the cause of education, and had served on the School Boards, but the machinery by which the hon. Member proposed that their assistance should be availed of was wholly inefficient, and would really defeat its own object. Personally, he would like to see some arrangement by which the original Education Committees, at all events, would be largely composed of members of the existing School Boards—say that the School Board should nominate one-half, and the Council the other. It was necessary that the Councils should have some control over the Committees, but, at the same time, he thoroughly agreed that they should avail themselves of the services of those who in the past had to a large extent conducted the education of the country. In a district just outside London in which he lived, they had for some years an admirable arrangement. In that district there were Church, Roman Catholic, and British or Nonconformist schools. A difficulty arose about keeping the British schools going, and, as a School Board was not desired, a Committee was formed on which all the schools were represented. A meeting was held once a year, the educational prospects of, the schools were discussed,
1228
and a voluntary rate was levied and applied by the Committee to the support of the schools. That system worked well for a time, but, finally, certain Nonconformists asked why they should pay so much to keep their schools going, when under a School Board they could have, at the public expense, the same kind of religious instruction as was given in the British schools. So that what formerly were British schools were now run by a School Board, while at the same time the Church and Roman Catholic schools were maintained at the expense of the denominations concerned. The Bill would restore their old system, but, instead of a Committee, they would have the Education Authority, and instead of a voluntary, a compulsory rate, to distribute fairly over the locality. As he had already said, the Amendment would defeat its own object, because Clause 5 would enact that the following sections should not apply in certain areas, and Section 8, which was one of those sections, contained all the directions as to the maintenance of different classes of schools. Therefore, if the Amendment were carried, it would cut out all the machinery necessary for carrying out the spirit of the proposal. He would, however, be glad to see the Amendment brought up in a modified form and discussed on Clause 12.
MR. CHANNING, said he was one of those Members of the House who had had the advantage of closely studying on the spot the American system, in repeated visits to the United States during the last thirty years. He thought the hon. Member for Rossendale had rendered a service in bringing forward this Amendment. If the First Lord had had an opportunity of examining some of the recent American reports dealing with the exact relations of the School Committees to the local authorities in the great American cities, he would have seen that the present Amendment was worthy of consideration. Under the Bill as it stood, where the option was not exercised, the School Board would be left in existence unaltered, and under exactly the same conditions as before. Obviously, that would be unworkable in view of the proposals of the Bill,

1229
and the principle of co-ordination and correlation to be put in force. If the School Boards were to he retained in any form whatever, they would have to be co-ordinated and brought into harmony with the superior authority, which dealt with the whole county area. In America there was in every case the financial control of the superior authority over the elected, appointed, or nominated executive education authority. He did not think anybody would advise the adoption of the American plan of education pure and simple, but he believed the suggestion of his hon. friend pointed towards the proper solution of the matter. If some such provisions for the full development and co-ordination of all branches of education and all classes of schools were not adopted, they would be open to the imputations which had for years been cast at defenders of School Boards. The mistake had always been that they failed frankly to recognise the fact that there were 3,000,000 children in voluntary schools, for whose education adequate provision had to be made, and that some solution must be found of this problem. It was a cardinal error of policy, for which he had repeatedly reproached the leaders of the Liberal Party for not having the courage to face and deal with on adequate and satisfactory lines. Now, as regards the proposal of the Amendment, however the Bill, was worked out, he believed it would arrive at some such solution as that suggested by his hon. friend. He believed they would arrive at some-thing like an ad hoc, authority everywhere for elementary education. He thought the suggestions of his hon. friend were well deserving of the support of the Committee, as pointing to a via media which would remove the risk of serious mischief under this clause.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that he sympathised with the spirit of the Amendment, although it was difficult to follow its object, he had not been to America or Massachusetts, and he desired to ask a few questions as to the position of the nondescript body which would remain if this Amendment were carried. Where the option was
1230
not exercised, the School Boards would remain in existence. His hon. friend did not propose that this new body was to have the same power and position as the School Boards, but he did propose that the voluntary schools should come within the jurisdiction of this new body, and it was to have control, not' only of the board schools, but also of voluntary schools, and full jurisdiction over the whole of the elementary education in its own district. They would probably have the appointment of the managers and the power of the purse, because they would have all the administrative powers and duties of the local authority. As the Chairman had read this Amendment, this new body was to be neither an educational authority nor an educational Committee, and it was very difficult to follow what it was to be. The phraseology of the Amendment which his hon. friend had on the Paper, at the foot of page 12, showed that this body was to have all the administrative powers and duties of a local authority, without the power to raise money, by serving a precept on the rating authority. The position would be that this body could not raise money itself, but it would have to go, cap in hand, to the Borough or Urban District Council. This seemed to him to be a sort of Chinese puzzle. If his contention was wrong, he should be glad to receive any further information from the mover of the Amendment, although he might say that, whatever was the explanation, he should vote for the Amendment, because whenever his hon. friend proposed to negative any portion of this Bill he should support him.
MR. GRIFEITHsaid it would be very useful to know whether this Clause was going to be made compulsory or not, and he submitted that the time had now come when the Government ought to make up their mind and communicate their decision to the Committee.
(4.38.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes. 103; Noes, 246. (Division List No.280.)

AYES.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Paulton, James Mellor

Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Philipps, John Wynford

Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

Pirie, Duncan V.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Priestley, Arthur

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Harwood, George

Rea, Russell

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Rickett, J. Compton

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Rigg, Richard

Brigg, John

Helme, Norval Watson

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Broadhurst, Henry

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Robertsen, Edmund (Dundee)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Horniman, Frederick John

Russell, T. W.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Schwann, Charles E.

Burt, Thomas

Jacoby, James Alfred

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Joicey, Sir James

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Caine, William Sproston

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Caldwell, James

Kitson, Sir James

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R.(N'rthants

Cameron, Robert

Labouchere, Henry

Stevenson, Francis S.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lambert, George

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cawley, Frederick

Layland-Barratt Francis

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Cremer, William Randal

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Crombie, John William

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leng, Sir John

Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lewis, John Herbert

Tomkinson, James

Dunn, Sir William

Lough, Thomas

Toulmin, George

Elibank, Master of

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Emmott, Alfred

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wallace, Robert

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Markham, Arthur Basil

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Fenwick, Charles

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Weir, James Galloway

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Moss, Samuel

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fuller, J. M. F.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Furness, Sir Christopher

Norman, Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Sir William Mather and

Griffith, Ellis J.

Partington, Oswald

Mr. Channing.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Bull, William James

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Acland, Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Carew, James Laurence

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Carlile, William Walter

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Finch, George H.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Chapman, Edward

Fisher, William Hayes

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Coddington, Sir William

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Baird, John George Alexander

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Eitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Balcarres, Lord

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Flynn, James Christopher

Baldwin, Alfred

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Galloway, William Johnson

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Gardner, Ernest

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Garfit, William

Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(CityofLond.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Cranborne, Viscount

Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin&Nairn)

Banbury, Frederick George

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

Bartley, George C. T.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Grant, Corrie

Beresford, LordCharles William

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Delany, William

Gretton, John

Bigwood, James

Denny, Colonel

Groves, James Grimble

Bill, Charles

Dickson, Charles Scott

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Gunter, Sir Robert

Boland, John

Dillon, John

Hall, Edward Marshall

Bond, Edward

Donelan, Captain A.

Hamilton, RtHnLordG (Midd'x

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Doogan, P. C.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Boulnois, Edmund

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Bousfield, William Robert

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Harris, Frederick Leyerton

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Hayden, John Patrick

1232

1233

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Higginbottom, S. W.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Mooney, John J.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Hogg, Lindsay

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Morrison, James Archibald

Seton-Karr, Henry

Horner, Frederick William

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Hoult, Joseph

Murphy, John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Murray, Rt. Hn. AGraham(Bute

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Myers, William Henry

Spear, John Ward

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

Joyce, Michael

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sullivan, Donal

Laurie, Lieut.-General

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lawson, John Grant

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

Loamy, Edmund

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants, Fareham

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Thornton, Percy M.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

O'Malley, William

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

O'Mara, James

Trinton, Charles Ernest

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Orr Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Tully, Jasper

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Valentia, Viscount

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Percy, Earl

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Lowe, Francis William

Pierpoint, Robert

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. CE(Taunton

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Plummer, Walter R.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Maenamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Randles, John S.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Rankin, Sir James

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Maconochie, A. W.

Reddy, M.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B(Cambs.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wylie, Alexander

M'Govern, T.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh W

Renwick, George

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

M'Kean, John

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Young, Samuel

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Ridley, S. Forde(BethnalGreen

Manners, Lord Cecil

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

THELLER FOR THE NOES—

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfries'hre

Robinson, Brooke

Sir William Walrond and

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Mr. Anstruther.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEmoved an Amendment on Clause 5 to make Part III., with reference to elementary education, apply "to every local education authority established by this Act." His object in moving the Amendment was to test the question whether Part III. of the Bill was to be optional or universal in its application. When the Bill was first introduced, it was the almost universal opinion among the friends of the Bill that it should be optional, and it extended at that time to many Gentlemen who could not possibly be classed as friends; but they had now come to take a different view on the Option Clause. What all desired was to see created all
1234
over the country a properly organised system of education, both secondary and elementary. They did not want a mere patchwork plan, such as they thought would be "produced if this Clause stood as it was, and if the application of this part of the Bill was merely fragmentary and partial in different parts of the country. Above all, they did not wish to see continued a kind of chaos of different authorities, with agitation proceeding, and discontent prevailing, in educational circles, even where it did not exist at present. There were various objections which could be urged from different points of view to the Option Clause. In the first place, there was what he would call the general objection

1235
of the local government. He was as strong an advocate as most Members in favour of the freedom of action of local authorities, but he considered that Parliament had a duty towards them, in that it should lay down definite spheres of action, and prescribe definite principles of action for them. In this particular-case, he thought Parliament would not be performing its duty if it simply threw down, as a bone of contention, before the local authorities, the very large and all-important question as to whether they were or were not to have control over the great field of elementary education. It was true, as had been pointed out, that there was some difference of opinion among local authorities with regard to this part of the Bill. He had no desire in any way to minimise that fact, but he would remind the Committee that the large majority of the County Councils, as represented by the County Councils Association, had expressed their general approval of this part of the Bill. But the fact that there was difference of opinion among local authorities as to the desirability of these duties being put upon them was no reason for leaving it a matter of local option, to be wrangled over in every separate County Council. It was a reason for having the question thoroughly debated and decided in this House, whether it was for the good of the country and of education that these duties should be imposed on the various local authorities. What would be the position of the County Councils if this Option Clause were to remain? A good many Members of the House had expressed apprehension that the effect of the Bill would be to introduce in County Councils the element of discord and disunion in matters of education which had not hitherto prevailed. He did not himself regard with great alarm this prospect, provided that the County Councils had definite duties assigned to them by law, but he had considerable apprehension as to the effect of an Option Clause like this, which would leave it open for every section of the community to agitate as to whether this part of the Bill should be applied or not, and whether voluntary schools should be helped from the rates or not. He appealed to the House and the Government not to throw the apple of
1236
discord into every County Council in the country, but to have the courage to say whether it was for the good of the nation that these duties should be definitely thrown upon the local authorities. Would the position of the School Boards be an enviable one where this Clause was not adopted? It would be admitted that the position of a School Board existing at the mercy of a County Council, having control over only a limited portion of the field of education, and threatened every three years with extinction, would not be an enviable one, The School Boards would be left in the very limited confines prescribed by the Cockerton judgment. Such a state of things would render "confusion worse confounded," and would make the state of education, with regard to co-ordination and organisation, worse than it was before. And now as to the position of the voluntary schools. If this Clause remained and its adoption were not universal—if its adoption were universal, what would be the use of the Clause?—there would be most hopeless inequality. In one county, where the Clause was adopted, the voluntary school managers would have financial relief, and the cost of their staffs and the upkeep of the buildings taken off their shoulders; while in the next county, where the Clause was not adopted, the voluntary school managers would still have to bear the full financial responsibility. He ventured to think that it would make the discontent on the part of school managers far more emphatic and decided than at present. It would be analogous to what happened in the West of Ireland, where the tenants of one estate enjoyed important benefits and the tenants on the next estate were denied them, and, therefore, felt their position more acutely, and complained of their grievances far more vociferously. He did not think the cause of education would be much advanced by this Clause. He reminded the Committee that it had, by its own action on Clause 2, imposed a duty on the new educational bodies of taking such steps as they thought right to forward all forms of education. There was also the very important financial duty imposed on the Government. The educational authorities which adopted the Act would get grants at the rate of

