HC Deb 02 June 1902 vol 108 cc1130-87

Order read for the House to be put into Committee.


said—There are several notices of Instructions to the Committee on this Bill. Those standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Molton, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, and the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire are out of order because they propose to empower the Committee to make a charge upon the Exchequer. That is a Motion which can only be entertained by the Committee if, first of all, there has been a resolution passed in a special Money Committee, on the Motion of a I Minister of the Crown. The Instruction standing in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Woolwich proposes to empower the Committee to insert a provision that military training should be obligatory in all schools supported by public funds. That is outside the scope of the Bill, which does not propose to deal with what I may call the curriculum of education. Three other Instructions standing in the names of the hon. Member for South Molton, the hon. Member for West Denbighshire, and the hon. Member for Oldham, all have for their object the division of the Bill into two separate Bills, one dealing with secondary and the other with elementary education. Such an Instruction is only in order either where the Bill is drawn in two distinct parts enabling the House to deal with Part I. and then with Part II. separately as they stand, or where the Bill naturally falls into two separate parts or subjects. That, I think, is not the case here. The main feature of the Bill is that there should be one education authority dealing both with primary; and secondary education, and that is carried out by a Bill which includes a part dealing only with secondary education and another part dealing only with primary education, but also contains many clauses common to both. Therefore, it would be necessary to re-draft the proposal in order to make of it two separate measures. I think this is not one of those cases in which an Instruction to the Committee so to divide the Bill into two would be in order. The only other Instruction is in the name of the hon. Member for the Leigh Division. He proposes that the Committee may have power to constitute the education authority in such a manner that women and clerks in holy orders shall be capable of being elected to it. It will be quite in order for the bon. Member to move Amendments for the purpose of constituting in a different manner the authority proposed in the Bill, and to propose that women and clerks in holy orders may be members of that authority. And as that can be done by Amendment, it is bad as an Instruction. In saying this, I must guard myself against its being supposed that I am suggesting that any Amendment would be in order which proposed that women and clerks in holy orders could be elected members of Town Councils. My ruling is that it is quite possible for the hon. Member to alter the authority by Amendment in such a way that it would be capable of including women and clerks in holy orders, and therefore an Instruction is out of order.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—

*(3.8.) MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

moved to postpone Clause 1. If the Bill was a simple straightforward measure, the principle of which was in the first Clause and every part coherent and logically bound together, this amendment might be unreasonable. But this Bill was, an abnormal Bill, and its nature was not disclosed in the first clause. The real principle and the motive power' the mainspring of the Bill, lay in the adoption of the Bishops' Scheme for subsidising the voluntary schools, which was confused with many good educational proposals from all sides of the House—the whole being an incoherent, illogical, and unworkable mutually destructive set of proposals.


The hon. Member is now making a Second Reading speech. The hon. Member must confine himself to his reasons for postponing the first clause.


said that if the Chairman had listened to him another moment he would have seen that his contention was that the interpretation of the first clause must depend upon what decisions the Committee would arrive at on numerous issues raised by subsequent clauses of the Bill. His point was that the principle of the Bill was the subsidising of voluntary schools, and that that was not disclosed in the first clause. He maintained that the Bill was inconsistent, illogical, and contradictory, and therefore it was reasonable that the Committee should have an opportunity of ascertaining, by discussion, the form that those proposals would ultimately take before they were asked to decide the constitution of the authority in whose charge the proposals would be placed. He objected to the first clause on its merits, and thought the County Council only suitable for Secondary Education. But that he did not urge now. Assuming the proposal to be sound, he contended that the first clause contained the catchword of a single authority on which they had had many speeches, but that principle was completely falsified by the Bill. Until they saw in what form these heterogeneous proposals emerged from the Committee they could not tell how to deal with this clause. They could not even be sure that the Bill would not be in contradiction of the objects set out in the notice of the Bill. He claimed the right to show by one or two illustrations why the arguments he was using would justify the postponement of the clause. There was the question of whether they were to deal adequately with secondary education or only to deal with primary education by strengthening the voluntary schools. With regard to elementary education, it was conceivable that that might be excluded from the Bill. That would remove some objections, and if they could make this a good secondary education Bill they would then have no difficulty in accepting the Bill on the Opposition side. If elementary education was retained in the Bill, the conditions under which they would consent to this clause would be materially altered. Everyone acquainted with local rating and local government would at once see why this clause should be postponed. Many hon. Members were not as yet even aware that there was not one uniform basis of rates for education under the Bill throughout the country. Whether or not they voted against this clause depended largely upon the question whether the Government would accept the principle of a uniform basis for the new education rate;. Until they knew that the rating disabilities of urban districts under the Bill as it stood would be removed they would be unable to consider the clause in its present form. It was often assumed that the Second Reading bound you to assent to the principle, but in this case it is a principle which the Bill forthwith sets aside in every detail, and this clause cannot be dealt with without considering the rest of the Bill. The principles of drafting had considerably altered, and the practice of selecting one clause and putting it forward first as the backbone of the Bill was reasonable, and proper in the case of a measure which was simple and not destructive of the principle of the Bill. Until they knew the result of the discussion on many of those complicated and difficult issues on which there was a large divergence of opinion among hon. Members opposite as well as on the Opposition side, he de-dined to believe that all those matters would be settled on mere arbitrary party lines or by the party Whips, and he thought they would be considered rationally by friends of education in every part of the House. For those reasons he begged to move his Amedment.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That Clause 1 be postponed."—(Mr. Channing.)


