EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.

HC Deb 16 July 1902 vol 111 cc374-429

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)

in the Chair.

Clause 6: —

Another Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 35, after the word 'secular,' to insert the words 'and physical.'"—(Mr. Priestley.)

Question again proposed, "That these words be there inserted."

(2.35.) THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

said he entirely agreed with the hon. Member that the question of physical training was second only, if it were second in some cases, to the question of intellectual training. We were rather inclined, by long and not very wise tradition, to confine the word "education" within too narrow limits, and to suppose that it only affected the moral and intellectual side of life, and of that side certain relatively narrow intellectual interests. Therefore, he did not quarrel with the object the hon. Gentleman had in view. The hon. Gentleman wished that, in addition to the ordinary scholastic training, there should be some attention given to the physical training of the scholars. But would that object, excellent though it were, be properly carried out by the Amendment? Was there a distinction between "secular," which was in the Clause, and "physical," which the hon. Gentleman proposed to add? "Secular," in common parlance, and certainly as used in the Bill, was opposed not to physical, but to religious education. If the hon. Gentleman were right—as he believed he was—in thinking that physical training ought in many cases to be made an essential part of the general training, unconnected with the religion of the pupils, it would come under the general term "secular." If they added "physical," why not add each of the different items which went to make up the secular side of education— such as Latin, for example? It was impossible to include in the Clause all the items which went to make up secular education, and he held, therefore, that the general word "secular" was sufficient. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be content, in the circumstances, with having called attention to this important element of general education, without pressing his Amendment to a division.

MR. PRIESTLEY (Grantham)

said that after the sympathetic speech of the Prime Minister there was no course open to him but to withdraw his Amendment. He highly valued the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that this portion of education in public elementary schools was both essential and valuable, and he only hoped the Government would formulate a scheme making physical education compulsory in the elementary schools. He believed hon. Members generally were in entire sympathy with that view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*THE CHAIRMAN

ruled out of order the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bolton, which was, after the word "secular" to insert the words "and undenominational."

MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)

said they were all agreed that the education authority should have control over all secular teaching, whether in denominational or other schools, and that the control of religious teaching should be left to denominational authorities. The third point was as to the control of religious teaching in undenominational schools, and he maintained that the Clause as it stood made no provision for that. It merely provided that the local education authority should, throughout its area, have the powers and duties exercised by School Attendance Committees under the Acts of 1870 and 1900. That, if it stood by itself, would meet the difficulty, no doubt; but words had been added making it responsible for "secular '' instruction in public elementary schools, whether provided by it or not. That created some doubt as to who was to be responsible for religious education in schools not provided by the authority.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member evidently wishes to amend the words "whether provided by them or not." The question of undenominational religious teaching has already been decided.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.)

said that he would raise the points embodied in the Amendments standing next in his name on a subsequent part of the Clause.

MR. DUNCAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Otley)

moved an Amendment the object of which was, he said, to make it clear that the local education authority should have control of all secular instruction, whether in voluntary or denominational schools.

Amendment proposed— In Clause G, page 2, line 36, to leave out 'whether" and insert 'not.' "—(Mr. Duncan.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the question involved was one of drafting or construction, rather than of principle. They were all agreed that the local education authority should have absolute control over secular and religious training in the schools they themselves provided, and that they should have absolute control over secular training in the voluntary schools. The only question was as to how the matter could be most clearly put. Personally, he would have thought the meaning was obviously clear, but as he gathered from the debate the other night that there was some difference of opinion, and as the Amendment would make it clearer, he had no objection to accepting it.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

moved to omit, the last words of the Clause, which provided that School Boards and School Attendance Committees should be abolished. He did not think that they ought to decide absolutely on the abolition of School Boards. Practically, of course, they had been abolished, so far as their control over education was concerned, but no final decision should be come to until they came to the Clause which would enable them to be retained purely as committees of management. His contention was that, although the County Council might be able to direct and control education generally within its area, to decide on the amount of money to be expended on education, to give general directions for education, and organise it in a general way, it was quite impossible for a body of that kind actually to manage individual schools. It was admitted that the Clause gave power to County Councils to inspect schools, but there was a great difference between that and managing them. In a county with a population of 200,000 or 300,000, and a very large area, the County Council could not do more than provide a general education scheme, and it would find great difficulty in appointing committees of management, for it would not possess the necessary local knowledge to enable it to select the best men to manage the schools. All that he asked the First Lord of the Treasury to do was to refrain from prejudicing the question whether School Boards should not be retained in some districts purely for the purposes of management. The omission of these words would give the Committee an opportunity, when they came to the next Clause, dealing with the management of schools, to discuss the propriety of retaining School Boards as the managers of schools.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 36, to leave out the words 'and School Boards and School Attendance Committees shall be abolished in that area.' "— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'and School Boards and School Attendance Committees shall' stand part of the Clause."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he thought that the object the hon. Gentleman had in view was an important object, and one the Committee might well discuss. If he understood the hon. Gentleman rightly, he only desired to deal with the: counties, and in the counties the hon. Gentleman desired to keep the School Boards in existence, while depriving them of any rights under the Act of 1870—to leave them as pale and ineffectual ghosts, endowed with a kind of transitory life by the County Council, if it should so please. The first observation he would make was that the hon. Gentleman pro-posed to create, or rather to leave in I existence, a very cumbrous machinery to carry out a very small object. Even those who favoured the School Board system thought that the whole apparatus of the cumulative vote, and the rest of it, threw a great deal of cost and trouble on small districts. The cost of a contested election in these small areas bore a most absurd and abnormal proportion to the total expenditure of the School Board, and he did think it would be very inadvisable to make it a part of the new machinery. He would also point out that even now the public interest in School Board elections was not very great as compared with that taken in other elections. What would it be when those bodies were deprived of all autonomy and dignity, and left as the mere servants of the County Council? Though he did not think the Committee ought to accept the Amendment, he agreed that it was worth considering in the next clause whether something could not be devised which would put the locality in some touch with the central authority. They had already decided, by the earlier words of the Clause, to make the County Council wholly responsible for educational matters, and he thought that to have another elective body in the district, even though it would be subordinate to the County Council, would be to invite some kind of collision between the two bodies.

(3.0.) MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's last words, which contained a promise of better things to come; but he would have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman could have indicated a little more distinctly what he intended to do, because it would have largely saved their labourson the Bill, Heneed not answer the other arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, which, though they might have some force, had not the force of the last argument of the right hon. Gentleman. They attached to this element of local popular control a great deal of importance, and any proposal of that kind would be of the greatest value.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

thought the right hon. Gentleman had given a negative indication as to his intention, which was somewhat unfortunate.

MR. BRYCE

dissented.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said that was certainly what he understood. He would quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman— An elective body might come into conflict with the County Council. He thought it was most unfortunate, because the right hon. Gentleman had almost pledged himself against the elective element by limiting himself in that way.

MR. BRYCE

said of course if those words were used they were quite open to his right hon. friend's criticism. He understood the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was only directed against School Boards.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

explained that what he was objecting to was the continuation in the area of a body wholly elective, with a great tradition behind it, going back to 1870, and having had powers of which they were now deprived, but which they would have a natural instinct to resume. He had pointed out that there might be friction between the elective body and the body they all desired to see supreme in relation to education, namely, the County Council. He did not wish to give any special pledge, but what was passing through his mind was that, in addition to the managers nominated by the County Council, there should be a certain proportion elected by the Parish Councils.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

expressed his satisfaction at having elicited that expression of opinion, which was a great improvement on what the right hon. Gentleman had first said. It was a considerable concession, especially if the proportion of the elected element was a large one. He thought the whole ought to be elected, but the matter would have an important bearing on the Clause. The view that the right hon. Gentleman took in his first speech, that there might be conflict of authority, was not borne out by their experience of the County Councils, Parish Councils, and District Councils, all of which dealt with the same class of duties. The line between them had been strictly maintained, and they had all done good work for the counties. What they had in view was the importance of keeping as managers of the schools in the School Board districts the men who had learnt their work and had done it in the past, and who had the confidence of the ratepayers. The position offered to them under this Bill was the management of one school, when, under the School Board, they had controlled twenty or thirty; and it was not reasonable to suppose that they would accept such a position. What they desired was to see a larger scope of duty given to these men under this Bill.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)

said he heard what fell from the right hon. Gentleman with the greatest pleasure, because he thought the concession would be most valuable, not only from the point of view of persons immediately concerned, but also from another point of view altogether. The bringing of the Parish Councils into line was a great concession, because in many cases Parish Councils were almost dying of inanition for want of. work to do. Frequently the same persons who served on the Parish Councils, also served on the School Board, and the result was that the two elections injured the value of both in the eyes of the electors. He hoped the Government would consider whether, where the area was of sufficient size, and the School Board was not working well, the Parish Councils could not be substituted for it.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

thought the noble Lord who had just spoken had given good reason why the School Boards should not be retained. This Amendment, which had been supported by such high authority, would, if accepted, keep in existence an expensive body, for no object which could not be obtained by other means. He ventured to think, however much regard they might have for the work the School Boards had done in the past, it would be very unwise, now that the Committee had determined to abolish them, to press an Amendment for the purpose of keeping them in existence for such a purpose as this. Did any hon. Member think it would be desirable to keep the Attendance Committee in existence merely for the purpose of managing a school? He welcomed the suggestion made by the First Lord, and thought the Committee could not possibly come to a decision which-would keep on the expensive machinery of the School Board for Such an inadequate purpose.