1237
7s. 6d. for every child in attendance, either at voluntary or non-voluntary schools. But if the authority did not adopt Part III., it would not be entitled to anything more than the diocesan grant of 5s. for every child in the voluntary schools. He contended that these financial proposals would have to be entirely reconsidered if this Clause remained in the Bill. Of course it would he said that the inevitable result of this proposal would be to make all the local authorities adopt Part III. He believed that would be true sooner or later, but before that happened there would be many years of unnecessary discord and wrangling between denominationalists and undenominationalists. They had seen enough within the last few days to make it highly undesirable, on the part of those who valued education, to continue such a state of things in all the local educational authorities in the Kingdom. He thought he had established sufficient grounds to show the Committee that there was every reason to make this part of the Bill, if passed at all. universal in its application. He appealed in the first place to the friends of the Bill. If they wanted the Bill to work harmoniously, if they wanted educational peace, then they should not pass this Clause. He was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Berwick describe this Clause as the most blighting part of the Bill from an educational point of view, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for South Aberdeen, who had the interests of education so deeply at heart, would be converted, before the discussion ended, to a similar view. He could assure the Committee, as one who would have to take a practical part in the administration of the Bill, that no part of it would produce worse results in regard to educational progress, or which would be more likely to throw the apple of discord amongst educational authorities, than this Clause.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 26, after the word 'apply,' to insert the words 'to every local education authority established by this Act.'"—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that his hon. friend
1238
had made an earnest appeal to the Committee to accept his Amendment on the ground that it would bring educational peace He ventured to differ from the hon. Member on this particular question; and he thought that if the Amendment were adopted, they would destroy any chance there might be to secure educational peace in the future. In the first place, it would destroy the School Boards, and, in the second place, it would bring increased rates—and neither of these things would produce educational peace. It seemed to him that a great many Members on the other side of the House voted for the Bill because they believed that it would destroy School Boards. They so disliked School Boards and School Board rates that they welcomed the Bill because, as they conceived, it would remove education out of the hands of a special body-taking a direct interest in education, and education alone. Of course, those hon. Members might speak of School Boards in language more polite than that used by the Dean of St. Paul's; but the action of those Members came to the same thing, and achieved the same object which the Dean of St. Paul's had in view. It might be very well for the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan to throw over the language of the Dean of St. Paul's, but the Dean of St. Paul's was perfectly satisfied with the Bill. If the hon. Baronet could throw over the Dean of St. Paul's, he was logically bound to throw over the Bill. His other point was in regard to the maintenance of the denominational schools on the rates. He could assure the hon. Member for East Somerset that he was mistaken in his belief that to increase the rates would bring educational peace. He did not think that they, on that side of the House, had used very strong or threatening language, nor did they want to do so; but if the Government removed this Clause from the Bill, and compelled the County Council's, whether they wished it or not, to maintain denominational schools out of the rates, and withdrew from the people who paid the rates the power of determining whether they should have School Boards or not, and the management of their own schools—the only way they could ensure the maintenance and continuance of some

1239
measure of educational peace, if they placed the financial burden on the shoulders of a very large, powerful, and influential section of the people of this country—then they would not submit to it, but resist it as far as they possibly could. It would be very unwise if the Government were to withdraw this Clause. The effect of the Clause being in the Bill had been to draw a great deal of support to the Bill which it would not otherwise have received. It had been a very useful bait for a good many people who were interested in education, especially in the county boroughs. There were lots of people in the county boroughs who supported the Bill, believing that under it they would be able to maintain their School Boards. The right hon. Gentleman knew that very well when he sent a letter to a correspondent in Newcastle, although it was impossible to say whether that letter was sufficiently persuasive to remove the objections of the hon. Member for Newcastle. There were a good many people in Newcastle who had been friendly to the Bill because they believed that under it they would be able to retain their School Board, but if they found that their splendid educational work was to be paralysed until the new authority had gained experience, it must be evident that that would create difficulty and confusion. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that the second Clause laid a command on the local authorities; and he quoted the words at the end of the Clause, "if they think fit." The appeal of the hon. Gentleman was to permit the County Councils to bring their duty with regard to preliminary education up to the same standard as their duty on secondary education. In his opinion, it would be wise to leave to those bodies the option of undertaking these duties if they thought fit. A great number of the County Councils regarded the conduct of education as a nuisance, or had other reasons for thinking that education should be administered as it is at the present time. Therefore, in the interests of education, it would be better to leave to these authorities the option of taking it up or not as they chose. Many County Councils would not do this work willingly if it were forced upon them, and there would not be the zeal
1240
and enthusiasm which all desired to see in connection with education. Another danger of the compulsory handing over of education to these authorities, which had not been realised, was the element of officialdom it would import into the administration of the schools. A great deal of the progress under the present system had been due to the close relationship which existed between the Education Department and the school managers, and a great deal of that would now be lost if this option were taken away. He hoped the Government would therefore not remove this Clause, which, in his opinion, was of great value. If in time to come it was found that the County Councils took up these duties, and carried them out efficiently and well, and there were only one or two County Councils which did not properly carry out the work, then the Government could come again to the House for powers to compel them to do so.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had supported the Clause as it appeared in the Bill of the Government, but he had supported it on grounds which did not appeal to the Government, and grounds which did not influence them in framing it. The hon. Gentleman liked the Clause because he disliked the Bill; he liked the Clause because it would, no doubt, enable School Boards to continue in certain districts, and because he was very anxious that nothing should be done to put the voluntary schools upon a sound educational basis. Those might be, from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, very good reasons for asking them to adhere to the Clause, but he need hardly say they were not the reasons which induced them to place the Clause there originally. Those who desired the scheme of the Bill to be of universal application, would be induced by such arguments as they had heard rather to abandon than to adhere to the Clause. He had already explained that the introduction of this Clause was a limitation of the scheme of the Bill; and their reason had been that they were reluctant to do anything unnecessary to force the hands of the local authorities. That really was their sole reason. Reasons had now been urged to which they did

1241
not attach much weight, though he wished to treat them with all respect, reasons which had been alluded to with threat caution and good taste. Hon. Gentlemen had indicated with great reserve their fear lest any attempt to make this Bill of universal application should produce social disorganisation in the counties, and lead to something in the nature of a rate war. He did not anticipate any such result, and he should deeply deplore a course of action which, even if taken on conscientious grounds, was of a kind which no citizen of this country ought to talk of, much less indulge in. Some hon. Gentlemen disapproved of the manner in which rates or taxes were applied. It was the common fate of citizens in this country not to agree in these matters. They could not, and did not, all agree; and there were very few questions of great public interest which did not involve, either in the form of rates or taxes, some expenditure of public money. If they were to admit that citizens, whenever they disapproved of the policy pursued by local authorities, wore justified in refusing to pay their debts to the community, they would be adopting a quite unworthy course. Could there ever be a less justifiable method of conducting controversy than by such a rate war? Could any human being urge that it was an essential part of public morality that public money, collected by the tax gatherer, might be used for certain purposes, while the use of similar money collected by the rate-collector might be so immoral as to justify the resort to extremities? When he remembered that in his own country not only taxes but rates were habitually used for supporting schools in which denominational teaching took place, and that whatever might be said of the education of Ireland, nobody who knew its real working could pretend that the education in Ireland was undenominational in any true sense of the word; and when he recollected that even in this country, in connection with other classes of schools, they supported denominational education partly out of rates, it certainly did appear to him that if any such action were taken it would be most unhappy, illogical, and immoral. The only
1242
argument which could ever induce thorn to keep this Clause was that as to the desirability of not binding the county authorities unnecessarily; and that argument, he thought, carried some weight. But one or two things had happened since the Bill was introduced. In the first place, they had greatly mitigated, if they had not altogether removed, one of the strongest reasons which, conceivably, might have induced the county authorities to be reluctant to take upon their shoulders the administrative burden of this Bill, inasmuch as they had done much to alleviate the financial burden. On the other hand, if the Bill was to remain as it was, two things would happen which the Government did not contemplate when the Bill was introduced and did not attach the same value or weight to as they now did. He was afraid it was more clear than it was at one time that, if this matter was left open as the Clause left it open, the result must be that they would introduce into County Councils and into the elections of County Councils elements of difficulty and friction which had never been introduced in these Councils or elections before. It might be that from many points of view the Bill would not conduce to peace. But one thing was absolutely certain, that, in the temper of a certain important section of the community at this moment, it would be made a test question at every election in a county—"Are you going to vote for the adoption of the Bill, or are you not?" and the County and Borough Councils, when elected, would be torn asunder by the same embarrassing controversy. There were two other points which had emerged since the Bill was introduced. One referred to another aspect of the point he had just dealt with—namely, the financial assistance to be given by the Treasury under the Clause now on the Paper, and not part of the original Bill. That financial assistance, if this Clause remained, might be given in county A and might not be given in county B adjoining. They might say that this would be county B's fault; but he thought that this very great disparity between the contributions from the Exchequer to counties which did not

1243
adopt the Bill would produce a state of financial confusion which could not fail to be extremely embarrassing and productive of a great deal of local heartburning. The other point referred to the training of teachers. The profoundest interest was expressed in that question by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. The general conclusion at which they arrived was that the training of teachers could only be organised on a satisfactory basis if the machinery organising it was not necessarily confined, or perhaps not even generally confined, to a single county. The Government contemplated the distinct co-operation of counties in the training of teachers. It might be replied that this co-operation only referred to secondary education, and that the training of teachers in the later stage of their career was left untouched by the Clause, because it only referred to primary education. He did not think that the argument was sound. There must be a scheme dealing with the teacher question rising from primary to secondary education, and embracing all the stages up to the training college stage, as well us the training college itself. That could not be properly carried out by a group of counties if one county refused to adopt the Bill, nor by a single county if important boronghs within the area of the county refused to adopt it. It would inevitably produce a degree of confusion and dislocation in any broad scheme for dealing with this most pressing problem of education; and, in these circumstances, it would be a most serious thing if a parti-coloured system of education were allowed to prevail all over the country. The changes in the position which he had indicated would induce him personally to vote for his hon. friend's Amendment. He would not attempt to make it a Government question, because it was one of those questions which might be very properly left to the judgment of the House itself.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had left the question to the uncontrolled decision of the House. He should briefly state the reasons why he intended to vote against the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman
1244
had devoted a considerable portion of his speech to the reasons which induced the Government to incorporate this Clause in the Bill, and to the reasons which now induced them to strike it out. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to take up the position that he did not wish to cocrce the local authorities. Secondary education was to be permissive, but the authorities were to be coerced in respect of primary education. The right hon. Gentleman had given no reason for this action. He submitted that it was most injurious for the cause of education to impose upon unwilling authorities a system for carrying out provisions which, if they could, they would decline to undertake the working of. Many of the authorities wore unwilling to undertake these new duties, because they had enough work to do now which they could properly manage. This new work was far more onerous than any they were accustomed to transact; and from the point of view of business and efficiency the authorities were naturally disinclined to undertake a task for the discharge of which they felt that they were not fully equal, and which might make them in their county business less efficient than they were at present. They had heard of the management of the voluntary schools, and he could understand the Councils taking over the management of a school of their own making. Under these circumstances they would say: "We will see what we can do," but they were to take over the management of 14,000 schools throughout the country over which they had not full control. Could anybody wonder that a body of business men should shirk a duty of that kind, and doubt their power to manage this enormous number of schools? Then there was the question of the rate. Everyone who knew anything about the counties knew that an addition to the rate was in itself one of the most formidable questions which could be faced by a County Council. Though there was some assistance from the Exchequer, the rate would always remain as a drag against the interests of education. That was a body which the people would trust for the purpose and support with the rates. But if a rate was levied by