The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member is simply a drafting Amendment. He bases his suggestion upon the opinion that the really essential part of the Bill is that part which gives assistance to voluntary schools. The hon. Gentleman has no grounds for that statement. He also asks why the backbone of the Bill should be placed in the front. I think it is good drafting to place the principle on which the Bill depends in the early part of the measure, and undoubtedly this practice is desirable where it can be carried out. There is nothing new in this course. The mere fact that we have not brought forward a Bill which embraces the whole scope of secondary and primary education is not sufficient reason to alter the order which the House showed no disposition to disapprove of last year, and which is for the general convenience.

(3.20.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the cardinal principle of this Bill is the establishment; of a single education authority, but there is no statement to that effect in the Bill. On the contrary, the Bill refers to "the local education authorities." There is no statement that there is a single education authority in this Bill. Therefore the whole argument is totally false. When you look at the Bill itself, it is perfectly obvious that it does not even contemplate a single authority, because it leaves it optional whether voluntary education is to be in the Bill at all. It is quite plain that the whole of the voluntary schools are outside this Bill. Therefore the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is one absolutely inconsistent with the whole framework of the Bill. On the contrary, when the Bill is examined, it will be found that there is not one single authority, but there are three authorities.


The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting me. I was dealing only with a drafting matter in regard to the postponement, and I was not going into the principle.


The question is whether there is to be a single education authority.


That is not the point we are considering at the present moment. The question is whether we are to consider this clause first or last.


If it is merely a matter of postponement, that is quite a secondary question. I would submit that what my hon. friend has stated is correct, that we cannot form an opinion of what ought to be the local education authority until we know what that authority will have to do. This clause proposes to make the Council of every county and of every county borough the local education authority, but it depends upon what they will have to do whether we shall consider them the best authorities or not. Therefore we really cannot deal with Clause 1, without discussing what these Councils which are made the local authorities shall have power to do. This Bill professes to establish a single education authority, and to vest that authority in the Councils of the boroughs and the counties. That being so, we must consider whether in the framework of this Bill the authority which is taken is to be endowed by the Bill with such powers as will enable it to conduct the education of the country efficiently. This makes it a vital question, and it is upon this clause that we must raise the question of what County Councils and Borough Councils are to do under this Bill. This question may be raised now upon the Motion to postpone the clause until we have examined the powers to be given to the local education authorities, or it may be raised upon the clause itself. It is a vital question, as the right hon. Gentleman very truly said, and that is why it is put forward in the first clause of the Bill. It is, therefore, upon the first clause that we must discuss what are the powers which are to give vitality to the Councils, and we must see what are to be the powers given to the Councils.


The proper time to discuss the matters which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated is when I put the Question that this clause stand part of the Bill. That is the time when all the points connected with this clause which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to can be raised, if the Amendments to the Clause do not sufficiently raise them.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

said as he understood the Government were going to change the financial portion of this Bill very largely; that had already been stated, and he believed that they would have to change it to a far larger extent than they anticipated. It was impossible to discuss this clause until the Committee was aware what those financial changes were, and the proposal, as he understood it, was to postpone the discussion until they were in possession of that information. He supported the Amendment.