MR. HUMPHREYSOWEN (Montgomeryshire)

was of opinion that the question for the Committee to consider was whether the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. He thought the advantages of retaining the School Boards as managers of the schools were so plain as to admit of no doubt as to the desirability of their being retained. He traversed the suggestion that there was no interest taken in the election of the School Boards. In the counties he was acquainted with, great interest was taken in the elections, and that was only natural, because the persons who sent their children to the schools were interested in seeing them properly managed. The Welsh system afforded a clear example of subordinate bodies working in complete harmony with the higher bodies. Every intermediate school in Wales was managed on the spot by a local committee, which was subordinate, in all important matters, to the county governing body, but, so far as he knew, there were no cases in which friction had arisen between the two. The county governing bodies dictated the educational policy, but the whole of the details of the actual working were, and must necessarily be, left to the people on the spot. Undoubtedly the School Attendance Committees would have to be got rid of, but that was a comparatively small matter, and he should support the Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)

understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like to part with the School Boards and the School Attendance Committees until they knew what were to take their place. That matter was dealt with in the next Clause, and he understood that the First Lord was prepared to consider Amendments extending or modifying that Clause, which, as it stood, was undoubtedly somewhat sketchy. There was a three-fold object in constituting these subordinate bodies: first, to relieve the local authority of the burden of detail in the management of the schools; secondly, to enlist local interest by imparting some measure of local representation to these Committees; and thirdly, to utilize as far as possible the accumulated experience of School Boards. The discussion on those points ought really to come on Clause 7, and he suggested that instead of discussing mere hypotheses on the present Clause as to the intentions of the Government they should finish with Clause 6, and proceed with the Clause which really dealt with these matters

MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea District)

said the right hon. Gentleman opposite was correct in his main argument, but before the committee proceeded further they ought to know what was to be the precise effect of the abolition of School Boards. He did not wish to go into details with regard to the Welsh system; but nobody had pointed out how serious was the disorganization which was about to take place in consequence of the disorganization which was the about to take place in consequence of the passing of this Bill. They had, first of all, the University of Wales, governed in the last resort by the University court, which was partly a nominated and partly a representative body. The had besides three national colleges and also a number of secondary schools established under the intermediate Act of 1889, besides the ordinary public elementary schools under the Act of 1870 and the amending Acts. He desired to ask the prime Minister whether he had considered the charter of the three national colleges and the effect of the adoption of Clause 6 in relation thereto. They were State-aided colleges, but they has also attracted a large amount of private attracted a large amount of private subscriptions. In the case of the University College, at Aberystwith, the governing body was somewhat numerous, but it included among the elected Governors nominees of the School Boards of seven counties in Wales—28 in number. What was going to be done, supposing Clause 6 passed, in regard to the Charter of the University College? With regard to Bangor College, the Chairmen of the School Boards in North Wales were ex officio members of the College Committee, while in regard to the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire, no fewer than 48 members of the Court of Governors were elected by the School Boards. It was obvious that the effect of the abolition of the School Boards would be to disorganise the work of these institutions. The object they had in forming those charters, and in anxiously discussing the constitution of those governing bodies, was to secure that very co-ordination which everybody regarded as desirable. If this Clause as it stood were carried they would have in some way to alter the Charters of those colleges, and the Committee had a right to know the intentions of the Government in the matter. With regard to most of the secondary schemes the same principle had been carried out. They had endeavoured to obtain consideration, not on the principle of one authority, but rather by securing a thoroughly representative element on every body that governed education in Wales. Having regard to the large area involved, viz., thirteen counties, he thought he was right to call the attention of the Government to the disorganisation that would take place if the Clause passed without this further Amendment.

*MK. RUNCIMAN (Dewsbury)

said he hoped the Amendment would not be passed, because the Committee had already practically abolished the School Board, and to keep the School Board alive in its decimated state would not only detract from its dignity, but also make it almost impossible to get men to serve on the School Boards. He thought the purpose of his hon. friends was to provide, as far as possible, for the elective principle being applied to the local management of education. With that, of course, he had the utmost sympathy, and he trusted the proposals which the Government had in view would be sufficient to carry that out with thoroughness. The great necessity for that was, not only with the object of interesting the parents and those who had the control of children in the education of the district, but also in the very largo counties and areas in particular where it was physically impossible for the local education authority as at present constituted under this Bill, to carry out its work. In the West Riding of Yorkshire by the Bill they had already wiped out no less than 140 School Boards and the work of those bodies would have to be undertaken by the West Riding County Council. That was a large undertaking, and it would have to be divided between the local education authority and the managing committees; but it had been discovered by those interested in the management of education in the West Riding that it would be almost impossible for the local representatives to come from the north-west corner of the county to attend to the management work in the county town of Wakefield, unless they were prepared to give up for every meeting held in Wakefield the night previous and the night following the day on which the meeting was held. That was a small matter to those who had the time to spare, but he and others wished to attract not only the men who had the time to spare, but also men who were busy men, with the interests of education at heart. He believed the interests of his hon. friends would be best served by having the Parish Council represented on the local Committee, and he hoped the Government would see its way to carry that out in the next Clause.

MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)

said that as this Clause marked the final abolition of School Boards, Liberals at any rate were entitled to enter a last protest. He did not, however, altogether appreciate the difficulty of the hon. Member for Swansea, because the Clause provided for the powers of the School Board being transferred to the local education authority, and therefore the latter body would in future elect representatives to the governing bodies as the School Boards had hitherto done, When they got to Clause 7 it would be I very easy to delete those words. He thought that if they allowed this proposal to pass now their hands would be tied. He agreed with what the hon. Member for Carnarvon had said about the difficulties experienced in counties. He knew one county where it would be impossible to appoint managers with any knowledge and capacity for the work, and he thought they ought to have a School Board there.

(3.30.) SIR WILLIAM MATHER (Lancashire, Rossendale)

said that after the defeat of his Amendment about School Boards he thought they had finished with them altogether, and he accepted his defeat in good part, But if he understood the Prime Minister rightly he now proposed to leave it to the Committee, and therefore his hon. friend might have withdrawn his Amendment in favour of a scheme with an ad hoc authority to replace the School Board in so far as exercising the delegated powers of the local education authority in connection with the education given in the schools was concerned. The Member for Oxford University rather confused the minor questions in Clause 7 with the larger questions involved in Clause 6.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I intervened to-day because I am extremely anxious that no interpretation should be put upon my words which might cause subsequent disappointment. May I just explain again the idea which I previously sketched. My hon. friend who has just sat down seems to think the body I have in view under Clause 7 is the body to whom necessarily should be delegated the powers of the County Council. That is not so. The education authority must remain the education authority for the district. Of course it will have power, if it chooses to exercise that power, to give to managers duties, in fact to delegate all its duties to them. It can do that. I am considering only the question of managers, and I confess I do not contemplate, for reasons which I am quite ready to develop later, that in any of the schools the locally elected representatives should be in a majority. I think there are strong reasons why they should not be. The idea I had in my mind did not go that length at all. What I did have in my mind was that there should be a representation on the Board of Management, which was due to local election probably by the Parish Council, and upon which I think means could be devised by which parents should have a place. I do not wish to put it at all higher than that. It was a minority which I contemplated being elected. Hon. Members must not carry away the idea that I mean a majority of locally elected representatives. I want to make that point quite clear.

DR. MACNAMARA (Carnberwell, N.)

said he agreed that village schools not only wanted more money, but also bettor management, and that would come by the people being kept in touch with the school. Everything would depend upon the proportion of representation given. He gathered that they were not likely to get half the number locally elected. School Boards were abolished in Clause 1 and Clause 5, and in the early part of this Clause, and now they were proposing to abolish them once more. Did the Committee think it was worth while in the small villages to go through ail the machinery of a contested election for the purpose of electing a body to manage twenty-five children? He did not think the ratepayers of that village would thank the hon. Member for Carnarvon for such a proposal. At the present time they had got at least 2,000 schools with less than thirty children, and were they to have a triennial election in a poverty-stricken area simply for the management of one school with twenty-five children? That was what would happen if these words were continued. There were no schools worse conducted in England and Wales than the small village schools, where the attendance was atrociously bad, and so was the equipment. The case could be well met by nomination. At present they had an ad hoc body for London and 2,000 school managers, not one of whom was directly elected, and they conducted their business under a Code submitted by the School Board with admirable efficiency. He was opposed to retaining microscopic ad hoc bodies for the purposes of school management because it would inflict unnecessary expense, while they could get at the same result by other means.

MR. MOSS (Denbighshire, E.)

said that if this Clause passed the system of secondary education would be seriously interfered with. In Devonshire, for instance, they had twenty-six or thirty members, on the local governing body appointed directly by the School Boards in the county, He did not know how it was proposed, in the event of this Clause passing, to remodel the whole system in Wale.;. He supported this Amendment on general grounds, and he took it to be part of the scheme of this Bill that the County Council was not directly managing any of these schools. If that was so, the Bill contemplated the delegation of powers to some properly elected body. It was said that the School Boards in the country districts were far too small for efficient management. That might be so, but surely the same argument would apply to the delegation of powers by the local education authority to the Parish Council, which would certainly not be larger than the School Board. If this Clause were allowed to stand, subject to the Amendment, he failed to see how the general scheme would be affected thereby. It was suggested that they were perpetuating a body which would be cumbrous and expensive to the electors, but there was no reason why the general scheme should be affected by the proposal.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he had a right to complain that the hon. Member for Camberwell had not taken the trouble to understand the Amendment. The hon. Member said the Amendment was a proposal to set up a School Board for every district, although the district might only have twenty-five inhabitants. If he had proposed an Amendment of that sort it would have been perfectly right to amend it. That was not the Amendment he proposed. The only Amendment he proposed at present was one which would not prejudice the question as to whether under certain circumstances School Boards should be retained as Committees of Management. His hon. friend chose to make an attack upon Welsh School Boards. He had more experience of Wales than the hon. Member, and had therefore more right to speak of Welsh educational matters. The hon. Member had attacked the, little School Hoards in Wales. It was true that some of them were not efficient, but did his hon. friend mean to say that the managers of voluntary schools in those districts did their work better than the little School Boards? His experience was that the board schools in the rural districts were healthier, cleaner and better equipped than the voluntary schools, and it would interest his hon. friend to know that they paid the teachers better. If an attack was to be made on the little School Boards, why should the voluntary school managers always escape? He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would not make up his mind definitely at this point that the majority of the members of the Committee of Management must be appointed by the education authority, he thought it was much more important that the majority should be selected by some body—it might be the Parish Council —who knew the best men in the district. If the County Council had to select the managers in any district, not knowing the men, they must leave it entirely to the caprice or personal prejudice of one man who knew the district. He did not think that was desirable.

*MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

said he should have preferred to say what he had to say in moving the rejection of the Clause, but the discussion had taken an interesting turn, and the scope of the Amendment had been largely misinterpreted, and he should like to offer one or two words now. His intention in putting the Amendment on the Paper was purely negative. He simply wished to preserve at this stage freedom of judgment to the House as to the ultimate form of local authority which should be subordinated to the central authority. It seemed to him that the words "and School Boards and School Attendance Committees shall be abolished in that area," were unnecessary, and that the Clause might very well terminate with the words "whether provided by them or not." He protested against the abolition of the School Boards, believing that it was a serious blunder to destroy, instead of develop, ad hoc authorities for education. But they were placed in the position of doing the best they could with the Bill. It was essential that there should be some form of local autonomy. He had heard with some satisfaction what had been said by the First Lord of the Treasury as to the management of schools. He would remind the Committee that an enormous and important alteration had been made in Clause 3' by the acceptance of the proposal of the hon. Member for East Somersetshire. By that concession the local authorities of a multitude of small areas had been given almost complete autonomy as regards the provision of education other than elementary. He himself regarded that concession as imperfect and unsatisfactory in some ways, and thought some form of co-ordination should be provided, although he voted for it on the ground of endeavouring to obtain so far as he could an equivalent for the local autonomy given in the School Board. The Bill was a bad Bill, but its only merit was the principle, or rather the profession, that it would co-ordinate all authorities and all schools under a central authority. But he held that what was done in regard to secondary education logically carried with it as a corollary the concession of some form of local autonomy with regard to elementary education also under this Bill. If they could get that in the form of an ad hoc authority it would be advisable.

(4.0.) MR. EDWARDS (Radnor)

said he desired to support the Amendment because, as he understood it, it left the question of the constitution of the body which would manage the schools to the final decision of Clause 7. The hon. Member for Oxford University asked that they should get on to Clause 7 and then discuss the question. He should be very glad to follow that advice, if the First Lord first adopted this Amendment. He could not agree with the attack which had been made by the hon. Member for North Camberwell upon the small Welsh School Boards, and the scorn which he poured upon them and all their works. It was possible that some small School Boards had done bad work, but the hon. Member was not right in locating them in Wales. He could only say that the school of the small School Boards in Wales had earned a bettor grant than the voluntary schools. In his own county the voluntary schools only earned £1 4s. 7d. per child, while the School Board schools so much derided by the hon. Member for Camber-: well had earned £1 7s. 8d. per child.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

said that this was the last opportunity the House of Commons would have of making an effective protest against the abolition of the School Boards, and it was right that on an occasion of that kind hon. Members, whether they had the misfortune to be Members for Wales or for England, should have the right to press their opinions. He thought before this Act was consummated they should express their gratitude to the men who during the past thirty years had rendered such self-sacrificing services to education. They; had done splendid work, which could never be obliterated or forgotten in the future. When the country was informed that it was the intention of the Government to obliterate the School Boards there was a considerable outcry against it, but they were assured that the Members of the School Boards would be continued on the School Management Committees as delegates of the local education authority. Of course that might be done for the next year or two, but they were not legislating for the next year or two, but for a very considerable period, and I having regard to that, he thought it i was only right, as his hon. friend proposed, that they should make some I permanent arrangement for the local management of the schools, hitherto under the management of the School Boards. Unless that were done the management of those schools, he feared, would be hereafter of a thoroughly unrepresentative character. Even if a certain number of representative persons were placed on the Committees, the result would be that there would be a great diminution in that direct interest taken by the members, who heretofore had felt a direct responsibility to the people in regard to the schools which they had managed. They had attained, as he understood, the object with which the Government set out—viz., to prevent overlapping; but if the machinery of the School Boards was preserved they should still be able to prevent anything in the shape of overlapping. The First Lord had expressed some apprehension as to the conflict which might arise between the members of the School Boards and the managers of the local education authority, but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that so far as the experience of Welsh intermediate education was concerned, there was no such friction. The two bodies worked together in perfect harmony. Although innumerable questions constantly arose, these were settled without the slightest friction. Some hon. Gentlemen objected on the score of the expense that the elections would cause; but it was idle to suppose that by any change of authorities additional economy would be attained in the working of the schools. Every change of this kind resulted, on the other hand, in a considerable increase of expense. At the same time he entirely agreed with what the hon. Member for North Camber-well and the hon. Member for Carnarvon had said in regard to the desirability of retaining the machinery of small School Boards; but what were the Government going to do in the case of towns like Leeds with a population of 340,000, the School Board of which employed 2,000 teachers, and the value of whose school buildings was £2,000,000 sterling. It would be absolutely impossible for the local education authority to have that effective control which was necessary over these schools. The result would be that the control of the schools would fall into the hands of the officials. There were limits to human endurance and capacity, and the cashiering of large numbers of men who had given free service to the cause of education—-work which had been stimulated by the countenance of the people, would have the worst possible effect on education. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, as this Amendment did not in any way prejudge the matter, to keep the matter open, so that when Clause 7 was reached they might be free to deal with the question of management. They did not ask for a moment that he should apply the same rule to all the School Boards, but they said that in regard to the large School Boards it would be the best educational policy not to make the change contemplated at present in the Bill. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had made an attack upon the small School Boards in Wales, on account of the small attendance in their schools; but the proportion of attendance in the School Board schools in Wales was higher than in School Board schools in England. It was quite true that the proportion of attendance with the number on the register was less, but that was a very different matter. These small School Boards no doubt had their defects, in common with the other Boards in the country, but these defects were not inherent in the Welsh School Boards. The National Labour Education League, which consisted of representatives of the Trades Unions of the country, and which was an entirely non-political organisation, had issued a manifesto in which it was stated that the wage-earners found it difficult to follow from the debates that there would be any direct representation of the people on the new education committees. Under the Bill, the manifesto went on to say, it would be possible for a Committee to be constituted of nominated persons, not one of whom would be directly elected by the people. As had already been pointed out by the hon. Member for Carnarvon the responsibility for the control of the Schools had, by the Bill, been removed as far as possible from the electorate.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTS

said it was perfectly evident that this Clause had been framed on the assumption that Clause 5 would remain in the Bill as it had been originally drafted. There was a further point. Was it not the invariable practice in drafting that when a body was destroyed, it was necessary to; transfer not only the duties but the property, rights and liabilities of that body to the new body? It was very evident that in respect to Schedule 2, the Bill would have to be remodelled. He submitted that under the altered circumstances in which the Bill was now placed, it would be necessary to introduce a new Clause dealing with the transference of the rights, property, and liabilities of the School Boards. If that were so, was it not natural and logical that the words should be omitted?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FTNLAY,) Inverness Burghs

said that Clause 19 would meet the hon. Gentleman's point. It provided that the provisions set out in the second schedule relating to the transfer of property and officers, and adjustment should have effect for the purpose of carrying the provisions of the Act into effect.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTS

said he thought Clause 19 was framed in that way purposely, on the assumption that the first section of Schedule 2 remained unaltered, and that the option was retained in the Bill. There would be no object in putting in a provision as to the transference of the powers and rights of School Boards into the schedule, except to meet that particular case. That was why, from a drafting standpoint, he submitted that the Government might accept the Amendment.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said that some alteration in the second schedule would be necessary as a result of the changes which had been made, but the Clause

before the Committee was not the proper place in which to make it.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTS

said it would be more in accordance with the usual practice if the words were omitted in the present Clause, and, if necessary, inserted in Clause 19.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he did not think so.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTS

said he regretted he could not agree with the Attorney General. He desired to associate himself with the remarks of the hon. Member for North Camberwell.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the Standing Order against repetition.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTS

said he had no intention of transgressing the Rule, and would conclude by associating himself with the remarks of his hon. friend.