1245
a body which was unwilling to undertake the duty, the effect upon education would be extremely injurious. It was idle to say that there was not also another enormous difficulty. It was no use shutting their eyes to the fact that the religious question would come in. Could it be wondered at if the County Councils were unwilling to introduce that element into their elections and their constitution? They naturally had a disinclination to have their elections or constitution influenced—poisoned it might be—by considerations to which they had hitherto been entire strangers. The moment rates were employed for the support of denominational schools, the County Council elections would be made the fighting ground of different religious sections. That would be a perfectly legitimate action on the part of persons who were interested in questions of this character. They had a complete right, both constitutionally and morally, to seek to elect representatives of their own opinion to the Councils, and, therefore, the religious question would he a perpetual influence, working, in his opinion, against the interests of education. For his part, quite apart from the religious question, he objected to public money, in the form of rates, being applied to denominational schools, and it was only natural that persons sharing that view should seek to be represented on these Councils, just as those who entertained certain views upon other public affairs endeavoured to secure the election of representatives who would give effect to the principle to which they attached importance. There were County and Borough Councils who would prefer to be left alone in this matter, who believed they already had as much to do as they could properly manage, and who felt that they were not well fitted to undertake this enormous task. But by this proposal the duty was being forced upon them, and unhappy elements were being introduced into their elections—not only the religious difficulty, but also the political difficulty involved in the giving of public money to he disposed of by private persons. Such a course of action would strike a blow
1246
at the principles of local self-government, and at the independence and authority of local self-governing bodies which had been recently established. There were in existence in many boroughs bodies which had been doing the work of elementary education perfectly satisfactorily, and to force those bodies to abandon it, in order that it might be taken up by other bodies which were averse to it, seemed to be a policy unwise in principle, detrimental to education, and fatal to the respect which ought to be paid to local self-government.
DR. MACNAMAHAsincerely hoped the permissive application of the Bill to elementary education would be struck out. He fully recognised that the largely predominating opinion on that side of the House was in favour of the retention of the option, but his friends would doubtless bear with him whilst he explained why he took a different view. What were the broad facts with regard to elementary schools? The First Lord had stated that there were 5,500,000 elementary school children—3,000,000 in voluntary schools, and 2,500,000 in board schools. Every member of the Committee would agree that the education of each child in the voluntary schools was as great a matter of national importance as that of each child in the board schools; and that what was educationally necessary and desirable for the one, was equally necessary and desirable for the other. But the financing of the two systems was entirely different. The finances of both came, to a certain extent, from the central Exchequer, but the Exchequer grants were not sufficient to conduct the schools properly. In the case of the board schools, the essential supplement was derived from public funds, while in the case of the voluntary schools charitable contributions had to be relied upon. The net result was that, although the Exchequer moiety was about the same in each case, last year each voluntary school child received in the way of local support 6s. 5d., and each board school child 25s. 6d., or a disability, roughly speaking, of 20s. per voluntary school child. He appealed to every progressive educationist to insist

1247
that that difference must be in some way removed, or the children in the voluntary schools would be improperly educated. One direct result of this condition of things was that, excluding juvenile pupil teachers, ex-pupil teachers, arid "Articles 68," there was in the board schools one certificated adult and properly qualified teacher for every seventy-six children (under the London Board there was one to every forty-five children) whereas the voluntary schools had one certificated teacher to every 103 children. As to the total expenditure on maintenance, last year the Roman Catholic schools only were able to secure an expenditure on maintenance from central and private sources of £2 4s. 2¾d. per child, the Church of England schools £2 6s. 7½d. and the board schools £3 0s. 2d. He would quarrel with anybody who suggested waste on the part of the School Boards, and therefore, he was bound to contend that not enough was spent on the majority of children attending the voluntary schools, and, as a progressive educationist, to do what he could to mitigate this financial disabilty. It was time to put an end to the hopeless endeavour to secure education by the aid of charity; it ought to be a public charge. He quite agreed that if the funds came entirely from public sources the measure of public control must be strengthened. But that was being done. The First Lord had already said that if there was any doubt in respect of Clause 12 as to the Education Committee being the direct servant of the public authority, the matter should be made clear when that Clause was reached. The scheme was to be a genuine scheme of municipalisation, and the Education Committee was to conduct its general proceedings in public, and report to its parent Council. That was a distinct advance on the present system, and he was certain that, when they came to Clause 8 (e) a strong effort would be made, even from the Government side of the House, to increase the popular representation upon the management. He rejoiced at the extreme liberality with which Members on the other side had approached many of these difficult questions; they had frequently met the Opposition more than half way. Clauses 2 and 4 had been
1248
revolutionised, and if the same spirit of liberality were shown on Clause 8 he believed the hon. Gentleman would secure a larger measure of popular control over this public money. If that were not secured, his position would be to a considerable extent modified. He thought that before this Bill was passed into law they could improve it out of recognition by its original authors. If this option remained, what would be the result? He should like to know whether hon. Members thought for a moment, if the option remained, that the local authorities would generally adopt Part III. and rate themselves for elementary education. He did not think for a moment that they would do so, and that was why he wanted this option struck out, for he wanted somebody to do something, and he was quite tired of these bodies contracting themselves out of this obligation of doing something. If the option remained, local authorities generally would decline to rate themselves. They had eight county boroughs and 500 other urban districts, and practically half the entire agricultural area of the country, which had never yet had a rate for elementary education, and did the Committee think that in those districts they would now tumble one over the other, if left to themselves, to impose a rate for education. In those districts where they had not had a rate it was said that they preferred denominational teaching, but he did not think he was doing any injustice when he said that with regard to the great bulk of these people the real preference was not for denominational education, but for a system which enabled them to escape payment for either one or the other system. That was why he was asking that this option should go out. The Vice President of the Council once said that the people of this country would rather stand any form of religious instruction in the elementary schools than pay a rate for education, and he had the felicity of being in entire agreement with him upon that occasion at least. Take, for example, the agricultural districts whose representatives told them that education took the people off the land. Would those districts use this privilege of rating themselves for elementary education? Take the case

1249
of the great bulk of districts whose voluntary schools were so badly equipped today, and whose school buildings were so antiquated. In these districts he had spoken upon the education question, and they told him that they preferred denominational teaching. That was profoundly true of a large number of devoted religious people; but with regard to the great bulk of the people it was simply a preference for cheapness, a preference for a system which enabled them to escape payment of a rate for education. In Preston the entire amount of money raised locally for the year ending August, 1899, by voluntary subscriptions was £4,400, or on the rateable value less than 3d. in the £. That money was only raised by a few devoted people who believed in denominational education, and they paid more than they would do if education was considered as a communal obligation. But the great bulk of the people paid nothing at all, and these were the people who said they preferred denominational education. This sum of 3d. in the £ had to be contrasted with a mean rate of Is. in the £. Let them contrast that state of things with the educational zeal displayed by the neighbouring town of Bolton, where they found 19s. 8d. per head out of the rates for the children in board schools. No doubt the people in Preston would tell them they preferred the good old days. The Government sent down the whisky money to Preston, and they spent half of it to relieve the rates, and that was why he was in favour of striking out this option and compelling these people to do something. The town of Stockport also preferred denominational instruction, and would not have a board school under any circumstances, and this was also the case with Wigan and St. Helens. What happened? For the year ending the 31st of August, 1899, the entire local contribution for education in Stockport, was.£700, or a rate of about ½d. in the £. He wanted to make them do something more than that. Personally, he had taught in many different kinds of schools, and he had never found any parent complain of any religious instruction whatever. But he had found them keen on not paying. Suppose the people agreed not to adopt this part of the Act, what would be
1250
the result? The voluntary schools would continue to be starved, and if time permitted he could draw a pathetic picture of many of the voluntary schools throughout the country. They would remain starved, the classes would remain cruelly and unteachably large, with the apparatus stinted and antiquated, and the teaching staff both insufficient and inefficient. Therefore be thought those people should be made to contribute their proper share. The hon. Member below him had said that if the option remained in the Bill the School Boards would be retained. What did that really mean? The School Boards would not be continued in the form in which they had so long been known. They could no longer do night work, or science and art work; they would be ruled down rigidly to teaching children under fifteen years simply the rudiments of education; and, as he saw no means of improving their condition, he did not think it was desirable to retain the School Boards in those circumstances. The result of giving the option would be that the voluntary schools would be starved. The interests of education demanded that they should not shilly-shally any longer with this matter, but compel these people who had gone to work on the cheap to contribute their proper share to the education of the children in their locality. They should apply this Act all round without any option, with a proviso that they must improve, perfect, stiffen, and strengthen the public control over these authorities. That process was going on rapidly, not only with the approval of the Opposition, but also with the assistance of the hon. Members on the other side of the House; and, if this measure was not all that they desired, he thought they would be able so to galvanise the Bill that in ten years time, with the exception of the Catholic schools, it would be difficult to recognise the private denominational schools as Church schools which they knew today.
MR. PHILIPPSsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down appeared to be anxious to make education more expensive and to increase the rates. The hon. Member for North Camber-well had a perfect right to use that

1251
argument, but it was a great pity that his constituency was not affected. London did not come within the scope of this Hill, and yet they found a London Member making an eloquent speech to make everybody else outside London pay for something which they did not want. He thought some of them were more entitled to speak on this aspect of the question than the hon. Member for North Camberwell, although he was a great educational expert. The First Lord of the Treasury said that if the option was left in the Bill it would lead to friction at the County Council elections, and it would become a test question whether the Bill was to be adopted or not. He felt certain that if the option was left in, this question would be made a test at every County Council election. This was a matter which would have to be settled at the first County Council election after the passing of the Act, and the electors would be asked whether they were in favour of this part of the Bill or not. Nearly the whole of the Nonconformists on the County Councils would vote against the adoption of this Bill, and so would a great many representative farmers. He did not believe that in the agricultural constituencies there was one county which would adopt the Act if the option was left in. Hon. Members asked why they could not trust the County Councils in this matter. Why could not the Government trust the local bodies and the people to settle what they wanted in each county? He pointed out that the counties in Great Britain varied enormously with regard to the accessibility of the principal towns. There might be many counties where the committee appointed under the Bill would find it extremely difficult to get together, and where the work under the Bill would be enormously heavy. There were other counties where, owing to better railway accommodation, the committee could easily he brought together. Why should not the House leave it to each County Council to say whether their own county was a fit one for the adoption of the Bill or not? The First Lord of the Treasury had stated that the adoption of this Amendment would lead to peace. His own impression was that it would load to friction on
1252
County Councils, more than anything which had taken place since they were established. In his own county, a majority of the people were Nonconformists. The elections there were fought out on party, and not on denominational, lines. What would happen if the option clause were left out of the Bill? The board schools and the voluntary schools were something like equal in number. At the present moment the Church people had absolute control of the Church schools. The only way in which the Nonconformists could have control over schools at all was by having board schools. If the Bill were adopted without the option clause, a County Council with a Church and Tory majority of one would be able to control every board school in the county, with the exception, perhaps, of half a dozen which might be in Church hands. Was it likely that the Nonconformists would put up with such a state of things as that? It would mean that the County Council elections would have to be fought on party and sectarian lines. There was also the fact to be considered that the Bill would cause an increase in the rates. He believed that if this Bill became law, the expenses of elementary education in agricultural districts would go up enormously. As a representative of the ratepayers, he held that they ought to have a chance of saying whether the Bill should be adopted or not.
MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid the lion. Member for Pembroke had taunted the hon. Member for North Camberwell by stating that he did not represent a constituency affected by the Bill. He represented a Division of West Ham which he believed paid a higher sum than any other throughout the whole country for the support of elementary schools. In that heavily rated district he believed that the preponderance of opinion in the district he represented was in favour of making the Bill compulsory. They already had trouble enough in connection with their Borough Council elections, without having this question introduced. It had been said that this difficulty would recur every three years, but, as a matter of fact, it would recur annually, because one-third of the Council