(3.33) DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

supported the Amendment. He believed that if the Government had a little further time to consider the matter they would see good reason for postponing the discussion of the first clause. In the Government proposal of 1896 all this matter was left to the localities. So far as he was concerned, he thought the County Boroughs ought to have the right to continue the excellent Committees which they elected ad hoc; and he hoped the Government would see the wisdom of reverting again to the policy of 1896, with regard to County Boroughs. Then with regard to autonomy for small boroughs, he was convinced that if he was given a little time the First Lord would see the utter absurdity of giving to a small municipality of 10,000 persons that which he would refuse to an urban district of 20,000. The right hon. Gentleman would, he was certain, see the necessity of adopting the same policy with regard to both classes of boroughs. It was in this regard that the Act of 1896 broke down. Under the Act there were 220 local authorities.


The hon. Member is taking an opportunity here of making a general attack on the first clause. He is not entitled to do that now; he must wait until the clause is under discussion.


disclaimed any such intention. All he desired to say was that as there had been a change in the mind of the Government in June, 1896, between six o'clock and ten o'clock, perhaps if a little more time were given now they might change their minds on this occasion.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.)

said that the Government would recognise at the outset that every line of this Bill raised a diverging line of discussion in all parts of the country. One of the main reasons for his desiring the postponement of this clause was, because of the present state of the permissive clause A great deal would depend upon what attitude the Government took upon that matter. In the majority of cases the Municipal Councils would not elect to advance the elementary education of the country, and then would arise the question as to what the proper constitution of the Authority should be. That itself seemed to be a reasonable ground for asking the Government to make a statement upon this point.


said the course now suggested by the Government was identically the same as that which was adopted by the Liberal Government in 1894, when the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton brought in his Bill for the reform of local and provincial self-government. The Government were only asking the Opposition to adopt the course then adopted. It was a reasonable, request, and he hoped the House would assent to it without further debate.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to think that because a wrong practice was adopted in 1894 the right thing to do was to adopt it in this case. In 1894 it was a question of Parish Councils, and the Government then put the controversial part of the scheme in the forefront; the House of Commons was then proposing to elaborate and build upon a foundation which had been started. That was just the reason why the Government should review their position with regard to this matter. Many of those interested in education would like to get rid of the controversial portions of this measure so that they might approach the question of the Local Education Authorities with a perfectly open mind. The right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly well aware that at the present moment they could not approach that question with an unprejudiced mind. He did not think it desirable, from the point of view of the authorities, to split up the country into urban districts. In Glamorganshire there were eighteen Local Education Authorities. Under this Bill the County Council of Glamorgan would jump over one district to get into the next. He believed these things were obnoxious to those who had no opinion at all from the denominational point of view, but who were simply thinking of the way in which this machinery was going to work. He implored the right hon. Gentleman to allow the House to get rid of that part of the Bill which was controversial, and settle that, and then they would come with a less prejudiced mind to the other details of educational methods. There was the question of whether the cost of the schools was to be met by a grant, or whether it was to be thrown upon the rates, which was a vital question in considering the authorities. The reason the Urban Councils were thrown in with the Bill as authorities, was obviously to make the rating problem more easy. These things had been thrown in purely and simply from the rating point of view. The rate was a dominant element in considering this problem. It would be far better to get rid of all these controversial points, and for the House to discuss the matter in a more businesslike way. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman as a "One Authority" man. There were many "One Authority" men who

could discuss the question as a clean issue from the point of view of the "One Authority" which the right hon. Gentlemen desired, if the consideration of this clause was postponed.

MR. MARTIN (Worcester, Droitwich)

asked whether the whole of the Amendments to Clause 1 would have to be disposed of before the clause, as it stood, could be considered.