(4.18.) The Committee divided:— Ayes, 265; Noes, 97. (Division List No. 297.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.	Brotherton, Edward Allen	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Acland- Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F	Brown, Alexan. H. (Shropsh.	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Burke, E. Haviland-	Emmott, Alfred
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glas.	Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Allhusen, Augustus H'ry Eden	Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Faber, Edmund B.(Hants, W.)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manc'r
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.	Field, William
Arrol, Sir William	Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Finch, George H.
Atkinson, Kt. Hon. John	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Bagot, Capt. Jos'line Fitz Roy	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Fisher, William Hayes
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r	Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Chapman, Edward	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon
Baird, John Geo. Alexander	Clive, Captain Percy A.	Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Balcarres, Lord	Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.	Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Baldwin, Alfred	Coddington, Sir William	Flower, Ernest
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manhe'r	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Flynn, James Christopher
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey	Conen, Benjamin Louis	Foster, Sir Mich'l(Lond. Univ.
Balfour, Rt Hn G'r'ld W.(Leeds	Collings, Re. Hon. Jesse	Foster, Phil. S. (Warwick, S. W.
Banbury, Frederick George	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Galloway, William Johnson
Bartley, George C. T.	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'k
Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin	Cranborne, Viscount	Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich'l Hicks	Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)	Gore, Hn G.R C. Ormsby-(Salop
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)
Bignold, Arthur	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Bigwood, James	Delany, William	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Bill, Charles	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Grant, Corrie
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Disraeli, Coniogsby Ralph	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Boland, John	Doogan, P. C.	Greene, SirE.W (B'rySEdm'nds
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Doughty, George	Gretton, John
Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Greville, Hon. Ronald
Brassey, Albert	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Groves, James Grimble
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Gunter, Sir Robert
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	M'Killop, W. (Sligo, N.)	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Hamilton, Rt Hn LordG (Midd'x	Majendie, James A. H.	Ropner, Colonel Robert
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Manners, Lord Cecil	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Harrington, Timothy	Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Rutherford, John
Hatch, Ernest Fred'k George	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Hayden, John Patrick	Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside	Milvain, Thomas	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw.J.
Hornby, Sir William Henry	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Horner, Frederick William	Mooney, John J.	Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Seely, Maj J E B (Isle of Wight
Hoult, Joseph	Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh.	Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham	Morrell, George Herbert	Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Morrison, James Archibald	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hudson, George Bickersteth	Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford)	Spear, John Ward
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Mount, William Arthur	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.	Muntz, Sir Philip A.	Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Murray, Rt Hn. A. Grah'm(Bute	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Jordan, Jeremiah	Myers, William Henry	Sullivan, Donal
Joyce, Michael	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.	Newdigate, Francis Alexander	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf' d Univ.
Kennedy, Patrick James	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)	Nolan, Col. Jno. P.(Galway, N.	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Kimber, Henry	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	Thornton, Percy M.
Knowles, Lees	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Tollemache, Henry James
Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W	Valeritia, Viscount
Lawson, John Grant	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Leamy, Edmund	O'Malley, William	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Welby, Lt.-Cl. A. C. E, (Taunton
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Welby, SirCharles G. E(Notts.)
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Parker, Sir Gilbert	Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Parkes, Ebenezer	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Percy, Earl	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Bir.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Pilkingtor, Lt.-Col. Richard	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Willoughby, de Eresby Lord
Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.	Plummer, Walter R.	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Power, Patrick Joseph	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Pretyman, Ernest George	Wils-on-Todd. Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Purvis, Robert	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath)
Lundon, W.	Pym, C. Guy	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Macartney, Rt Hn W G Ellison	Randles, John S.	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Macdona, John Gumming	Rankin, Sir James	Wylie, Alexander
MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Redmond, William (Clare)	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Reid, James (Greenock)	Young, Samuel
Maconochie, A. W.	Renshaw, Charles Bine	Younger, William
MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Richards, Henry Charles
M'Cann, James	Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge)
M'Govern. T.	Rigg, Richard	TELLERS FOR THE AYES℄
M'Kean, John	Ritchie, Rt Hn. Chas. Thomson	Sir William Walrond and
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Mr. Anstruther
NOES.
Allan, Sir Wm. (Gateshead)	Cremer, William Randal	Goddard, Daniel Ford
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Crombie, John William	Griffith, Ellis J.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merth. Tydvil
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Harwood, George
Burt, Thomas	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-
Caine, William Sproston	Edwards, Frank	Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.
Caldwell, James	Ellis, John Edward	Helme, Norval Watson
Cameron, Robert	Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst.	Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan	Holland, Sir William Henry
Causton, Richard Knight	Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Cawley, Frederick	Fenwick, Charles	Jacoby, James Alfred
Craig, Robert Hunter	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Jones, David Bryn'r (Swansea

Kearley, Hudson E.	Paulton, James Mellor	Thomas, David Alfred (Merth.
Kitson, Sir James	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Thomas, JA (Glam'gan, Gower
Labouchere, Henry	Perks, Robert William	Thomson, F W. (York, W. R.
Lambert, George	Pirie, Duncan V.	Tomkinson, James
Langley, Batty	Price, Kobert John	Toulmin, George
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Rea, Russell	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Leng, Sir John	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Wallace, Robert
Lewis, John Herbert	Robertson, Kdmund (Dundee)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Lloyd-George, David	Robson, William Snowdon	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall	Russell, T. W.	Weir, James Galloway
M'Keima, Reginald	Schwann, Charles E.	Whiteley, George (York, W.R.
Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Markham, Arthur Basil	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.
Mather, Sir William	Soares, Ernest J.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Stevenson, Francis S.
Moss, Samuel	Strachey, Sir Edward
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Tennant, Harold John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES℄
Nussey, Thomas Williams	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.	Mr. Channing and Mr.
Partington, Oswald	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.	Humphreys-Owen.

MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthenshire, W.)

said his desire was as far as possible to preserve the School Boards, provided that the local education authorities were of opinion that for the purposes of a managing body for the schools the School Board should exist through the whole area, or in some part of it. He had placed the Amendment on the Paper because he thought it was a pity that these authorities, which had done such good work in the past, should be abolished. The Amendment simply provided that the School Boards should continue to exist, as a managing body only, if the local education authorities came to the conclusion that, for this purpose, it was desirable that they should exist. The local education authorities would obviously have the fullest knowledge of educational affairs in their own particular districts, and to him it seemed it would be rather hard to say that those bodies should not have the power to declare that for this very limited purpose the School Board in their particular district should continue to exist. He quite agreed that all School Boards could not remain — that many of the smaller School Boards must go. He only suggested that where the local education authorities considered it desirable they should continue to manage the schools. Hon. Members did not appreciate the enormous duty the House was throwing on the local authorities. To place upon them the duty of managing the educational affairs of a large and populous county was to cast upon them an enormous task, and it was the duty of the House of Commons to consider how they could lessen, as far as possible, the duty they were casting upon them. It was for this reason that he had placed the Amendment on the Paper, and he hoped when the right hon. Gentleman came to reply he would see his way to accept it.

Amendment proposed — In page 2, line 37, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words if the local education authority so decide.' "—(Mr. Lloyd Morgan.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he thought the hon. Member would see that whatever variation there might be between the Amendment now proposed and that which had just been discussed at such length, that variation did not touch the arguments which had been addressed to the former Amendment, and those arguments were equally valid against this.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

desired merely to illustrate the value of this Amendment, which in his opinion ought to be accepted. In the county to which he belonged they had some very efficient School Boards, thoroughly capable of carrying out their work; and even in a small county of that kind the mass of work the management of the schools would entail on the local authorities was enormous. As a member of the local authority of that county, which would become the education authority under the Bill, he, stood aghast at the work they would have to accomplish. All that the Amendment suggested was that the local authority should have the option—nothing more. It would be an immense relief to the local authorities in many districts if they had the power to delegate such of their functions as they thought desirable to the School Board. It would be a matter of the greatest convenience to the largo School Boards, which of course would be in strict subordination to the local education authorities; and it seemed a little hard that the local education authorities should not have, in the case of the best and most efficient School Boards, the power of delegating to those School Boards the duties which they believed could be more efficiently exercised by them.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)

thought the Amendment was important in two respects. In the first place it would relieve the local education authority from a great amount of work which would come upon them suddenly, and in the second, it would ensure the continuation of those School Boards that ought to be preserved. That was really the test of the value of this Amendment, because nobody could doubt but that in a large number of cases the School Boards would be preserved. If all School Boards were abolished, the result would be that for a time, at any rate, education would be in a state of chaos, but if this Amendment were accepted, it would enable the local authorities to preserve the School Boards, and thus enable them to do the great work which would be thrust upon them by this Bill. The decision of the local authority in these matters was not final, so that, in the event of their deciding to preserve the School Board, it did not necessarily mean that the School Board was to exist for ever. The Amendment was a

very important one, and nobody could deny that the education authorities would like to have it in their power to preserve the School Boards in many districts under their jurisdiction.

*MR. H. J. WILSON (Yorkshire, W.R., Holmfirth)

thought the Amendment a very reasonable and moderate one, and if the suggestion of the previous speaker were adopted, and the proposal limited to a period of, say, three years, he failed to see what possible objection the Government could have to it.

MR. RUNCIMAN

looked upon the present Amendment as being entirely different from the last. Its importance, especially in county boroughs, was so great, that the Committee ought to be careful lest they came to a rash decision. The city of Newcastle afforded a good example of the benefits that would be given by this Amendment to large towns. Of late years in that city there had been an outburst of municipal energy, and the powers of the city Council were taxed to such an extent that it was almost impossible to get through the work. By this Amendment Newcastle would be given the option of preserving —at any rate for a few years —the school Board which had done such excellent work in that city, and they would be able to carry on the schools without disturbing the municipal life. Moreover, if the operation of the Amendment were limited to three years, certain complications which must be foreseen would be avoided.

(4.48.) Question put.

The Committee divided:— Ayes 105, Noes, 262. (Division List No. 298)