1253
was renewed every year. Every October or November, if the Hill remained optionl, there would be organised attempts to secure the election of members of the Church party, as against members of the chapel party, to settle the question whether the Council should assume powers under the Hill. What would be the attitude of the County Councils and the Borough Councils? They were institutions of younger growth than the School Hoards, and the members of the Councils would be reluctant to crush out of existence authorities which had had jurisdiction longer than themselves. He had heard members of the Councils say that Parliament should make the work obligatory upon them, and not place upon their shoulders the difficult task, under the option clause, of deciding what was to be done. He was surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House come forward with the plea that the Bill would cast a further burden on the ratepayers. The question hero was—How was the State to get the best brain power out of its children over large areas? It was not a question of this sect or that sect, of this authority or that authority. Were they to lose part of the best brain power of the children, which they desired to get, because some local authority hesitated to put the Bill into force? If a County Council declined to apply the Act, many of the microscopic, pettifogging little School Boards would remain who in the past had made it their main aim to reduce the cost of education to the community, regardless of the results. He did not think the protection which would thus be given to School Boards was worth struggling for. The First Lord of the Treasury, in expressing his own opinion on this Amendment, agreed with his hon. friend that the main object of the Bill was reduced in effect so long as he option remained. So long as the option remained it was a contraction of the benefits of the measure. It delayed co-ordination, and left organisation and administration in confusion. The School Board might be admirable, and the County Council might be admirable; but it was essential that the two should be rolled into one. How could the County Council shape out its system of higher education, how could it aid or supply secondary instruction, unless it know what was being done in the elementary schools? So lone as
1254
elementary education was under one authority, and secondary education under another, there could be no co-ordination and. co-relation between them—no authority to help young children up the education ladder. Many a lad failed to spring across the gap now fixed between primary and higher education, and his brain power was lost to the State. He, for one, was anxious for one authority which should take the child by the hand at its earliest years up to the last stage of school life, and with a full knowledge of what it was capable of doing. Educational progress made it essential that in every administrative county and county borough one authority should obtain charge of all the elementary and secondary schools, and should have cognizance of all the children within its area. Turning from the educational to the administrative question, he maintained that if option was left in, disorganisation would prevail. Now, there were 300 little School Boards. [An HON. MEMBER: 300 little Councils.] No, that was the mistake often made. When they got a large area for election, with large duties and responsibilities, they secured large-minded men to discharge these duties and responsibilities. Where the area of jurisdiction was limited to the parish, they would necessarily obtain only men with narrow views of their responsibilities, men whose main object was to meet the needs of the moment, and to leave out of account the necessities of the future, men who would have a keener regard to the expenditure of a few pence today than to the product of that expenditure in the years to come. He believed that the transfer of jurisdiction to the County Councils would be the transfer of educational administration and organisation to men with large conceptions of their duties. Let the Committee look for a moment at the contusion that would arise from the option. One county borough would exercise its powers, another would relinquish its right to do so; in some cases there would be a single authority, and in other cases there might be four authorities exercising jurisdiction within the same area. The main plea for the abolition of the option was founded on the needs of the voluntary schools. There

1255
wore 3,000,000 children in these voluntary schools, many of whom had the choice to go elsewhere, but had preferred to remain in the voluntary schools. It was often suggested in the House that the children who were in the voluntary schools were there because they had no option; but in town after town, all over the country, where board and voluntary schools were side by side, the parents still preferred the voluntary schools, in spite of the disadvantages which often attended the admission of their children to these schools. Without any regard to the sort of differences of religion, he pleaded with the Committee to do something to protect these children in the voluntary schools, and secure them from the handicapping they had long endured. What was the position? Lack of money had necessitated the employment of incompetent teachers, and those who would keep the clause in its optional form in the Bill would perpetuate in many districts the retention of these incompetent teachers. There were 17,000 young women teachers whose sole qualification for the teaching profession was that they had been vaccinated; and of these 17,000, 14,000 were in the voluntary schools. Managers of these schools would get rid of the incompetent teachers, but they had not the money. Boys and girls were used to teach children—a system which every other country in Europe said could only lead to unsatisfactory results. Was that to be perpetuated 1 He pleaded not for the Church, but he held that every child, whatever the faith of its father, had a right to receive the same treatment from the State and the same opportunities for obtaining the best education possible. He was not prepared to leave it in the power of any administrative county, governed by a feeling of parsimony, to condemn these children to the life of educational poverty which they had too long endured. He wanted equality of treatment, and equal distribution of aid in every part of the country. This Bill h id been argued throughout the country as though the option were out of it. [Mr. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] No sane man—he cared not what his creed or party politics might be—could believe that it was possible to work this Bill with the option clause in it. So far as he was concerned
1256
he would sooner keep the present condition of affairs than take the Bill with the option clause retained in it. This option must go, and he trusted that the Committee would so decide, by such a substantial majority as to show the administrative County Councils that, whatever might be the feeling locally, Parliament was determined that the children in the rural districts should no longer be educationally starved. He could understand some ratepayers, labouring under the present heavy rating, would say that no option only meant another burden; yet he thought it his duty to take a broader outlook than those of his constituents who adopted that view. He saw no reason to be ashamed of that attitude, and he would support the Amendment as far as he could.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he confessed he could not count himself an educational expert, but he had been obliged to give considerable attention to educational matters in his own locality. The position he had always taken was, that where public money was given for educational purposes there should be popular control to see that it was well spent. When they considered there were something like three million children in the voluntary schools at the present time, he looked upon it as almost a hopeless thing to see how they were going to secure the position of these voluntary schools. As the country contributed about four-fifths of their expenditure, he looked with a longing eye for a great deal more public control in their management. Attempts had been made to solve the question in his locality by appointing a Board of managers consisting of seven. Four of them were nominated by the parents of the children attending the schools, and three by the owners. In cases where the clergyman was a sensible and practical man, he had been selected as Chairman of the Board. He could not help thinking that it was a serious disadvantage to this nation that so many children should be attending schools which were not efficiently equipped for the duties they had to discharge. He would welcome any means to bring them into a condition of efficiency. He attributed the difference to the methods of education. He recognised that the board schools existed in large towns where the average intelligence of the

1257
child was higher than in the rural districts; but, making all allowances for that, everybody would admit that the board schools gave better results than the voluntary schools. But one reason was that the voluntary schools were often starved. He could give striking illustrations, if he chose, of men of property, staunch Conservatives, who prided themselves upon being the greatest upholders of the Church, who persisted in giving no support to the voluntary schools, and he welcomed any system which would compel them to pay their share to the education of the country. He thought, when they were rated for the support of the voluntary schools, the Government would find that these gentlemen would be in favour of much more public control over the rates than there was at present. He desired to see a national system of education, and he desired to sec the voluntary schools more efficient. It was said that hoard schools obtained the best teachers; he was not surprised. As the hoard schools paid bettor salaries than the voluntary schools, and gave a better chance of promotion, naturally all the best teachers preferred to be connected with the hoard school system. They must take the situation as it was, and do their best to better it. Half a loaf was better than no bread, and he considered this Bill was half a loaf. Directly rates were raised for the voluntary schools, there would be strong pressure brought to bear on the Government to give greater public control, and he thought the host way to obtain efficient education was to support this measure. He looked forward to the time, if this Bill passed, when a more liberal Government would displace the present, and be able to take up the work where it was left by this Bill, and perfect what their predecessors had begun. He thought it would be a great disaster if this Amendment were not carried, and therefore his duty was to support it. He supported it on the ground that the increase in rates and the expenditure for the voluntary schools would be a great benefit to the children, and ultimately to the nation, through the increased efficiency of the children; that the Government would, directly the rates were increased, be compelled to give a larger public control over the
1258
schools; and that, if the Committee accepted this system, it would ultimately develop into a national system of education.
MR. EMMOTTexpressed the opinion that this was one of the most important Amendments the Committee had to consider in the whole Bill. The option in the clause was now converted into an option to the supporters of the Government to vote as they pleased. The Bill itself was a Bill to give to one authority the control of all education, and his fear had been that in giving the control of primary and secondary education to one authority, there was a serious danger of overweighting the authority and thus precluding it from giving to secondary education the time and consideration it required. He should have preferred to have given the control only with regard to secondary education, but the Committee had decided otherwise, and the fact would profoundly affect the decision at which they might ultimately arrive. The option in the Bill was, according to the way in which it was viewed, either ridiculous or cruel. It was meant to be an option as to whether these local authorities should undertake to control elementary education or not; but if the local authorities decided not to take over the control of elementary education, great injustice to the voluntary schools was involved. Obviously, as had been stated, an option of the kind I would mean that at every election of a I Borough or County Council this question would be made a test question, and the ratepayer would have to decide whether he preferred to save his money or to help the voluntary schools. The position, therefore, was that on the one hand the authorities were over-weighted by having the control forced upon them of all education at once, with the consequent danger of secondary education being neglected to a greater degree than elementary; and on the other hand, if the option was left in the Bill, and the School Boards were left untouched, they were shorn by the Cockerton judgment of many powers which they possessed in the past. There had to he faced the impossibility of that co-ordination which all desired to secure, and the fact that the School Boards would not have any voice in the training of I the teachers; besides which, there was the

1259
new financial proposal of the Government, which would injuriously prejudice ail those bodies which did not adopt Part 3 ! of the Bill. He felt, after great consideration, that he must support the exclusion of this option clause. He would have liked to retain it for the large towns, but he saw the disadvantage of a patchwork system. In larger counties, Councils would necessarily have to institute largo schemes of devolution for management of details.
MR. PLUMMERsaid hp was going to vote for this Amendment, but he was going to vote for it without any enthusiasm and with very considerable reluctance. The Committee would understand why he looked upon this vote as a reluctant necessity, when he told them he had for fifteen years served upon the Newcastle School Board—in a not unimportant capacity—which, in his opinion, had done what they considered to be excellent educational work for the town I and naturally he could not with any great enthusiasm take part in a proceeding which must involve, as far as he could see at present, the extinction of that Board in common with other largo School Boards, in the country. It must always be a matter for regret that hon. Members in these debates had divided themselves far too much into two parties, for School Boards or for xoluntary schools. He, with the hon. Member for North Camberwell and one or two others, had been for both board schools and voluntary schools. His sympathies had always been for the cause of education, whether it had been carried out by the voluntary system or by the School Board system. It was for that reason that he welcomed the optional clause when the Bill originally appeared; but when, a few days after, the Bill appeared in print, an examination showed that the exercise of that option involved practically the extinction or the slow starvation of the voluntary schools, then he saw that in reality it was no option at all. It was an option that could only be exorcised at the expense of the voluntary schools. It was for that reason that he ventured to criticise the action of the Government, not because he was against the option itself, but because he was against an option that was no option at all. The complaint some of them had was that they were left to choose between two alternatives—the alternative of maintaining School Boards and starving
1260
voluntary schools, and that of extinguishing School Boards and maintaining voluntary schools, and, of course, board schools as well, because the extinction of School Boards did not in any way involve the extinction of board schools. He found himself, in common with the hon. Member for North Camberwell and a few others, in the position of not being able to choose what they liked best, but of having to choose that with they disliked the least. It was upon financial grounds, if for no other reason, that he had reluctantly come to the conclusion that it was better, in the interests of education generally, to adopt this Amendment, with qualifications which, he hoped, would afterwards appear under Clause 12, than to leave the option as it was originally in the Bill. He yet lived in the hope that, when they came to the consideration of Clause 12, some scheme might be devised whereby School Boards in large towns might be maintained, or, if not maintained, revived, and constituted the authority for elementary education, plus, and always provided that that carried with it the obligation to give rate-aid to voluntary schools.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTScongratulated the hon. Member for Newcastle, who spoke with a peculiar weight upon this matter. With many of the views of the hon. Member he was in entire agreement, but he felt that, holding such views as the hon. Gentleman did with regard to School Board education, he would have more loyally expressed his regard for that institution if he had abstained from voting on this Amendment. One of the reasons given by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Chester-le-Street Division for supporting the Amendment was the possibility, if the Bill became compulsory, that it might be followed by political consequences to the advantage of the Liberal Party, but that was a consideration which ought not to affect the discussion of a Bill of this kind. He was sorry to hear the Member for North West Ham take the line he had with regard to the work done by the rural School Boards. That work had not been by any means perfect, but, being a Member for an agricultural constituency, and knowing the circumstances under which these bodies wore compelled to work, he thought the epithets applied by the hon.