(3.43.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122; Noes, 288. (Division List, No. 189.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Rigg, Richard
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Harmsworth, R. Leicester Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Atherley-Jones, L. Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Runciman, Walter
Banes, Major George Edward Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Russell, T. W.
Barlow, John Emmott Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) Schwann, Charles E.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Holland, William Henry Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Horniman, Frederick John Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Black, Alexander William Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Broadhurst, Henry Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth Soares, Ernest J.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Kitson, Sir James Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants
Buxton, Sydney Charles Labouchere, Henry Stevenson, Francis S.
Caine, William Sproston Lambert, George Strachey, Sir Edward
Caldwell, James Langley, Batty Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Cameron, Robert Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Tennant, Harold John
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Leigh, Sir Joseph Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Causton, Richard Knight. Leng, Sir John Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Cawley, Frederick Levy, Maurice Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Craig, Robert Hunter Lloyd-George, David Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Cremer, William Randal Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Tomkinson, James
Crombie, John William M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Toulmin, George
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) M'Crae, George Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Davies M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) M'Kenna, Reginald Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Markham, Arthur Basil Weir, James Galloway
Duncan, J. Hastings Mather, William White, George (Norfolk)
Dunn, Sir William Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Edwards, Frank Norman, Henry Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Elibank, Master of Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Ellis, John Edward Nussey, Thomas Willans Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Emmott, Alfred Partington, Oswald Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone Paulton, James Mellor Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Fenwick, Charles Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Perks, Robert William Yoxall, James Henry
Fuller, J. M. F. Pickard, Benjamin
Furness, Sir Christopher Price, Robert John TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Priestley, Arthur Mr. Channing and Mr.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Rea, Russell Herbert Lewis.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Ambrose, Robert
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F. Aird, Sir John Anson, Sir William Reynell
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Allsopp, Hon. George Arkwright, John Stanhope
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison
Arrol, Sir William Flower, Ernest Macdona, John Cumming
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Flynn, James Christopher MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Austin, Sir John Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Foster, Philips. (Warwick, S. W Maconochie, A. W.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Gardner, Ernest MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Garfit, William M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) M'Govern, T.
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Gilhooly, James M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Banbury, Frederick George Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn) M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets M'Kean, John
Bartley, George C. T. Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) Malcolm, Ian
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Manners, Lord Cecil
Beresford, Lord Charles William Goulding, Edward Alfred Martin, Richard Biddulph
Bigwood, James Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n
Bill, Charles Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS. Edm'nds Maxwell, W. J H (Dumfriesshire
Blake, Edward Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Melville, Beresford Valentine
Blundell, Colonel Henry Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs. Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Boland, John Greville, Hon. Ronald Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Groves, James Grimble Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) Gunter, Sir Robert Mitchell, William
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Hain, Edward Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x Mooney, John J.
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.) Hammond, John More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire
Brymer, William Ernest Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. Morgan, David J (Walthamstow
Bullard, Sir Harry Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd Morrell, George Herbert
Burke, E. Haviland- Hare, Thomas Leigh Morrison, James Archibald
Butcher, John George Harris, Frederick Leverton Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Hay, Hon. Claude George Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Heaton, John Henniker Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Helder, Augustus Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter Myers, William Henry
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hickman, Sir Alfred Nannetti, Joseph P.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hoare, Sir Samuel Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Nicol, Donald Ninian
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc. Hogg, Lindsay Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton) Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Chapman, Edward Horner, Frederick William O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid
Churchill, Winston Spencer Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hoult, Joseph O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Hudson, George Bickersteth O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) O'Malley, William
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse O'Mara, James
Cranborne, Viscount Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Crean, Eugene Johnston, William (Belfast) Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Cripps, Charles Alfred Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Parker, Gilbert
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.) Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Davenport, William Bromley- Kimber, Henry Pemberton, John S. G.
Delany, William Knowles, Lees Penn, John
Denny, Colonel Laurie, Lieut.-General Percy, Earl
Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo. Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Lawson, John Grant Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Leamy, Edmund Power, Patrick Joseph
Dillon, John Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Pretyman, Ernest George
Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Donelan, Captain A. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Purvis, Robert
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Rankin, Sir James
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Llewellyn, Evan Henry Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Ratcliff, R. F.
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Redmond, William (Clare)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lonsdale, John Brownlee Reid, James (Greenock)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Lowe, Francis William Remnant, James Farquharson
Ffrench, Peter Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent Renshaw, Charles Bine
Finch, George H. Loyd, Archie Kirkman Richards, Henry Charles
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green
Firbank, Joseph Thomas Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Fisher, William Hayes Lundon, W. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Stone, Sir Benjamin Wills, Sir Frederick
Ropner, Colonel Robert Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Rutherford, John Sullivan, Donal Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.
Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles Thorburn, Sir Walter Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Thornton, Percy M. Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J. Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln Valentia, Viscount Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Seton-Karr, Henry Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Sharpe, William Edward T. Walker, Col. William Hall Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Wanklyn, James Leslie Wyndham-Qnin, Major W. H.
Simeon, Sir Barrington Warr, Augustus Frederick Young, Samuel
Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Younger, William
Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. Webb, Colonel William George
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton
Spear, John Ward Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd Sir William Walrond and
Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne Mr. Anstruther.
Stock, James Henry Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell-(Birm

The Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden is not in order. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, which he proposes to insert at the beginning of the clause, is not in order, because it constitutes an alternative to the first clause. The proper course is to get rid of the first clause, and then it will be in order.