AYES.
Allan, Sir William(Gateshead)	Craig, Robert Hunter	Furness, Sir Christopher
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Cremer, William Randal	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb't John
Asquith, Rt, Hn. Herbert Henry	Crombie, John William	Goddard, Daniel Ford
Atherley-Jones, L.	Dalziel, James Henry	Gray, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Griffith, Kills J.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Dunn, Sir William	Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Edwards, Frank	Harmsworth, R. Leicester
Caldwell, James	Ellis, John Edward	Harwood, George
Cameron, Robert	Emmott, Alfred	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone	Havter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.
Causton, Richard Knight	Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Helme, Norval Watson
Cawley, Frederick	Fenwick, Charles	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Chauning, Francis Allston	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Holland, Sir William Henry
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Hutton, Alfred K. (Morley)	Paulton, James Mellor	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Jacoby. James Alfred	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Jones, David Brynmor(Swans'a	Perks, Robert William	Tomkinson, James
Kearley, Hudson E.	pirie, Duncan V.	Toulmin, George
Kitson, Sir James	price, Robert John	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lambert, George	Rigg, Richard	Wallace, Robert
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	Wason, Engene (Clackmannan)
Leng, Sir John	Robson, William Snowdon	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Lewis, John Herbert	Runciman, Walter	Weir, James Galloway
Lloyd-George, David	Schwann, Charles E.	Whiteley, George (York, W.R.
Lough, Thomas	Shaw, Clurles Edw. (Stafford)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
M'Arthur. William (Cornwall	Shaw, Thomas (Hawiek B.)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
M'Kenna, Reginald	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Sinclair. John (Forfarshire)	Yoxall, James Henry
Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Soares, Ernest J.
Markham, Arthur Basil	Stevenson, Francis S.
Mather, Sir William	Strachey, Sir Edward	TELLERS FOR THE AYES℄
Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William	Tennant, Harold John	Mr. Lloyd Morgan and Mr.
Moss, Samuel	Thomas, Abe1 (Carmarthen.E.	Samuel Evans.
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Coddington, Sir William	Gunter. Sir Robert
Acland- Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lord G(Midd'x
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Allhusen, Angust's Henry Eden	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Harrington, Timothy
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Compton, Lord Alwyne	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton)	Hayden, John Patrick
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Hobbouse, Henry(Somerset, E.
Arrol, Sir William	Dalrymple. Sir Charles	Hope, J F.(Sheffield, Brightside
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Delany, William	Hornby, Sir William Henry
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy	Dewar, John A. (lnverness-sh.	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Dickson-poynder, Sir John P.	Hoult, Joseph
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Howard, J. Midd. Tottenham
Baird, John George Alexander	Doogan, P. C.	Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil
Balcarres, Lord	Doughty, George	Hudson, George Bickersteth
Baldwin, Alfred	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Balfour, Rt. Hu. A. J. (Maneh'r	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred,
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Baubury, Frederick George	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Jordan Je emiah
Bartley, George C. T.	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Joyce, Michael
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Faber, Kdmund B. (Hants, W.)	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks	Faber, George Denison (York)	Kennedy, Patrick James
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Kenyon, Hon. Geo.T. (Denbigh
Bignold, Arthur	Fergusson. Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.
Bigwood, James	Finch, George H.	Kimber, Henry
Bill, Charles	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Knowles, Lees
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Fisher, William Hayes	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Boland, John	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)
Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)	Flanneny, Sir Fortescue	Lawson, John Grant
Brassey, Albert	Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Leamy, Kdmund
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Flynn, James Christopher	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham
Botherton, Edward Allen	Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.	Lees Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.	Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Burke, K. Haviland-	Galloway, William Johnson	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie
Campbell, Rt Hn J. A (Glasgow	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H(City of Lond.	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.
Campbell, John (Armagh S.)	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederek	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elg. & Nairn	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Gore, Hn GR. C. Ormsby-(Salop	Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.
Cavendish, V. C.W. (Derbysn.	Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Cecil, Kvelyn (Aston Manor)	Grant, Corrie	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r	Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry	Lundon, W.
Chapman, Edward	Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nd's	Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Macdona, John Cumming
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.-A. E.	Groves, James Grimble	MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Maconochie, A. W.	Parker, Sir Gilbert	Stroyan, John
Mac Veagh, Jeremiah	Parker, Ebenezer	Sullivan, Donal
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Pemberton, John S. G.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
M'Cann, James	Percy, Earl	Talbot, Rt, Hn. J. G(Oxf'dUmv.
M'Govem, T.	Pilkigton, Lieut. -Col. Richard	Thorburn, Sir Walter
M'Kean, John	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Thornton. Percy M.
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Plnmmer, Walter R	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.	Power, Patrick Joseph	Valentin, Viscount
Melville, Beresford Valentine	Pretyman, Ernest George	Wanklyn James Leslie
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Purvis, Robert	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Middlemore, J'hn Throgmorton	Pym, C. Guy	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Randles, John S.	Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n
Milvain, Thomas	Rankin, Sir James	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Roddy, M.	Whiteley, H.(Ashtonund. Lyne
Mooney, John J.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
More, Kohert Jasper (Shropsh.	Redmond, William (Clare)	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell (Birm
Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.	Renshaw, Charles Bine	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Morrell, George Herbert	Renwick, George	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Morrison, James Archibald	Richards, Henry Charles	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford	Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybrdg'e	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Mount, William Arthur	Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Muutz, Sir Philip A.	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Wilson-Todd. Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	Worsley -Taylor, Henry Wilson
Myers, William Henry	Ropner, Colonel Robert	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Royds, Clement Molyneux	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Newdigate, Francis Alexander	Rutherford, John	Wylie, Alexander
Nicol, Donald Ninian	Sackville, Co1. S. G. Stopford-	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Sassoon. Sir Edward Albert	Young, Samuel
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Seely, Charles Hi ton (Lincoln)	Younger, William
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
O'Connor T. P. (Liverpool)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES ℄
O'Malley, William	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset	Sir William Walroud and
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)	Mr. Anstruther.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

(5.5.) MR. BRYCE

said that before they parted with this important Clause he thought one or two words ought to be said upon the position in which they were now placed. Obviously this Clause placed the local education authority in relation with two other authorities, one above it and the other below it. The authority above it was the Board of Education. What were the powers of the Board of Education over the local education authority, and how much could the local education authority do of itself with out being interfered with? Upon that subject several questions had been addressed to the Government. They had had very different views given to the Committee upon the position of the Board of Education in regard to its power over the local authority. The Government had never committed themselves to a specific proposition upon this question but they had made vague expressions, and general ideas had been thrown out as regarded the change which this law made in reference to the Board of Education. The First Lord of the Treasury said the effect would be to give a large measure of decentralisation and practically create a large number of local boards of education all over the country. The right hon. Gentleman certainly conveyed to their minds the impression that a great deal of that which had formerly been done by the Board of Education would in the future be done by the local authority. That might be right or wrong, although he confessed to having a doubt whether the local authority would have either the knowledge or the zeal of capacity, especially in relation to technical education, to fulfil the functions which he admitted, notwithstanding a certain amount of red tape, on the whole, had been carried out to the great advantage of the country and with a progressive rise in the standard of education. He did not feel so sure that the local authorities would maintain the same standard as the Board of Education. The Vice-President of the Council put before the Committee on Monday last quite a different view. They gathered from him that the Board of Education would retain its powers. At any rate his view did not agree with the view given by the First Lord of the Treasury, except upon one point. The Vice-President did convey to the Committee that a good deal of the correspondence with the managers which had hitherto been carried on with the Board of Education would be carried on in future with the local authorities. They wanted a far more precise definition than they had had up to now. They knew what position the School Boards were in, and they had a pretty definite idea of their functions, for they had had thirty-two years, experience of them. They did not, however, know the position of these local authorities. It would take a long time to form a regular system, and there would bs a great deal of friction, trouble and loss in regard to the high standard maintained by the Board of Education. Take the case of inspectors. In the discussion on Monday last it was stated by the Government that inspection by the Board of Education should continue. There was also to be inspection by the local authorities, because When an Amendment was moved providing power to do this, they were told that obviously the local authority would have that power, and that the Amendment was unnecessary. Therefore they were face to face with two sets of inspectors, and what were to be their relations? Were they to divide their functions between them, and were the duties to be mapped out, one inspector representing the local authority and the other the Board of Education; or will they be concurrent and be able to cover the same ground? Suppose these inspectors differed in their views from the Board of Education, would the local authority be entitled to carry out its views against the Board of Education, or would it have to give way? He gave these as instances of difficulties which might arise. He was aware that they had had no such difficulties hitherto, because the inspection by the School Boards had been a totally different kind of thing. He felt that either here, or in some other part of the Bill, they were entitled to have a more exact definition of the relative powers and duties of the local authorities and the Board of Education. There was another side which was raised by Clause 6, and that was in regard to the managers. Here, again, the parallel of the School Boards was not a complete parallel. The School Boards were practically absolute over their managers, and they did not need to appoint managers at all unless they liked. That was a point of the greatest importance. A School Board might appoint managers, but it was not bound to do so, and it followed that all the duties of managers could have been done by the School Board itself, which could have dispensed with the managers and have managed the schools by its own hand. He believed also that he was correct in saying that the teachers would all be appointed by the School Board, and although the managers would be asked to recommend teachers for promotion, the actual appointments had to come from the School Boards. He was not sure whether the practice of all School Boards was uniform upon that, but he knew that was the case in London. If he understood the Bill aright, the local: authority- everywhere had to appoint the managers. The School Board could dispense with managers altogether. He did not think the new education authority would have the same authority over its managers as the School Board had. On that point he would be glad to be enlightened by the Government. By the introduction of the words "and be responsible for" a change had been made on the Clause, the benefit of which he admitted, but it seemed to him that they were important words, because they throw on the local authority the responsibility of seeing every where that the schools were properly managed. He was not quite certain that a change which confined the operation of Clause 6 to schools provided by the local authority did not make a similar change necessary in another part of the Bill. He wished to know whether this responsibility was to attach to the local authority in respect of all schools, whether provided by it or not.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

As I understand you, it is so.

MR. BRYCE

said he was glad to hear that. In that case it would be necessary to introduce parallel words which would import the same responsibility with regard to the other schools. If the right hon. Gentleman could not do that at this stage he would not press him. It was a matter that must be cleared up. The Committee understood that the Amendment which was accepted would apply to all schools. It must have been intended to cover all schools.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he was not quite sure that he understood the right hon. Gentleman. There had been no alteration of the substance of the Clause at all in the respect which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to. The Government accepted an Amendment of a drafting character in order to make the Clause clearer. Hon. Members thought that while it gave absolute control over secondary education in schools not provided by the local authority, there was certain security wanted in regard to other schools. The Clause as it now stood seemed to him to be quite unambiguous, because it gave absolute control over secular instruction in all schools, provided or not provided by the local authority.

MR. BRYCE

said he was glad to hear that statement, but it was still far from clear what the relation of the local authority would be to the managers of the schools. It might be said that this question belonged rather to the next Clause than to the one the hon. Gentlemen were now discussing, but he thought it worth mentioning at this stage that they were not at all satisfied with the next Clause, in which he thought it would be necessary to insert a further definition of what the relation of the local authority to the managers was to be. He thought, therefore, it would be very desirable that it should be made perfectly clear that the managers were to occupy towards the local authority the same position as the managers had hitherto occupied with regard to the School Board, namely, that they were to be the mere local agents of the local authority. It was far from clear what was to be the financial control of the local authority over the managers, and he thought an additional provision was required in order to make quite clear what financial control the local authority ought to possess.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that he contemplated, as the result of the Bill, no absolute or uniform system throughout the country. It was quite possible that the relations between Whitehall and one local authority might be quite different from the relations between Whitehall and another local authority; and he equally contemplated the possibility that the arrangement which one local authority chose to effect between itself and the managers of its schools might be quite different in different places. Of course, they could not ask the State to spend largo sums of money over education and not give it any control at all over the manner in which those sums were spent; but that did not necessarily mean, and would not mean in practice, that constant and minute discussion about buildings and the general goings on in each school which, it was alleged; had taken place to an excessive degree in the past. The relation between Whitehall and the individual schools would practically cease, and for it would be substituted the relation between Whitehall and the new education authority; and he imagined that the relation between those two bodies would be largely in the nature of consultation and advice. This elasticity of arrangement he regarded not as a defect, but as one of the great merits of the Bill. Experience would show which was the best plan, and although that plan would not be a pattern to be invariably followed in the case of each locality, still it would be something far superior to anything now in existence.