1261
Member wore not such as should be generally applied to the School Boards in rural districts. He would, having dealt with these matters, state briefly the grounds upon which lie, at nil events, should not vote for the Amendment. A great deal depended on the final form in which Clause 12 emerged from that House, but they had no kind of assurances from the Government that those alterations would take place which would enable them, conscientiously to vote for this Amendment. He could not vote for it, because he believed that the Bill itself would not conduce to educational peace; and unless they were certain that it would, not light the torch of discoid in every county they ought to hesitate on educational grounds before they voted for the Amendment. One good result of the Amendment had been that it had brought before the Committee and the country the clear issue at stake. The mover of it had stated that the object of the Government was to help the voluntary schools, and it was as well that it should be understood what the object of the Bill was. They did not object to the Amendment on that ground however, but upon the ground that, in helping the voluntary schools in this way, curtain principles they held were violated, and, though that might not be the view of the majority of the Members of the Committee, he and others believed that good educational work could not be done by ! helping schools while by so doing those I helping them violated the principle of justice which, lay at the root of education, as at the root of everything else. Speaking for himself, he believed he best expressed the predominating Welsh opinion when be said that they desired to have a free hand in the matter. If the Bill was a good Bill when it finally left the House, and if greater popular control was given, he had no doubt that every Welsh County Council would elect to exercise the option under this clause. Upon these general grounds, because he feared that if the option was excluded educational peace would not follow, and because he believed that in such a great educational reform they should go hand in hand with public opinion in every part of the country, be should give his veto, against the Amendment.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESregarded the Clause, which was proposed to be dealt with so cavalierly by this Amendment, as the central Clause of the Bill; and yet, not only on the Treasury Bench, but in every part of the House, it was now being treated as though it were a mere secondary matter. The supporters of the Government had been told that they might vote as they pleased, therefore they might have the appalling spectacle of the two main supporters of the Bill voting in different lobbies, the Vice President going one way, and the First Lord the other. The Amendment had been advocated, not only in the name of education, but also in the name of expense. The hon. Members for North Camberwell and North West Ham had openly avowed that what they were going for was the money. He could not, however, regard with the same satisfaction the enormous increase both of rates and taxation involved in the Bill. But more than once it had suggested itself that the real question at issue was not a question of education, or even of expense, but of predominance-between two Parties in the Ministry; that it was a question of whether the Socinian Nonconformist element of Birmingham or the Episcopalian element of Hatfie'd was to get the upper hand; whether, in short, they were to be led by the seraphic piety of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, or whether they were to be chained to the Nonconformist caucus hailing from Birmingham. It was common knowledge that the, reason for this option being embodied in the Bill was that a compromise had been arrived at between these elements by the various personages engaged in framing the Measure. He did not now ask whether the com promise was a good or a bad one, but at any rate strange things had happened to it. On the previous night the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had been subjected to a sort of Sicilian vespers, and had expired, so to speak, threatening vengeance on his assassins; to-day there had been a sort of St. Bartholomew's massacre of Huguenot Nonconformists; and in what sort of lame agreement or compromise it was all going to end he did not know

1263
Being against the increase of rates, but certainly a devout friend of education, and with a bias to a single authority, he found himself in a strange and awkward position. He could get no guidance from the Government. Education was not one of his special questions; but he had sat at the feet of the Vice President of the Council, then at those of the First Lord of the Treasury, while, if neither of those right hon. Gentlemen was present, he sat at the feet of the President of the Local Government Board until that eminent Minister closured him. But after all this sitting he obtained no guidance from the Government with regard to a Clause upon which, in his opinion, the whole remainder of the Bill depended. Under these circumstances he had the gravest doubts about the matter, and when he saw the Amendment to this most important Clause supported on such grounds as had been put forward, he, in the absence of the guidance he had a right to look for from the Government, felt it to be his bounden duty not to vote on either side.
MR. BROADHUKSTsaid the case against the Amendment was best made out by the author of the Bill at an early stage of the discussion. Much support was obtained for the Measure upon its introduction upon the understanding that this option would be given. If the Amendment were carried, there would be thrown at the head of every County Council a great educational undertaking, greater than many subjects put together with which the Councils now had to deal, and to properly manage which moat Councils had neither the time nor opportunity. The whole administrative machinery of the Councils would require re-organisation, and he believe 1 that serious injury would be done, not only to education, but also to the splendid work now being carried on on non-Party lines by the various County Councils. He was in favour of leaving School Boards as they were, and of giving the County Councils the right to say whether or not they would adopt the Bill. There was no guarantee in the Bill that a better class of teachers would be secured; the chances were that the same inefficient class would remain, even though the Amendment were accepted. He hoped the First Lord would stand by his original proposal.
MAJOR HEELYhoped the Amendment would be rejected. He believed the Bill to be good from an educational point of view, and the Government would be well advised to retain the optional Clause. He had supported the Measure on every possible occasion, and would continue to do so if he understood it was to be left to the County and Borough Councils to decide whether or not they should adopt it. But he was bound to say that if such of the Councils, as were practically unanimously against the Bill—although he thought their views were erroneous—were to be forced to adopt it, a situation of the utmost gravity might arise.
It being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL. (BY ORDER).
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGUwho had upon the Paper a Motion for the re-committal of the Bill, said the company had agreed to substitute side standards for central standards, and as this largely removed his objection to the Bill, he would not move the Motion standing in his name.
  The Bill was then read a third time.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 5:—
  Amendment again proposed—
  "In page 2, line 20, after the word 'apply,' to insert the words ' to every local education authority established by this Act.'"—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MAJOR SEELY, resuming his speech, said that if the Bill were passed as

  1265
  originally introduced, he believed that three-fourths of the County and Borough Councils would adopt it, whereas the remaining one fourth would refuse to adopt it. Those who supported the Bill most strongly thought the Bill was strong enough to stand on its merits, and that those County Councils who at first might refuse to adopt it would, in course of time, see that its effect was quite different from that which they anticipated, and would adopt it. If the Bill passed as it stood, three-fourths of the Councils would be in the same position as they would be under the Amendment, but if the Amendment was passed, the other fourth would be compelled to adopt and enforce a measure to which they were bitterly hostile. To compel public bodies to adopt a Bill against their strongest convictions was a new principle of legislation, and it would be a very unwise thing, and, in his belief, would end in confusion. When religious differences came in at the door, reason and logic flew out of the window. When there was an opposition so fierce as had been displayed in some quarters of the country with regard to this Bill, it would be wise to pause before public bodies were forced to accept these proposals. It was a truism that Englishmen might be led, they would not be driven; it appeared to him to be unwise in this case to attempt to drive the Councils, and he, therefore, should vote against the Amendment.
  MR. FENWICKsaid he should vote against the Amendment. The Secondary Education Commission, on which he had the honour of serving, came to the unanimous conclusion that at first, at all events, the new authority charged with the maintenance of secondary education should not also be burdened with the administration of elementary education. Until the new authority had gained experience of the new work cast upon it, it would, in his opinion, be unwise on the part of the House to throw upon it wider responsibilities in providing for elementary as well as secondary education. He believed that, if the responsibility of providing for elementary education as well as second-try education was imposed on the new authority, the
  1266
  result would be that secondary education would be starved. Why were they now considering the Education Bill at all? It was on account of the backward condition of secondary education in this country. They had suffered so much in their industrial and commercial interests because of the neglect they had been guilty of in this matter, that the Government had been compelled to take up the question.
  MR. GEORGE KENYONdenied that there had been; any expression of opinion on the part of the County Councils in Wales that they desired to have a free hand in this matter as stated by the Member for West Denbighshire and the Member for Pembrokeshire. As far as he was able to judge, from the shoals of resolutions he had received from associations, federations, and other 'ations, there appeared to be only three points on which they were agreed. The first was that the Bill was the worst possible Bill that could have been introduced, the second was that whatever else was done, there should be one authority for all grades of education, and the third was that whatever authority was set up, it should be compulsory upon the Councils to adopt it. He should like to know how his hon. friends proposed to reconcile these last two points if they voted for the option which was proposed in the Bill. It seemed to him that they were rapidly travelling in the direction of an unlimited number of local authorities. As the hon. Member for Camberwell had pointed out the other night, the number of authorities had already been increased from about 200 to over 1.000 by the changes that had been made in the Bill. If the optional character of Part III. was maintained, the result would be confusion more confounded. He sincerely hoped the Committee would pronounce against that, and would insist that it should be compulsory on all the Councils to adopt it.
  MR. NUSSEYsaid the question of the option should be approached in a business-like manner, in the interests of the national education and not in the interest of Party, and they should aim at arriving at striking

  1267
  some happy mean as between voluntary and board schools. At present the voluntary schools wore badly off for teachers and money and they were to a large extent dependent on charity. But the proposal of the Bill was to remove as far as possible the schools from popular control, and, therefore, in his opinion it was a bad Bill, and ought to be opposed in the interests of the ratepayers. It was not a fair bargain as between voluntary and board schools. If it were passed the School Boards would be guillotined. He would part from the School Boards most reluctantly. They had been crippled very much by the present Government.
  SIR JOHN GORST: How?
  MR. NUSSEY: By the Cockerton judgment.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I did not deliver that judgment.
  MR. NUSSEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman was practically responsible for the education of the country. If he had disapproved the judgment he should have introduced some Bill to reverse it.
  SIR JOHN GORST: It is the law of the land, and I have no control whatever over it.
  MR. NUSSEYrepeated that if the judgment were injurious to education it was the duty of the Government to alter the law. The elections would, if the Bill stood as it was, be conducted with all the bitterness of a religious conflict. Further, they were forcing on local authorities duties which some of them did not want, and he believed that it would be a long time in many of the counties before anything was done. if the authors of this scheme believed in if they would allow their Bill to stand 01 fall on its own merits, and he should vote against the Amendment.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid that tin County Councils had already whetted their appetites on good work, but their were checked in their advance by the distinction between secondary and secular education. The Councils had proved
  1268
  themselves capable of dealing with the educational problem and now they would have the elementary system also placed under one authority. He knew it was held by some that that principle had been broken into, but he did not think so. There would be one governing authority, "namely, the County Council, and he believed they were already well trained to do this work. Upon administrative grounds it was absolutely necessary that this optional Clause should go. Such a proviso would practically destroy County Councils for administrative work. When Parliament wanted business done they did not trust it to the House of Commons as a whole, but; to a body of men who held one opinion, I namely, His Majesty's Ministers. [Opposition cries of "Oh! oh!"] He believed that the Cabinet were agreed, but perhaps there were certain Cabinet secrets known to hon. Gentlemen opposite which he was not aware of. In the past, County Councils had occasionally been entrusted in good faith with optional powers on large subjects. They might go back to the institution of the police force, which was optional at first, with the result that very little was done, and in the end it was found necessary to abolish option and impose it upon counties as a whole. That was a proof, that when a thing was made optional it did not work well, but when it was made compulsory those bodies who declared that they could not before work it, afterwards worked the thing effectively. If, in the administration of roads, County Councils had been allowed option, very I probably nothing would have been done, and the roads would have remained in the very unsatisfactory state in which the y were, but when it was made compulsory ! this state of things was soon altered. If in this matter of education the thing was made compulsory the whole discussion, whether it was good or bad, would at once disappear. It had been said that the West Riding of Yorkshire was opposed to compulsion, and why? Because they said they could not do the work. He was surprised at this, on the part of a great county, because it was simply a question of administration, and if the administration of this part of the Act were made compulsory, the question whether

  1269
  one religious body would be more favoured than another would disappear. It was most important not to introduce into County Councils that political element which would be introduced if we gave them the option of applying or refraining from applying the Act. If, however, Parliament said they had a duty to perform, that duty would be performed without difficulty and without exciting hostility. They wanted a rule which was adapted to particular circumstances. The northern districts of England required a very much higher expenditure upon what was called technical education, by which he meant that education which was directed towards teaching the population something by which they would have to gain their livelihood in the future. That education ought not to consist of teaching little scraps of science here and there, in an amateur manner, for that was precisely what they ought to avoid. Their technical and secondary education, if controlled by the State, ought to be directed to something that would be useful to the people in building up this great Empire. Therefore, he thought it would be a very sad thing if this optional Clause remained in the Bill. The County Councils Association, which was a very large body, representing all the counties in England, had voted with only about seven exceptions in favour of the general principles of this Bill. That meant that they would be willing to undertake the duties which would be imposed upon them by this Act. He knew that the educationists of his own county were willing to undertake the duties, but they were satisfied that if this optional Clause remained, although an enormous majority of the County Council would resolve to carry out this Act, it would not be desirable to do so on account of the friction and political hostility which might be excited, and which would not exist if the Act was only regarded from an administrative point of view. For these reasons he should give his hearty support to this Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that up to the present time the county represented by the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down had not spent more than a moiety of the whisky money upon education until this year.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTON: And we have done quite as much good as the other counties who did spend it.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: In that case the right hon. Baronet could not fairly argue that they had been checked by legislation. The main argument of the right hon. Baronet opposite was that it was absolutely necessary that this optional clause should go and he used the most unfortunate phrase that the administration should be entrusted to a body who were all agreed upon this subject. If education was to be administered by a kind of Cabinet consisting of gentlemen who were all agreed, the Committee could well imagine the treatment the minority in the constituency would receive. When they were told that it was desirable that these bodies should represent popular opinion he wished to point out that in the county of Gloucester popular opinion was on his side, if they counted heads of the population. The right hon. Baronet stated that this change had been facilitated because some of the districts had been relieved of their heavy rate, but surely he knew that even these new proposals did not relieve some districts to the full extent of the rate. When he said that it was absolutely necessary that this optional clause should go, he was afraid that what he meant, and what many Chairmen of many County Councils meant, was that they would have a very much easier life if option were struck out, because of the strong popular feeling which would be otherwise imported into this matter. It meant that they were not to trust the opinion of the people and that the whole thing was to be done in a hole-and-corner manner without the people being able to express any opinion upon it. If the optional clause were to be cancelled because of the strong public feeling that would be imported into local affairs, the result would be that this question would be settled without reference to the opinion of the people. He was not surprised that some gentlemen desired to escape the unpopularity of these decisions in their constituencies, but he maintained that they ought to be obliged to face it. They could not