(5.30.) MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)

said that in the elasticity which the right hon. Gentleman had promised, they had in some respects that for which they had been looking for a long time. By the method of inspection to be adopted, the Department would prevent the falling behind of any large number of schools from the minimum standard. The right hon. Gentleman thought it entirely unnecessary to incorporate the code of regulations in the Clause. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman's confidence in the future would be amply justified. He wanted to put a point to the right hon. Gentleman. In his district they had, beyond elementary education, certain intermediate schools, higher grade schools, and the new schools—so-called higher elementary schools, as well as science and art classes. Now, those schools earned their grants from the Department in respect of particular work which was done within a certain narrow limit. He was not using that expression as a criticism of the education which was given in them. His point was, whether the elasticity which the First Lord of the Treasury said was to be given to the new education authorities, would enable them to enlarge the scope of the intermediate classes or not?

THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,) Cambridge University

said he did not understand the point.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON

said he would try to make his point clearer. The higher elementary schools were very distinctly science schools.

SIR JOHN GORST

No; they are not.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON

There is a teaching of science in the majority of them.

SIR JOHN GORST

The amount of science taught in the higher elementary schools is part of the general education, and is not specialised.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON

said that the schools might be good or not, but they knew that these schools were carried on under this particular Minute of the Board of Education. Now, supposing the local education authority carried on those schools, would they be able, under some scheme of their own, to receive grants for schools that would have rather a wider scope than elementary schools?

SIR JOHN GORST

That depends on the Code.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON

said that the whole point was that the Code limited the grants to children under fifteen years of age. What he was calling attention to was the intermediate class of schools, in which the children were from fourteen to sixteen years' of age, and who were not going to carry on their education until they were eighteen or nineteen years of age.

SIR JOHN GORST

said that they could not carry on under the Code, because the Code only applied to children under fifteen years of age. If the County Council carried on the children over fifteen years of age, they would be children attending secondary schools.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON

said his point was that the County Council education authorities ought to have some power of extending the kind of education to which he had referred to children attending the higher grade schools, without bringing them into the category of secondary schools.

SIR JOHN GORST

said that the local authority had the most ample power to establish any kind of school it liked. But the elasticity would not go so far as the payment over of money voted by this House to elementary schools.

*MR. CHANNING

said if no one else challenged a division against this Clause he would do so. His objection was three fold. He challenged the Clause as a matter of principle. This Clause transferred to an indirect, irresponsible, and remote; authority the powers and duties hitherto exercised by the directly elected, directly responsible, and practically unfettered authority — the School Board. But, further, the Clause, taken in connection with the rest of the Bill, was vague and I indefinite and ineffective; and, finally, the powers handed over had been so deliberately restricted that they did not constitute an authority which would have either the responsibility or the duties or the initiative of the present School Board system. He wished to enter a final protest against the abandonment of the ad hoc principle. He did not defend the existence of the village School Boards as a matter of principle. But he wished to say that he knew that many of them had been doing excellent work, and had helped to raise the level of education. It was an absurd incongruity to place them on the same footing as the School Boards of London and other large towns. The policy of this Bill was reckless and suicidal in throwing aside the principle of the ad hoc authority in the conduct of education. Anyone who looked at the history of education in this country would recognise that it was the unlimited powers which had been given to the School Boards in these great towns which had lifted the population out of the Slough of Despond and from the horrible degradation and ignorance in which the nation then lay, and had rendered possible the present state of educational efficiency. It was necessary to develop the School Board system and to co-ordinate it on bolder lines, and to build up a true structure of national education, as had been made possible in Scotland by the School Boards. The blame for the failure to work this out, the natural and logical system of national education, rested on both parties. Liberal leaders had failed in the courage and initiative to face and solve this problem and to remove the obvious defects of the Act of 1870. The policy of the other side had been uniform and persistent in thwarting and paralysing the growth of the School Boards. This Bill was the final stage in a long war against this, the only effective instrument for raising the standard of education. By Minutes, by grants, by Act after Act, they had done their best to weaken, instead of to expand, the national system, in order to bolster up the voluntary schools. The Archbishop of Canterbury had said that the School Board system was a magnificent system, which had done a wonderful work for the education of the people, and had also stimulated the education given in the Church schools. But that gave the real clue to the hatred with which the Boards were assailed. They had exasperated the subscribers to the voluntary schools. Canon Bury, a distinguished ecclesiastic of his country, and one of the ablest educationists in the country, declared some years ago that whenever the voluntary system had managed to exclude the School Board system in towns, education had been starved and kept at a low level, and added that "the country would be advanced in no slight degree if the Voluntary system wore superseded by some such system as the Board. Now, were they going by this Bill to give anything like a proper and a reasonable substitute for that system? They were doing nothing of the kind. They were giving no real equivalent of the School Board. They were substituting not a real living authority, but a non-representative authority, an irresponsible committee, for the objects of the clerical cliques who wished to destroy the Boards. The country knew, and would know more clearly, how the interests of the people were being sacrificed to hand over to the monopoly of the clerics and their friends the whole future of education. By this Bill they were not even creating a duty on the part of the local education authority of making a similar provision for education as was given by the Bill of 1870. To take some of the worst results of the Bill, the substitution of a remote and indirect authority for the directly elected School Board had the result of banishing the representatives of labour from the management of the schools. Under the new Bill, it was impossible for them to participate in the real and effective control of the education of the country. Working men could not be members of County Councils, or have any real initiative. That was one of the cardinal evils of the Bill, and doubly a misfortune, because there had been a remarkable growth of interest among the ablest of the working classes in education. The co-operative societies and the trades unions in great industrial districts such as he represented had expressed their condemnation of the Bill on the very ground that representatives of the working men were excluded from real work of education by the Bill. The schools would now be handed over to superior persons and ecclesiastics, and the working men of the country, who sent their children to these schools, were banished from it. It was a misfortune, too, that this scheme banished women, whose work in education had been so helpful and noble, from all real power and initiative. In future they could only share in the minor details of local management. This was not an endeavour to improve the education of the country, but an attempt on the part of the Government to enable the ecclesiastics to monopolise the education of the country. He condemned the Clause as he condemned the Bill. If he and others tried to piece together out of this general wreckage some fragments of machinery to carry on in some way the work of education of the people, they knew they were losing the best, and could only be patching the second or third best, or rather the worst, system they could have.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said he sympathised with all that had been said, but he would not make any further protest for the retention of the School Board; he would simply devote his remarks to the particular question of the Clause. He desired some further information from the Government, before the Clause was got rid of, as to the relationship that existed between the Board of Education and the local authority. On that question the Bill was silent. They were conversant with the position between the School Boards and the Board of Education, but they were left entirely in the dark as to the relationship between the Department and the new authorities. It had been explained by the right hon. Gentleman that the chief object of the Clause was to allow greater elasticity in the working of the whole system, and certainly the Bill should be made as elastic as possible; but what he wanted to know was what the Department were doing in order to screw up the local authorities to the highest standard. The code of regulations would, they knew, be dealt with, in the future as in the past, by Whitehall; and further, the power of inspection would remain as at present. He did not know how it would work, but he was glad to hear that the power of inspection was to be retained by Whitehall. But even in regard to that matter they wore slightly in the dark. Were the Board of Education to be a sort of appeal court, to which these people had aright to go; or would they have the power of making periodical examinations? Were the periodical examinations they had now to continue? Were the Board of Education in London still to overlook the elementary education of the country? If they were, so much the better; if they were not, he supposed the Board would be put into motion by somebody from the district, and would come in as a superior controlling inspection Board, over the inspection held by the local body. Another question he desired to ask was, whether the Board of Education would be compelled to give to the local education authorities their properly allocated proportion of the Exchequer grant. A considerable amount of money was granted by the Exchequer to the Board of Education, and supposing the amount allocated to one County Council was £100,000 could that County Council make a demand for the money which the Board of Education would not be able to refuse?

SIR JOHN GORST

said the Exchequer money was distributed in accordance | with the number of children in the elementary schools, provided the schools were efficient. The amount received would be governed by the numbers of the children and their efficiency.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

expressed his gratification at having elicited that statement, because in the Bill it was not quite clear whether the Board of Education would not have the power to stop the grant. So the Board of Education would be able to see for themselves whether those schools were efficient. His desire was that the control of the Board of Education should be kept to the full, not for the purpose of throwing red tape round the local authority, but in order to bring the authorities up to a proper standard. Although the local authorities were alive to the necessity of having efficient schools in their own district, they were not so alive to the necessity as they should be, and therefore he would like to see full control retained by the Board of Education.