  1271
  trust the rural County Councils to administer matters of this kind without Party feeling. The Leader of the House had hardly made a decent, defence of the change of front on the part of the Government in regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that, since his own speech upon the introduction of the Bill, financial proposals had been introduced which had changed the whole position. But why wore those financial proposals not made consistent with the scheme of the Bill? This 7s. 6d. grant was only to be given to the counties which adopted the Bill, and why was increased financial assistance to be given to those counties which adopted the Bill? The Government had not treated the House honestly in this matter, because, although it was supposed that this had been left an open question, the Government had already proved, by their financial proposals, that they had made up their minds to get rid of the element of option, which seemed all along to have been a sham. Turning to the educational effect of the Amendment, he said it had been assumed by the mover of the Amendment and others that the argument was all on their side. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said that this clause would not be good for education. Hon. Members, however, could only speak for the parts of the country which they knew. As regarded three rural counties of which he had some knowledge, he did not hesitate to say that they were destroying the efficient educational machinery which now existed, and that they were substituting for it, machinery which would not do the work under the same efficacious system. Some of his hon. friends on this side had prophesied as regarded the future, and the hon. Member for North Camberwell said that they would probably improve the Bill out of recognition by its authors before it got through Committee, and it was upon that prophetic ground that he invited them to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Somerset. Of course they saw some indications that great improvements might be made, but he thought it would be wiser to wait until they had got those improvements before they attempted to force
  1272
  a Bill upon rural counties which was opposed to all their best educational feeling, and which would put an end to the best system of education which existed there. This was really the last occasion for them to lament the fate of School Boards. This Amendment killed the School Boards, and put an end to them for ever. The hon. Member for Newcastle had told the Committee what enormous pain it gave him to put an end to the existence of School Boards, but if he felt such pain, as the hon. Member professed to feel, he should certainly vote in the way in which he was going to vote, and not in the way which the hon. Member opposite had stated. He knew that by his action he was killing the School Board system. He (Sir Charles Dilke) was one of those who had something to do with the creation of School Boards in 1870, which had been a greater success even than those who created them expected them to be. The whole fight, again, on Lord Sandon's Bill in 1876 was round this question of the School Boards. Since 1876 to the present time, they had been a greater success than they were before, and by this Amendment the Committee would destroy all their accumulated knowledge, which was of such infinite advantage to the country. He hoped that they would hear no more of this cry from the front Ministerial Bench that they were anxious to trust the ratepayers of the rural counties.
  MR. CRIPPSagreed that all educational questions, which he looked upon as of national and imperial importance, ought to be settled by the opinion of the people; but, he asked, where was the opinion of the people expressed? It was expressed, and ought to be expressed, in the House of Commons. He did not want to reopen the question as to whether the School Board system or the voluntary school system ought to be perpetuated, for that was not the question. Whether they perpetuated one or the other, it should not be a matter of local option but a question which this Committee ought to decide upon its own responsibility. It was quite wrong to allow a matter of this

  1273
  kind to be determined by County Councils or by any other authority leys than Parliament itself. If he wished to have a strong argument upon that point he could not find a better one than the Debates which had taken place upon this Bill Surely no public body ought to be called upon to determine a great question of this kind except Parliament itself. Was education not a matter with which they were bound to deal on their own responsibility as a great question of imperial and national importance. What would be the administrative difficulty if they had local option. The hon. Member opposite was very anxious to preserve the School Board system, but he looked upon this question from a much wider aspect. Was the question of the preservation of the School Board and voluntary school system a matter to be decided by local option? Hon. Members opposite wished to preserve the School Board system. Did they wish to leave it in the power of the County Council after a triennial election, to vote the system out of existence? It was the same with regard to the voluntary system. Was it to be supposed that the same zeal and energy would be displayed by voluntary school managers if on a triennial election of a County Council the whole system might be upset? They might destroy a School Board at one election and reinstate it at the next; and they might destroy a voluntary school at one election and reinstate it at the next. That, he understood, was the hon. Gentleman's idea of what he called taking the opinion of the people on a question of this kind. That was not his view. The opinion of the people was expressed in this House, and hon. Members had to take the responsibility, and they ought not to shirk it. Let them not try to establish an administrative impossibility and administrative inefficiency with regard to their local bodies. There was another point which had never been answered, as far as he had been able to gather, from any speech made on the Opposition side of the House. How would they deal with finance under this local option system? They would have districts side by side which, both with regard to rates and aid from the Imperial Exchequer, would be absolutely distinct. Would they have
  1274
  one system of finance for one term of three yours, and another system for the next three years? It would be impossible to obtain an efficient scheme, educationally or financially, under a system of local option. It was entirely a mistake, in his opinion, to give what were properly legislative duties to an administrative local body. If that were done it was impossible to avoid raising the same sort of antagonism and political contest that they had in the House of Commons. Of course they must thresh out questions of that sort in this House, but they would break up the administrative efficiency of the County Councils as soon as they introduced legislative questions which excited strong feeling and passion. He had always taken a very strong view against utilising rates for Imperial or national purposes, but he recognised that a very large concession had been made by the Government in regard to rates for purposes of elementary education. He thought one of the most valuable reforms in the Bill was the proposal to spread the education rate over a sufficiently large area and to raise it by the county rate. The vice of the present system was that they sought to raise the School Board rate from far too small an area. He quite appreciated why hon. Members opposite who disliked the Bill desired to keep the local option clause in it. If this local option clause were retained it would, he believed, be fatal to the true administrative efficiency of the Bill.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the hon. Member for the Stretford Division felt that his passion had been strongly moved on this question. He gathered from the force of the hon. Gentleman's remarks that that was true. He could not say that he felt strong passion with regard to the Bill. It was a difficult question, and the Committee should endeavour to eliminate the element of passion altogether. He did not desire to approach the question from the point of one who was either a friend or an enemy of the Bill as a whole. It appeared to him that there were quite a number of points which might be considered with reference to the retention or the abolition of this Option Clause and which were irrespective of their liking for the

  1275
  Bill or not, and therefore he should address himself specially to hon. Members on the other side of the House who, he presumed, were mostly in favour of the Bill. If they assumed the point of view of hon. Members opposite who were in favour of the Bill there would still be many considerations to be weighed before they decided to abandon the option. He did not at all deny that there was a great deal to be said in favour of the Amendment. He did not think the case for the Amendment had been put better than by the hon. Member for East Somerset. The hon. Member said with great truth that it would create a certain measure of confusion if they had two different systems existing. He said that the Government had proposed a grant of 7s. 6d. per child, which was adapted to the case of the Bill with the option, but not to the case of the Bill without the option, and he stated further that there might be quarrels over the question of the Bill if they referred it to the next County Councils elected after the Bill passed. They had been placed in a most difficult and disagreeable dilemma. After all, the Government must have thought, when they were drafting the Bill, that this clause was the better alternative. They on that side were really defending the Government Bill. He admitted the difficulties referred to by the hon. Member for East Somerset, but would they obtain peace by striking out the option? Would not very acute quarrels arise immediately at the elections of the next County Councils over the educational questions which were referred to them? [Ministerial cries of "No."] Some hon. Members opposite did not think so, but some of the County Councils themselves apprehended this very difficulty, and they might be expected to know, and therefore he could not think they were any more likely to secure peace by striking out the option. Then there was the question of resistance to the payment of rates, a subject which the First Lord had dealt with in a very fair and conciliatory manner. Whether the hostility would take the form some of his hon. friends predicted he was not qualified to say, but at any rate there was a danger. Every one knew that feeling was extremely hostile
  1276
  on this subject; and if they were going to have a difficulty of this kind would it not be better to endeavour to minimise and localise it by not raising the question in an acute form all over the country at the same time? If they must contemplate the possibility of this resistance, he would much rather see it in some of the counties and boroughs than see it everywhere at the same time. There was another difficulty. He was surprised that more had not been said about the feelings of the County Councils themselves. Some of the most important were strongly against the taking over of this educational work at once. These bodies were entitled to some consideration on the part of the House. It was a new thing in legislation to thrust important duties on unwilling bodies. He could not remember any case in which functions so large and new in their character had been suddenly placed on the local authority. If any hon. Member could give an instance in which that had been done he would be glad to hear it. It was an exceedingly large and difficult experiment, in the solution of which time would greatly help, but the Committee should remember that the local bodies were not equipped for the new work in point of staff. They would want secretaries, inspectors, and local Committees. There would be a vast mass of work to be done, and they ought to have time to prepare for the work before they were called upon to do it. All he pleaded for was that the authorities should be given a chance of taking up the work at the time when they felt themselves fit for it, and not when they were without preparation. He really failed to see how the voluntary schools would suffer if the Option Clause were retained in the Bill. He could not see why the proposal of an Exchequer grant should not be adapted to the case of the voluntary schools, or why the School Boards, if retained, should not have the power and the duty of supporting them. If the Exchequer grant could be made applicable to the voluntary schools so as to preserve them from starvation the principal argument advanced in favour of the Amendment fell to the ground. He really felt that the financial part of the case which was dwelt upon with so much emphasis by the hon. Member for the Stretford

  1277
  Division was not at all insuperable. It was only a question of modifying the Amendment the Government had given notice of, and of putting in a provision to meet the case of the voluntary schools by giving them a share in the rates. There was nothing in this question which need determine their decision upon the retention of the option. He came to a point which had been dwelt upon by some of his hon. friends on this side of the House, and that was the loss of the School Boards, He did not conceal from himself that in all probability the School Boards would have to go; but he thought it was a great pity that they should go in this sudden way, so as to lose the benefit of the knowledge and experience they had acquired. A particularly strong case could be made for the School Boards in towns like Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, and Liverpool. The number of anomalies and difficulties in the Bill were so great that it could not be looked upon as a final measure. It was quite possible that the necessities of the case might drive the House back to an authority specially elected for the purpose of education. Then why destroy the School Boards now?—those bodies which in the great towns had done such admirable and useful work. When the experience of a few years had enabled them to see the working of the new system, they might be able to devise a scheme under which the merits of this system might be combined with the retention of School Boards in towns. He looked with great apprehension on the difficulties that would arise by throwing all at once such an enormous amount of work on the Borough Councils. Why destroy the existing authority now, unless there was some overwhelming necessity, and no overwhelming necessity had been shown. Considering that the difficulties of the voluntary schools might be dealt with by retaining the option, and that they would otherwise be sacrificing the School Boards, he thought that the balance of advantage was against the Amendment of his hon. friend. He had one more argument. It had been said by the First Lord early in the evening that after all they were only at the Committee stage, and that when the Report stage came en they would be in a
  1278
  better position for dealing with any question in regard to the powers of the County Councils and County Boroughs, as developed in Clauses 7, 8, and 12. That observation seemed to him very important. When they were discussing at the beginning of the evening the question of the postponement of the clause it was well observed by the First Lord that they should be in a much better position to judge of the propriety of throwing all these subjects at once on all authorities. If they knew precisely what the constitution of the authorities and their power would be they would be far better able to judge whether this option should be retained or cut out. There were the questions which would arise under Clauses 7, 8, and 12, and surely it was possible that alterations would be made in these clauses which might change their opinion in regard to option. He would suggest that the Option Clause should stay in the Bill at present, but let it be understood that if the Bill was so altered in Committee reasons might present themselves, when they came to the Report stage, for the desirability of striking out or retaining the option.
  SIR W. HART-DYKEsaid he would endeavour to follow in spirit the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who had advanced arguments from his own point of view for deferring the operation of this clause, so far as compulsion was concerned. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they ought to be patient, and that they had some right to demand that they should know more of the actual operations of the future clauses of the Bill as it came out of Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was perfectly true and well known that a very large number of elementary schools were in a lamentable condition for want of funds, and he suggested to the Committee the very ingenious device that in all counties where the clause was not adopted the elementary schools should receive as a subsidy the 7s.6d. grant. He could not conceive of a more tinkering piece of legislation. What they asked for was to settle this problem once for all on a secure and lasting basis. The device of the right hon. Gentleman would not get rid of the