(6.0.) MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N. W.)

said as, one who had had thirty years experience of School Board education, he could not part with an old friend without saying a few words. In the large towns there was a consensus of opinion in favour of the character of the work the School Board System had accomplished. They found these towns in a state of great educational deficiency and they set to work to remedy that deficiency, and had brought them to a position of efficiency which no man on either side of the House disputed for a moment. When the Bill of 1870 was introduced by Mr. Forster, whatever else he believed in with regard to education he had the conviction that the School Board system would ultimately overspread the land. Mr. Forster was not prepared to upset the existing system but he felt he was establishing a system more in consonance with English ideas. No doubt Mr. Forster's ideas would have become established, had the two systems been allowed to work side by side, without favouritism being shown to the denominational schools. But during recent years certain favour had been shown to the denominational schools, in order to bring them into line with the board school, which enabled them to maintain their position apart from the board schools. If the two systems were to be maintained, nothing could be said on the matter, but the increased funds being given in the way they were given to the denominational schools was absolutely unfair to the School Board schools, and there was a very great feeling against these schools being managed in this way. There was a very strong opinion that the proper way to extend the education of this country was to extend it by that means which had been successful in the past, and not that which had not, and to upset an existing institution like the School Board without a strong expression of opinion from the people of the country would be a most unpopular step to take. In the mind of the country there was no fault to be found with the School Board system. There were objections to the rates by which the system was carried out, but not to the system itself, and with regard to those objections he could conceive no section of the people, except those wedded to the denominational school system. who disapproved of the rate for the School Boards, or who would vote for their abolition. Why should these bodies be abolished? They had carried out the purpose for which they were established, and in accordance with the natural law of progress they had endeavoured to keep pace with the demand for education along the line of what was called secondary education. Instead of abolishing the School Boards a much simpler plan would be to enlarge the system in areas where the small School Boards had failed to do their duty in the way large School Boards had; even then it might not be a success in all cases, because the success of these small School Boards largely depended on their getting a Chairman of intelligence, and where that had been done they had done equally good work as the large School Boards. Why should this great system be abolished simply because some of the small School Boards had failed in their duty? After thirty years experience, gained by great cost and great labour they were to be swept away, and their experience in a vast number of cases would never be utilised. The result would be that all they had learned in this work of thirty years would be brushed aside because a demand had been made by the ecclesiastical party for a larger share in the control of the schools. This step was not approved by the country, and in his opinion a great mistake had been made. What had been the work in many districts where School Boards did not exist? In Chatham, as he was told by the oldest denominationalist in the place, there was no public elementary school where a boy might qualify to enter the naval service, and if he desired to enter the navy he had to qualify in a neighbouring town. There were other districts in the country which were known to be educationally behind because they had not the benefit of School Board work. No one could deny that the School Board system had lived down any early opposition there might have been, otherwise it could not have done the work it had done, and compelled the managers of the denominational schools to do something to keep in some manner abreast of it. Yet this system was to be thrown on one side and for no reason. All that it had done proved the justification for its existence, and no reason had been given for its abolition during the whole of the debate except the way in which County Councils and Borough Councils had disposed of their money for the purposes of technical education. There was no difficulty in the School Boards working with the County Councils, and the new system could have been grafted on to the School Boards in such a way that they would have been able to co-ordinate the whole system of education. He failed to see how the co-ordination of education was to be accomplished by the new system, and thought by abolishing the School Board system they abandoned the only hope of ever doing so.

MR. C. P. SCOTT (Lancashire, Leigh)

said this Clause was destroying the Bill; it was destroying the old system, which had done good work, for a new authority which had not any of the powers or the means of performing the great work it was expected to undertake. Whatever else the School Board system might be, it had the direct support of the people, it brought home to everyone called upon to serve on a School Board his responsibility for the education of his locality, and it gave every ratepayer of the district the control of the educational system under which his child was being educated. They were losing that direct popular control by the people of o locality over the education in that locality, which in the past had produced such advantageous results. By the abolition of School Boards in the large boroughs they were sweeping away a mass of accumulated experience which it would be absolutely impossible to replace by a stroke of the pen, and education in some of the most progressive districts of the country might be very gravely affected. Personally, he deeply regretted that women were altogether excluded from the education authority. They might be placed upon the subordinate bodies — the Committee or the Board of managers— but they were absolutely excluded from any position in the chief authority. The majority of the school children of the country were girls, the majority of the teachers were women; and when they remembered the invaluable services which women had rendered on the School Boards, and the utter impossibility, from the nature of the case, of men bringing to bear the precise qualities of knowledge and sympathy which belonged to women by virtue of their sex, it could not but be admitted that a grave penalty would be paid if women were excluded from the position they had hitherto occupied in our educational system. He hoped there was something to be said on the other side, and that something would be gained from the change. The change was not one which they on that side of the House would have made. They undoubtedly would have extended the direct popular authority of which they had had experience, with which they were not dissatisfied, and which had been of such inestimable benefit to education. But they were not in power, and some of them were glad the new authority would be universal, and the foundation of a national system would thus be laid, which he hoped might in time be made as effective and satisfactory as every member of the Committee desired it to be. Moreover, while the old authority dealt with only one class of school, the new authority would deal with all classes, and that would be a certain compensation. Above all, by this new authority they would be able to bring into immediate and vital relation the various kinds of education throughout the country. He might appear to be leaning too strongly towards the new authority, but he felt that there were great possibilities with the system if only the country and Parliament would see that they were developed. The municipal authority, as such, was more powerful than any ad hoc authority could be. It was part of the whole structure of our political and social life, and carried with it the prestige and power which belonged to a body which had to deal, not with education alone, but with the numberless material interests of the people, and whose powers and responsibilities were being daily added to. The municipal authorities were a great and growing power in political and social life, and he was glad that into their hands was being placed the vital question of education, which needed the greatest power that could be put behind it. He was inclined to think that hon. Gentlemen who were so solicitous for the continued vitality of that part of our educational system which rested upon denominational distinctions, might find in the ruture that they had made for themselves a master which they were unable to control. Absolute justice should be done to the denominational schools and the interests they represented, but there was some-thing which stood above the interests even of denominations, and that was the interest of the country as a whole, and the authority which rightly belonged to the representatives of the people in regard to spending the people's money. But if this new authority was to do the best work, it would have to receive greater powers than were given under the Bill. The municipal authority must be a real authority, and have the powers which would enable it effectively to discharge the important duties that were to be imposed upon it. He did not think that under the Bill the municipal authority had a fair chance, and it was the duty of the Committee to see that full and adequate powers were given.

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. Member that he was going beyond the question before the Committee.

MR. C. P. SCOTT

said he would not further pursue that point. When Parliament was making these great changes they ought to take care to give the new authorities adequate powers, and impose upon them at least as full a range of duties as were imposed upon the School Boards. He wished to point out that they did not impose upon this new authority the obligation to provide in all cases for an adequate supply of school places, and in all these things they should give the authority adequate power, and impose upon them full duties so as to enable them to discharge the functions which were now being imposed upon them.

(6.33.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,) Bristol, S.

I rise to appeal to the Committee to come now to a decision upon this Clause. It has been debated at very considerable length, and I think everything has been said that can be said by hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government upon all parts of this Clause. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Committee to allow us to proceed to a division now and dispose of this Clause.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE

said it was not at all an unusual thing for those who took a strong view upon this subject to desire to say a few words in singing their swan song in regard to this Clause. Perhaps he might be allowed to say what he had to say without any suspicion of a desire to prolong this discussion. He was not one of those who, considered it necessary to believe that education was going to be affected in a retrograde sense by the proposals contained in this Clause, but what he did say was that they were entitled, whatever their opinions might be, to point out upon this important Clause that there was an essential distinction between the position of the large towns and the country districts. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk spoke almost in tones of emotion in regard to the disappearance of that great and important body which had done so much excellent educational work in his constituency. He very largely shared those feelings in regard to large towns. The essential distinction between the two positions was that this Clause was mainly a work of destruction in regard to the large towns; in regard to the rural districts this Clause was mainly a work of construction. That was an extremely important issue, and he was rather sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should appear to think that they were unduly trespassing upon the time of the House by desiring to place on record their opinion that this Bill would have been a better Bill if it had drawn a broader and clearer distinction between the School Boards in large towns and those in the country districts outside large towns. There was a School Board in the Forest of Dean which undoubtedly resembled the School Boards in large towns, although this was an exceptional case. Admitting as he did that there was a very great deal to be said pro and con upon this important question, he believed that the County Councils of England, although they had not identified themselves with the attack made upon the School Boards, now that Parliament was going to place important duties upon them, would do their best to rise to the level of the great opportunity that was cast upon them. Their task would be an exceedingly difficult one, and he was not inclined to be alarmed at the action of some County Councils, because clerks of County Councils were a very prudent and circumspect body of men, and were over prone to desire to have a very large mass of work suddenly thrown upon their shoulders. He believed that the County Councils would do their best in this matter and that they would be successful. He was not urging this view because of the success of the County Councils in regard to technical education, of which they had heard so much. The reason he held this view was on account of the success of the County Councils in regard to their administrative work generally. In regard to a body which had shown its fitness in regard to the ordinary administration of the country, and had used its powers largely and efficiently, why were they to suppose that this elected body would fall suddenly short of the great opportunity given to them in regard to education. He believed they would seek to take advantage of the experience of former members of the School Board where they existed, and would try to find a place for them on the Councils. For those reasons he was not prepared to vote against this Clause. He did not think any complaint could be made of the discussion which had taken place upon this Clause in trying to place their reasons for interfering with School Boards of large towns. That had been the burden of their complaint, and the same arguments applied in great cities and scattered populations near large towns. Those were the reasons which he desired to respectfully place before the Committee, and he hoped and believed that while a great disaster had taken place by the destruction of the School Boards in large towns, the County Councils would rise to the level of the great opportunity in regard to education which was going to be cast upon them.

*DR. MACNAMARA

said that as far as the great boroughs were concerned he should have been glad if the Government had retained the ad hoc authority. The municipalities of our great boroughs were not wanting in public spirit. He did not think the Government realised even now the extreme detail and the stupendousness of the work they were directing the municipalities to undertake. In Liverpool, for instance, they were asking the Municipal Council to take over the management of the education of 100,000 children, the control of 3,000 teachers in 400 school departments, and entailing an expenditure of half-a-million of money every year. He believed they would all do their best, but the work was so great and minute in its detail that it would be impossible for them to look after it properly, and the work he feared would fall back into the hands of the officials. He believed that the destruction of the School Boards in the great towns was the greatest educational leap in the dark which had yet been taken. As to the administrative county he confessed to great anxiety. He could not shut his eyes to the fact that members of the administrative county were not so keen about a generous education of the working classes. No doubt things were different in Wiltshire, represented by the noble Lord, but he recollected that when they got the whisky money there was a proposal to spend half of it upon a lunatic asylum.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE

The proposal was not adopted.

*DR. MACNAMARA

said that was quite true, but the proposal was brought forward, and it could not be said that the administrative counties were very keen upon this matter. They were keen about technical education of an agricultural character when provided by money which they did not themselves contribute. What he was afraid of was that, unless they superimposed from Whitehall a rigid standard to which these people must come up, it would be disastrous to the children in the villages. Their honest conviction being that education would take the people off the land, what could be expected? An agriculturist once said— We are doing too much for the children. All that we should teach them is to fear God, honour the King, and touch their hat to the squire. That was the agricultural idea of education. He did not suggest for a moment that it was at all general. He was anxious to secure that, however much elasticity, however much local agricultural colour they might desire to give to the education of these children, Whitehall inspection should not he relaxed, and that these new authorities in the counties should be compelled to come up to the standard of the Education Department as the School Boards had done in the past.

SIR WILLIAM MATHER

said the House should endeavour to make the Government feel how serious was the situation created by the extinction of the School Boards. He wished his hon. friends who had been so eloquent during the last two hours had taken the pains to express their views when there were Amendments before the Committee having for their object the retention of the School Boards. On this side of the House they regretted for practical reasons the abolition of the School Boards. He did not think the Government quite recognised what they had to replace in abolishing the School Boards. In some 220 or 230 large districts, with populations of over 20,000 persons, where School Boards now obtained, there were some 2,500 persons controlling the elementary education in those areas. He desired to impress on the First Lord of the Treasury that they who had all along resented the abolition of School Boards were bound to demand that in Clauses 7 and 8 the Government should provide an educational power equal in efficiency, experience, ardour, and earnestness to that represented by these 2,500 members of School Boards now displaced, and to take care that the elementary education should be conducted as efficiently as it had been under the School Boards.

*MR. HELME (Lancaster)

said the powers to be transferred to the new education authority under Clause 6

would not give that authority all the powers which were enjoyed by the School Board. There were powers exercised by the School Board other than those contained in the Education Acts. For instance, there were the powers under the Canal Boat Act, and he thought these also should be transferred to the new authority in order that the scope of the action of the education authority in the future should be as full as that of the School Board in the past. He hoped the central authority would have its hands strengthened, so that in those districts where the standard was not up to what was generally desired by the Board of Education, there should be full power to compel the local authorities to bring up their educational provision as to supply of efficient and suitable public school accommodation to the standard necessary from a national point of view; as the Bill stood they need only provide that which in their own opinion might be necessary. A mandamus to compel, as proposed, was a poor substitute for the powers now enjoyed. Reference had been made to the willingness of the Lancashire County Council to undertake the work to be placed upon it by the Bill. He pointed out that while expressing general willingness to undertake the work, it had passed a resolution (altering a recommendation of Special Committee, that the Ratepayers should have proper representation) and demanding that this be "subject as regards schools not vested in the local educational authority, to the ratepayers having full control over expenditure on maintenance and the secular instruction to be given." They could not be too careful in seeing that the intention of the House at the present time as to secular control of all schools in that respect was not jeopardised.

(7.0.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 287; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 299.)

AYES.
Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.	Ambrose, Robert	Arro, Sir William
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.	Anson, Sir William Reynell	Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Arkwright, John Stanhope	Bailey, James (Walworth)
Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden	Arnold-Forster, Hush O.	Bain Colonel James Robert
Baird, John George Alexander	Foster, SirMichael(Lond. Univ.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Balcarres, Lord	Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S.W	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Balfour, Rt, Hn.A. J. (Manch'r	Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond.	M'Cann, James
Balfour. Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'k.	M'Govern, T.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)	Gordon, H n. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)	M'Kean, John
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Gore, Hn. G. RCOrmsby-(Salop	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Banbury, Frederick George	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir Mic. Hicks	Goschen, Hou. George Joachim	Martin, Richard Biddulph
Bentinek, Lord Henry C.	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Melville, Beresford Valentine
Bignold, Arthur	Greene, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Bigwood, James	Greene, Sir E. W (B'rySEdm'nds	Middlemore, John Throgmort'n
Bill, Charles	Grenfell, William Henry	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Blandell, Colonel Henry	Gretton, John	Milvain, Thomas
Boland, John	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Montagu, (Huntingdon)
Bo-cawen, Arthur Griffith-	Groves, James Grimble	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott Hants
Bowles. T. Gibson (King's Lynn	Gunter, Sir Robert	Mooney, John J.
Brassey, Albert	Hamilton, Rt Hn LdG. (Midd'x	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Hamilton, Marq. of (London'y	Morgan, DavidJ (Walthamst'w
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Hare. Thomas Leigh	Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Harrington, Timothy	Morrell George Herbert
Butcher. John George	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Morrison, James Archibald
Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow	Hatch, Ernest Frederick George	Morton, Arthur H. A. Deptford
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Mount, William Arthur
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hayden, John Patrick	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbysh.	Heaton, John Henniker	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grah. (Bute
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Henderson, Sir Alexander	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Higginbottom, S. W.	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)
Chamberlain, J. Aust. (Worc'r	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.	Nolan, Joseph (Loath, South)
Chapman, Edward	Hogg, Lindsay	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Charrington, Spencer	Hope, J. F.(Shef'ld' Brightside	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Clive, Capt. Percy A.	Hornby, Sir William Henry	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A.E.	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Hoult, Joseph	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	O'Malley, William
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge	Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.	Parker, Sir Gilbert
Cranborne, Viscount	Jordan, Jeremiah	Parkes, Ebenezer
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Joyce, Michael	Peel. Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Percy, Earl
Crossley, Sir Savile	Kennedy, Patrick James	Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Rich'rd
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T (Denbigh)	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Delany, William	Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W. (Salop.	Plummer, Walter R,
Dickenson, Robert Edmond	Keswick, William	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Kimber, Henry	Power, Patrick Joseph
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Knowles, Lees	Pretyman, Ernest George
Disraeli, Conings by Ralph	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Purvis, Robert
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon	Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)	Pym, C. Guy
Doogan, P. C.	Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'h	Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Lawson, John Grant	Randles, John S.
Doughty, George	Leamy, Edmund	Rankin. Sir James
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm	Reddy, M.
Doxfond. Sir William Theodore	Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Duke, Henry Edward	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Redmond, William (clare)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Reid, James (Greenock)
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart	Leveson-Gower, Fred'k N.S.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Elliot, Hon. A. RalphDouglas	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.	Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Renwick, George
Faber, George Denison (York)	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Richards, Henry Charles
Fell owes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalyb'dge
Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Finch, George H.	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lowe, Francis William	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Fisher, William Hayes	Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Fison, Frederick William	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Ropner, Colonel Robert
FitzGerald, Sir RobertPenrose-	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon	Lundon, W.	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison	Rutherford, John
Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Macdona, John Cumming	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Flower, Ernest	MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Flynn, James Christopher	MacNeill. John Gordon Swift	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Forster, Henry William	Maconochie, A. W.	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf. Univ.	Wilson A. Stanley (York. E. R)
Seely, Chas., Hilton (Lincoln)	Thornton, Percy M.	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight	Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.
Seton-Karr, Henry	Tritton, Charles Ernest	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E.R.(Bath)
Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew.	Tuke, Sir John Batty	Worsley-Taylor. Henry Wilson
Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)	Valentia, Viscount	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffi'ld	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Spear, John Ward	Wanklyn, James Leslie	Wylie, Alexander
Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)	Warr, Augustus Frederick	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk	Webb, Colonel William George	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)	Welby, Lt-Col. ACE. (Taunton	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Stanley, Lord (Lance.)	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Nott s.)	Young, Samuel
Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart	Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne	Younger, William
Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Stone, Sir Benjamin	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES℄
Sullivan, Donal	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord	Sir William Walrond and
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Willox, Sir John Archibald	Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allan, Sir William(Gateshead)	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Helme, Norval Watson	Robson, William Snowdon
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Runciman, Walter
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Holland, Sir William Henry	Russell, T. W.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Sehwann, Charles E.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Jacoby, James Alfred	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Burt, Thomas	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Buxton, Svdney Charles	Kearley, Hudson E.	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Caine, William Sproston	Labouchere, Henry	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Caldwell, James	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Soares, Ernest J.
Cameron, Robert	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Strachey, Sir Edward
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Leng, Sir John	Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Causton, Richard Knight	Lewis, John Herbert	Tennant, Harold John
Craig, Robert Hunter	Lloyd-George, David	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Cremer, William Randal	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Crombie, John William	M'Crae, George	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Dalziel, James Henry	M'Kenna, Reginald	Tomkinson, Jamas
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Toulmin, George
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Markham, Arthur Basil	Wallace, Robert
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Duncan, J. Hastings	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Dunn, Sir William	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Weir, James Galloway
Edwards, Frank	Moss, Samuel	White, George (Norfolk)
Ellis, John Edward	Moulton, John Fletcher	Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Newnes, Sir George	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Norman, Henry	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Fenwick, Charles	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull.W.
Furness, Sir Christopher	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Partington, Oswald
Grant, Corrie	Paulton, James Mellor
Griffith, Ellis J.	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES℄
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Perks, Robert William	Mr. Channing and Mr.
Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Pirie, Duncan V.	John Wilson, (Durham).
Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-	Price, Robert John

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 7:—

MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH

moved that progress be reported. This was he said, a very important Clause, and it being now quarter-past seven, it would be impossible that any progress could be made with the debate upon it before the adjournment for the dinner-hour.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Ellis Griffith.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said it was perfectly true that they could not hope to make very much progress with the debate before the Adjournment. He had been pressed earlier in the afternoon on certain important subjects which were germane to this Clause, and he had endeavoured to foreshadow some points which he thought might commend themselves to the Committee. They would not alter the spirit of the Clause, but make more detailed provisions than were contained in the Bill at present. He though, that the best course to adopt would be to put these Amendments on the Paper. The Amendments did not depart from the spirit or general principle of the Clause, though the wording was largely modified. He would put these Amendments on the Paper that evening in order that Members might have time to consider them. The Amendments would raise the question of management, and would make it unnecessary to discuss the subject on any other Clause. The Bill would not be taken into consideration again until next Monday.

Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.