  1279
  main objection of the Nonconformists to the Bill, viz., the principle of the payment of rates in. support of the schools of the Church of England, arid, therefore, the device would produce very little results. After all, whatever course was taken they would be met with many difficulties, but those who supported the Amendment were in the main willing to face these difficulties and undertake the obligations involved. The right hon. Gentleman had said that here and there there were important counties which wished to defer their obligations. He had been in the West Riding of Yorkshire after the resolution referred to had been passed, and he found that all they asked for was that secondary and technical education should be dealt with first, and elementary education afterwards. There was another very important county, Lancaashire, in which every conceivable authority was clamouring to deal once for all with this educational problem. Was there any use, therefore, in saying that the authorities were not willing and eager to adopt the obligations imposed by the Bill 1 There was only one county, Northamptonshire, which had repudiated the obligation. [An HON. MEMBER: Durham.] He wanted to know how, when, and where the fierce passions which hon. Members opposite had spoken of were to be aroused when this scheme came to be introduced into practice. He thought his hon. friends opposite would concede that on this side of the House there had been a general tendency to deal with the Bill in a generous spirit so far as the Nonconformists were concerned, and he might assume that when the Bill came out of Committee their position would be considerably better. If that was so, where were these fierce passions to come in, and where were they to be aroused? Was there a single School Board school which would fall under the rule of the new authority that was likely to be disturbed if it was doing good work—or indeed either board school or voluntary school — and gaining a good grant. His reason for saying so was a practical one; the disturbance of these schools would be a useless expenditure, and the local authority would be as economical as possible for the purpose of saving the rates. It would
  1280
  be the duty of the educational authorities in the old School Board districts, as sensible men, to see that first and foremost proper representatives of the old School Boards were placed upon new Committees of management. Therefore, he maintained that the great disturbance and friction that was to come out of the Bill only rested in the heated imaginations of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He thought the Amendment ought to be supported because it would make a good Bill out of an in-different Bill. He himself never was a believer in an. optional Bill, and he did not believe for one instant in all the terrors of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He gave the Amendment his hearty support, for, as he had said, it would insure a good and practical measure.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and who, whenever he spoke on educational matters, was listened to with respect by the representatives from Wales, had given expression to one or two views in which he heartily concurred. But when the right hon. Gentleman said that the County Councils of England and Wales were willing and eager to adopt this Bill, he asked—Why, then, not leave it to their option? The right hon. Gentleman had used another argument which he would have thought would have been against the dropping of the option Clause. He said that this Bill would be so altered in its progress through Committee, that the objections they on that side of the House entertained to it at the present moment would be removed.
  SIR W. HART-DYKEsaid he did not allege that all the objections would be removed, but that many of them might be removed by a more generous and liberal treatment.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGEsaid he was exceedingly glad to hear that from the right hon. Gentleman, because it might really assist in the solution of the difficulty. It was more than they could expect that all their objections would be removed. What he meant was that if their objections in regard to the absence of popular control over the voluntary

  1281
  schools were met, a Motion to drop the option, made at the end of the Bill, would probably be received with unanimous acceptance, and, moreover, a week in Committee would be saved as well. But he could only argue at the present moment as if the Bill were to remain as I it now was. He must assume that all their objections remained. If so, the dropping of the option was as serious a step as the First Lord could take. He ventured to tell the right hon. Gentleman, with all moderation, that he was on the threshold of a great mischief, unless he contemplated some real alteration in the Bill in the direction of meeting their objection with regard to the want of popular control. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to drop the option, he was doing it on inadequate grounds unless he meant to meet them on this point. The hon. Member for North Camberwell said it was necessary to drop option from an educational point of view, and he instanced the cases of Stockportand Preston—where there was nothing but voluntary schools—which gave no token of zeal for education. He said that if the Bill were made compulsory, these towns would be compelled to support their schools adequately. But would they? Supposing they were compelled to adopt the Act, what guarantee was there that they would give more in the way of rates than they I did now in the way of voluntary subscriptions? They would get 7s. 6d. per child, and they would spend it, but was there a single Clause in the Bill which would force them to spend a, penny more than now? Not one. The Education Department treated the schools in those towns as if they were effcient, and gave them the Imperial grants as if they were efficient, and that was what would huppen afterwards. The Education Department would riot compel the County Councils to do their work, and even if they were prepared to do it, there was no power within the four corners of the Bill to enable them to do it. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the grants from the insufficient schools in these towns? It was because that Preston and Stock-port were powerful corporations. He contended that one result of adopting the Amendment would be to reduce the level of educational efficiency. The
  1282
  education in the rural districts would not be raised, but the education in the urban districts would be depressed. Hon. Members opposite had attacked this Clause really as if it had been an Amendment proposed from this side of the House. One hon. Member said that no sane man believed it possible to work the Bill with option in it. It was not his business to protect the sanity of the Minister in charge of the Bill. Unless rumour was a lying jade, this Clause was the work of the only Minister in this House who had had experience of local government. He thought it very unfortunate that the Clause should be proceeded with in the absence of that Minister, an absence they all regretted, more especially the cause of it. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Chester-le-Street Division had said that half a loaf was better than no bread. It depended entirely upon the quality of the bread; for if that bread was poisonous he would prefer no loaf. He ventured to say that if the Bill was carried in its present form passions would be raised in the country the like of which men of the present generation had never seen. A resolution was carried the other day—he expressed no opinion on it at the present moment: it was not necessary—by the whole body of the Welsh Congregationalists, who were responsible men, and whose leaders were men of known confidence, declaring that if the Bill were passed in its present form they would deem it their bounden duty to resist the payment of rates for the voluntary schools. It was folly for the Committee to ignore such facts. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said that if he resisted the payment of rates it would be an immoral proceeding. He should like to know why. If a man had a conscientious objection to obeying the law, was it an immoral act for him to defy it? The First Lord of the Treasury was the right hon. Gentleman who in this House defended the doctrine of the limits of human endurance. What was that doctrine? It was that a mob, bound to obey the law, was justified, under the influence of passion, I in smashing property and endangering j life, simply because some one had excited them beyond the limits of human endurance. The men of whom he spoke were

  1283
  not the type of which mobs were made. They were some of the best and most law abiding citizens in the land, and what they did, they did deliberately and from a serious sense of their duty to their country, He would remind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite of another doctrine they propounded. They, on that side, were simply learning the lessons which had been taught to them, he remembered that when the Home Rule Bill was passing through the House, the argument used, not by wild Orangemen or irresponsible Members, but by the Colonial Secretary and other right hon. Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench, was that if the measure were carried the men of Ulster would refuse to pay the levies imposed upon them by the Irish Parliament—"that Ulster would fight, and that Ulster would be right." In what respect did that doctrine differ from the doctrine of the Nonconformist who said that he had a conscientious objection to the payment of rates? The right hon. Gentleman had no right to charge some of the best and finest men in the land with immorality because they made that declaration. If a Nonconformist were living in a district where the majority of the population was not of his faith, he must accept the consequences of democratic government. If the option were dropped, and if Churchmen were in a majority, they would control every school in the district. If the Churchmen were in a minority they would still control the voluntary schools. If the Nonconformists were in a majority they would only control a certain number of schools; and if they were in a minority they would have no voice in the management of any school at all. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that men of public spirit and self-respect would rate themselves in such circumstances, or allow themselves to be coerced. If the Government really meant to press the matter through, the County Councils in Nonconformist districts would defy the pressure of the central Government, and no power in the land could coerce them. They were the best citizens in the land, the most intelligent artisans, and the best of the middle classes. They were foremost in every form of public work, except one, and that was picking oakum, which
  1284
  seemed to he left to those who believed in segregation. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no precedent. Had he forgotten the Vaccination Acts? When the Town Councils refused to put them into operation, what was the result? The whole system broke down; but when the option was given, not to the local authorities but to the individual, the Acts worked well. In that case they had not got the religious element which justified people in opposing the law, and, above all, they had not got powerful organisations like the Nonconformist organisations in resistance to the law. He asked hon. Members, when such powerful organisations were banded together and were perfectly united, was there any case on record where coercion had been effective against them. If the Government persisted in forcing such men to contribute to schools, the doctrines of which they repudiated, and in the management of which they had no voice, the result would be disastrous to the whole system of education in the country.
  MR. PEELsaid it was an extraordinary thing, after the conciliatory speech of the first Lord of the Treasury, that the Committee should have heard such a speech as that which had just been delivered. He noticed, however, that it was greeted by very few cheers, even on the hon. Member's own side of the House; and he did not suppose that any one was impressed by the stage thunder in which the hon. Member had indulged. His right hon. friend had asked how these passions, of which the Committee had heard, were to be aroused. It was by speeches of that kind, and by them only. The hon. Member was not satisfied with denouncing the Bill, but he threatened the Committee with some sort of revolution in some parts of the country, and he said that some of the men he knew so well would refuse to pay rates. If they refused to pay rates, they ought to go to prison. It was a scandalous thing that language of that kind should be used in the House, and especially on an occasion when everything had been done that could reasonably be done to meet the requirements of the other

  1285
  side. The matter had been left open to the House, and he hoped most earnestly that the option Clause would be omitted. He agreed with what had been said that, if the option Clause were not thrown out, the Bill would lose its vitality. Over and over again it had been asserted that they could only have a proper system of secondary education by founding a proper system of elementary education. If it were left to the option of the County Councils, and if Parliament did not decide what the duties of the County Councils should be, they could not have a proper Education Bill at all. From what he knew of County Councils, they were far more ready to accept powers and to ask for powers than to refuse powers offered to them; and all that was wanted was to make any recalcitrant County Council properly use the powers entrusted to it. What would happen if these powers were not adopted? Let the Committee imagine the state of mind of managers of small board schools and voluntary schools who would not know when the guillotine would descend on them. The sword of Damocles would be hanging over their heads, and they would not know at what time they would be extinguished. They should have uniformity in such matters. When County Councils were established they did not send round to every county and ask whether it desired to have a council. Under the Bill there would be a great deal of licence and liberty as to how far, and in what manner, these powers should be carried out, in accordance with the varying circumstances of the County Councils and
  1286
  Borough Councils; but there could be no justification on the part of anyone who cared to promote the objects of the Bill, for saying that Parliament should not discharge its proper duties, by clearly defining what are and are not to be the duties of subordinate authorities.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEsaid that the Amendment was of very serious and far-reaching importance, as it involved the question whether the provisions of the Bill should be optional or compulsory. After a great deal of consideration, he had arrived at the conclusion that the original scheme of the Government was a wise and prudent one; and that each local authority should be left to determine for itself whether the provisions of the Bill, extinguishing the existing educational authority, should or should not be adopted. As the representative of a large industrial community, and as one who has had no small experience of Local Government, he was satisfied that to extinguish the School Boards, at all events in the great cities and towns, would be fraught with much danger to the education of this country. What case had been made out for destroying the School Boards in large communities? He admitted that the same case did not exist with regard to rural School Boards or School Boards in small urban areas; but with regard to the large cities and towns, like Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and Huddersfield, which he had the honour to represent, he was satisfied that if the School Boards were extinguished great mischief would result.

  1287
  Surely the onus of showing why these authorities should be extinguished rested on those who sought to extinguish them, and not on those who sought to defend them. Every one admitted they hey had done good work, and that, but for them, the advance which had been made in education would not have been possible. They had broadened and bettered the whole scope of the educational system of the country; their formation had stimulated the managers of other schools to greater exertions than they otherwise would have made; they had given a new and healthy impulse to instruction, and for that they deserved the respect of the country and of the House, rather than that they should be treated in the manner suggested. Although he deprecated very strongly the sectarian feeling which had been introduced into the discussion, and although, as an educationalist, he regretted it, still, he could not help feeling, especially when he saw by whom the Amendment was supported, that the real secret of the desire to extinguish these educational authorities was inspired by the same spirit which was expressed by the Prime Minister a few years ago when he said "our first duty is to capture the School Boards." Feeling that that was the real motive behind the Amendment, he very strongly objected to it. He further objected to it on the ground that municipal councils in the great cities and towns in the country had already quite enough to do, without imposing on them new and onerous duties in connection with primary education, which they had never demanded. What should be the test as to whether there should be one authority to deal with education alone, or whether it should be included as part of the work
  1288
  of municipal authorities? Surely it was the dignity and importance of the work to be done. Was not education in itself sufficient to require all the energy and attention of a body of men taking a deep interest in that subject, and chosen for that work alone. Who would venture to suggest that they should for example transfer the administration of the Poor Law in the towns to the municipal authorities. It was recognised that education required a separate Department of the Government to deal with it, and why should not the same principle be applied with reference to the local authorities? He objected to taking out of the hands of the people the power of saying whether they would transfer to the local authorities the work which was now being done so well by the School Boards. In his own constituency there was a very strong feeling in the matter, and he would therefore oppose the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish to suggest to the Committee that it might be possible to bring this debate to a termination. It has been a very interesting and very important debate; it has continued for many hours; and every point of view has found full expression, and, in these circumstances, I would suggest that we should bring it to a termination.
  MR. GODDARDsaid he wished to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press the Committee to terminate the debate too rapidly. They were in the last ditch with regard to the School Boards, as if the Amendment were carried they would see the last of those great institutions which,

  1289
  they were all agreed, had done so much good work for education. The contention of the hon. Member for the Stretford Division was that that was a question which ought to be settled by the House rather than by the local authorities. There was a good deal to be said for that point of view; but he suggested, first of all, that the House of Commons was not elected to deal with the question now before it. Let them appeal to the country and ascertain the feeling of the people; and then they might fittingly accept the views of the representatives of the people in the House. As a matter of fact, Parliament was I elected to finish the war rather than to finish the School Boards. Opposition to the Amendment did not come from one side only. He had received two opinions from the two principal educational authorities in the borough he represented. First of all, there was a resolution passed by the School Boards, which it might be said was a biased opinion because they were fighting for their lives; but at the same time they had a right to be heard. That resolution; said that it appeared desirable in some respects that the question should be determined locally rather than that it should be arbitrarily imposed on, each district by Statute; that it might be decided by a poll of ratepayers; that if it were rejected another poll should not be taken for three years; and that in default of such a poll the concurrence of the School Board should at least be necessary. That was a very fair position for the School Boards to take up. He had also a resolution from another body, which was even more important. It was a resolution passed by the Day Church Schools Association, which put on record the
  1290
  Associations appreciation of the excellent relations which had always existed between the Ipswich School Board and the Ipswich voluntary schools, and trusted that Parliament would not make the adoption of Part III. of the Bill compulsory. That showed that the question was not a one-sided one. The hon. Member for South Manchester criticised his hon. friend the, Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs for stating in this House what had been so freely stated outside. He thought the hon. Member had utterly forgotten history when he spoke. A large number of people in the country most strenuously objected to be rated for the teaching of certain kinds of religious instruction in which they did not believe. He did not wish to use anything in the nature of a threat, but he thought it desirable to remind the Committee that the question had been fought once before. People objected to pay rates, and they won their fight. Looking back on that thirty years of history, was it to be conceived that the Nonconformists of the present day were not at least as strong now, and certainly more numerous, than they were when that fight was fought. They were taking up the same attitude now; and they would object to be rated for religious instruction in which they did not believe. He urged the right hon. Gentleman not to disregard the matter, as a large number of people believed that the abolition of School Boards by the passing of the Bill would be a very grievous injustice, and against it they would continue to protest.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to the Committee to bring this discussion to a

  1291
  close, and I shall not stand in the way of that result for any length of time. But at the same time I think that the right hon. Gentleman cannot have fully realised the tremendous importance of the vote we are about to give. It is, to my mind, the most important point that has been raised since we commenced our discussions on this Bill, because it involves nothing less than that we should either consent to, or protest against, the slaughter of the School Boards of the country. I admit my feeling of objection on that point goes far beyond the question of option, for, option or no option, I have never yet heard any good reason why School Boards should be superseded. My hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell has spoken of the necessity of raising the standard of education and efficiency in denominational schools and he pointed to the case of the borough of Preston as one in which education was very backward, and he attributed that to the lack of public spirit there; then he proceeded to the neighbouring borough of Bolton, and showed what splendid educational results were achieved there, and how liberally the rates for education were imposed there. What is the cure offered by the Government? That Bolton should lose its School Board and be brought with Preston under the general system. When the best schools in the country are found to be under School Boards, surely that is not the part of our educational system to which destructive forces should be applied. I am no friend to any proposal for superseding School Boards; but the Bill provides that there should be an option in the matter. Two eminent and conspicuous supporters of the Government have denounced as
  1292
  pure insanity the proposal deliberately inserted in the Bill by the Government. But it has at least this much to be said for it—that some large and important bodies are most reluctant to undertake this new duty, and we are not likely to add to the efficiency of our system by imposing such duties on unwilling authorities. I shall vote against the Amendment, and never before have I voted in a greater conviction that I am right.
  MR. ABEL THOMASsaid he would vote against the Amendment for two reasons. The first was that if the Amendment was passed the School Boards in his constituency, which had been a great success, would be got rid of, and an educational system which had effected nothing but was good would be brought to an end. The second reason was that if they did away with the present system, which was the best so far as they had gone, they would be doing so on the chance that another system would be better, although it had never been tried. From every corner of his constituency he had received resolutions asking him to oppose the Amendment to the utmost of his power. When he found that in his constituency the work of the School Boards had been a great success, and that his constituents were practically unanimous in favour of supporting the School Board, he, like his great leader, should be only too glad to vote against the Amendment.
  MR. HELMEsaid he too would oppose the Amendment, and would support the permissive character of the Bill to prevent the abolition, so far as possible, of School Boards with all their accumulated experience in management. He imagined that a very great

  1293
  deal of opposition to the permissive clauses of the Bill arose from a fear that in practice they would starve out the voluntary schools. He had given an earnest of his own desire to deal justly and fairly by the voluntary schools by putting an Amendment on the Taper providing that in any urban district where the Council did not adopt the Act, and where the School Boards were accordingly continued, all the powers under this Act should vest in the School Boards, which, of necessity, would then be compelled to support financially the voluntary schools within their area just the same as any other school. They, in supporting this Amendment, asserted the right of direct popular and public control in rate-aided schools; they might, however, be beaten on the present occasion, but they would be face to face with this position that the demand would continue. For years past, the House, when dealing with great measures, had always considered the claims of the Opposition in a spirit of fairness which shewed itself in the ultimate form of the Bill, so that both sides could accept it as a basis of action for years to come, and so prevent an agitation immediately developing in the country for its repeal. He claimed that they approached the question in the purest educational spirit, and that they only desired to arrive at a conclusion which would enable them to develop and improve teaching throughout the country. In supporting the Clause as it originally stood, they were not actuated by any want of sympathy with the voluntary schools. They stood by the dual compact of 1870, when the voluntary schools were admitted into the National system, and they wore prepared to stand by it still, and endeavour to bring the voluntary schools up to a position of greater efficiency.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid he hardly thought the Committee realised the gravity of the step which was about to be taken, as regarded, at all events, some parts of the country. In Wales they were not opposed to education, and wished to do all that they possibly could to promote it; but unless the Committee proceeded on some different principle, he could assure the right lion. Gentleman that the effect of forcing the measure upon the County Councils of Wales would be so grave that every one who took part in that action, would feel that there was something, at any rate, to regret in it. He agreed with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that difficulties would arise even if the original proposal were accepted; but he ventured to say that infinitely greater difficulties would arise if they adopted the proposal which the hon. Member laid before the Committee. He was aware it was advisable to keep as far as possible aloof from subjects which appeared to unduly stir up party feeling and sectarian passion; but it was right that some indication, at all events, should be given of the intense feeling which prevailed in some quarters outside the House on the question. He would only indicate the existence of that feeling, and express a hope that something would be done during the progress of the Bill through Committee, to avoid consequences which many of them had only too much reason to fear.
  (11.26.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 271; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 281.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William(Cork. N. E,)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ac'and-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Long Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fergusson, Rt Hn SirJ. (Manc'r

  Lowe, Francis William

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

  Finch, George H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouh)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Flower, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Foster, Sir Michael(Lond. Univ.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Balcarres, Lord

  Foster, PhilipS. Warwick, S. W.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Galloway, William Johnson

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Garfit, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinb'rgh W

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gordon Hn J E (Elgin & Nairn

  M'Kean, John

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gorst Rt Hn Sir John Eldon

  Maxwell, W J H(Dumfriesshire

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bill, Charles

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milvain, Thomas

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Grant, Corrie

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Boland, John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Bond, Edward

  Green, WalfordD (Wednesbury

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Gretton John

  Mooney, John J.

  Brassey, Albert

  Greville Hon. Roland

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Groves James Grimble

  Morgan, David J(W'lth'mstow

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bull, William James

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford)

  Butcher, John George

  Hamilton Rt Hn LordG(Midd'x

  Mount, William Arthur

  Butcher, John George

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Mowbray, Sir. Robert Gray C.

  Carlile William Walter

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Murphy, John

  Carson, Rt Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Charles J (Coventry)

  Cavendish V C W (Derbyshire

  Harwood, George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Chapman Edward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Col. JohnP. (Galway, N.)

  Churchill, Winston Spender

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Heath, James (Staftords. N. W.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brighside

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hornby Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tiperary, N.)

  Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady

  Hoult, Joseph

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm

  O'Malley William

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Cross. Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Johnstone, Heywood)Sussex)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Delany, William

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pease, Herbt. Pike(Darlington

  Denny, Colonel

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshr'e

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Dewar, John A. (Invernes-sh.

  Joyce, Michael

  Penn, John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Percy, Earl

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Dillon John

  Kenyon. Hon. Geo. T (Denbigh

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Donelan Captain A

  Keswick, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Doogan, P. C

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leamy, Edmund

  Purvis Robert.

  Doxford. Sir William Theodore

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareh'm

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Randles, John S.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rankin, Sir James

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.

  Reddy, M.

  1296

  1297

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks) j

  Warr, Augus'us Frederick

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Spear, John Ward

  Wentworth. Bruce C. Vernon-

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Renwick, George

  Stewart, SirMark J. M'Taggart

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Stock, James Henry

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Ridley, Hn. M. W (Stalybridge)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Ridley, S. F. orde (Bethnal Green

  Stroyan, John

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Struit, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf d Univ.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Royds, Clement, Molyenx

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Young, Samuel

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Younger, William

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Tully Jasper

  Shaw Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Walrond. Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Mr. Henry Hobhouse and

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Dr. Macnamara.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Allen, CharlesP. (Gloue, Stroud

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rigg, Richard

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hutton. Alfred E. (Morley)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Black, Alexander William

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Runciman, Walter

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kitson, Sir James

  Russell, T. W.

  Brigg, John

  Labouchere, Henry

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lambert, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Leng, Sir John

  Spencer, RtHn. C. R(Northants

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cameron, Robert

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Channing, Francis Allston

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Cremer, William Randal

  Mellor, Rt, Hon. John William

  Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Moss, Samuel

  Tomkinson, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Toulmin, George

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Newnes, Sir George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Edwards, Frank

  Norman, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Perks, Robert William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Price, Robert John

  Sir James Woodhouse and

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Priestley, Arthur

  Major Seely.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Question proposed, "That lines 27 to 31 be omitted."
  Agreed to.
  MR. ALFRED BUTTONasked whether he would be in order in moving an Amend-
  1298
  ment, the object of which was to give the County Councils an opportunity—say, a period of three years—to make the necessary arrangements for taking over this work.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think that would be a contradiction, though not a direct contradiction, of what the Committee have already agreed to.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he did not wish the period to be so long as to defeat the decision of the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If I were to admit the Amendment, how could I refuse a proposal to leave out "three" years, and insert "fifty"? That would really nullify the decision of the Committee. The Amendment should have been moved as an Amendment to the Amendment.
  Question "That Clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill" put and negatived.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: On a point of order, Sir, the question you put from the Chair was that Clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill, and you declared that the noes have it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, because no one said "aye"; therefore, the Clause has gone.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  NEW FOREST (SALE OF LANDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES) [RE-COMMITTED] BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), in the Chair.]
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERasked why the Bill had been recommitted.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said the Bill was committed, in accordance with the practice of the House, to a Hybrid Committee, before which persons interested had a right to appear. It passed through that Committee as an unopposed Bill. But that did not save the Committee stage in the House, and therefore it had to be recommitted. The Bill had been accepted by those locally interested, and he hoped it would be allowed to go through the present stage without opposition.
  Bill reported without Amendment, read the third time, and passed.

  ICE CREAM SHOPS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 2 and 3 amended, and agreed to.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.

  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.