Can the first Amendment be considered by itself or treated as an Amendment?


The proper way to raise the question is the form in which the hon. Member for South Molton raises it.

(4.0.) MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton)

said his Amendment proposed to confine the Bill to education other than elementary. It was quite enough for the Government to deal with secondary education in this Bill. The clauses were so vague that definite instructions would have to be given to the local authorities in order that they should know what they had to do. The Government had no mandate whatever for throwing the whole of our educational arrangements into the melting pot. Two Royal Commissions had reported on this question, and neither of them recommended that elementary education should be dealt with in the way suggested in this Bill. No large representative body had recommended that elementary education should be placed under the control of a Committee of the County Council, and the only body which had recommended that elementary education should be dealt with in this Bill was Convocation. He-did not think the Government could accept Convocation as a representative body. The County Councils had the whiskey money to deal with, and because they spent that money and committed a good many blunders the right hon. Gentleman now thought it was wise to put elementary education in their hands, although his proposal destroyed bodies of great experience which had had thirty years' experience in administering education. He did not see how this Bill would work, or how the local education authority could really carry out its functions in large counties.

If this Amendment was rejected and elementary education was brought in, voluntary schools would be managed practically as they were now. In the boroughs the managers of voluntary schools would be on the spot and would have a local and direct interest in the management of the schools; but in the rural parish the School Board which had often been found to be a very efficient authority would be abolished. How was the local educational authority to carry out the duty of administering the Education Act? He presumed that this duty would devolve upon Parish Councils, but they would have no direct rating authority, and they could only advise the County Council upon questions which the Parish Council itself would not have to pay for, and would have no responsibility for its advice. If the local education authority did not adopt the Parish Council as the authority, they would have to adopt a system of inspection. and there would be nothing more unpopular in a country district than the appointment of inspectors and officials for carrying out this Act. Suppose the local authority required some repairs to be done, it could not order them to be done without submitting an estimate to the County Council. He was strongly of opinion that they would have red tapeism intensified under this Bill. Local responsibility would be destroyed, and there would be no efficiency or economy in education under the proposals contained in this measure, and this view was borne out by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Before the right hon. Gentleman dealt with elementary education he would advise him to create an authority to take the place of the local School Board. It was very easy to destroy, but not quite so easy to create. This Bill was drafted in such a vague manner that the local authority would be left to muddle through. The Technical Education Committees at present were doing admirable work on the County Councils, but they had quite enough to do now, and this Bill would add enormously to their labours. It was absolutely impossible for the County Council to deal adequately with education in such a large county as Devonshire, and bring in to the work that local interest and knowledge which was so essential in order to deal successfully with elementary education. If this Amendment were accepted the local education authority would have to deal with all the higher grade schools which were ruled out by the Cockerton judgment, the training of teachers, and training colleges, and surely that was sufficient for an experiment. This clause would absolutely destroy the efficiency of those schools. The Vice-President of the Council said that what was unsatisfactory in regard to elementary education was in the country want of money, and in towns want of supervision. How were they going to get in the county of Devonshire efficiency from men who did not know anything at all about the subject. As to the money, they ought to know what the financial proposals of the Bill were going to be, for they might very materially alter their opinion of the Bill. If the proposals of this measure were put into operation there would be no chance of a twopenny rate being levied for secondary education. Sir Thomas Acland said that this part of the Bill was so much waste paper.


Order, order! That is quite irrelevant.


said he was endeavouring to show that it was a disadvantage to bring elementary education into the Bill. If they brought elementary education into the Bill it would mean that in Devonshire the rate would be 4d. or 6d. in the £1. Did anyone think that education could be dealt with in the counties where they would have such a strenuous opposition to any increase in the rates at all? They knew perfectly well that there was nothing the rural ratepayers took so much interest in as the rates. If the elementary education proposals were carried, and a rate of 4d. or 6d. were levied, they would have great economy, and more than economy—great stinginess in the money voted for education. He would not detain the House by going into the question of the voluntary schools, but there was one point which was well worthy of the right hon. Gentleman's consideration. By leaving out elementary education, the religious question would not be raised in an acute form. He had received letters from constituents who had never supported the Liberal Party, and who stated that if the proposals in the Bill with regard to elementary education were carried in their present form they would not be able to support the Conservative Party in future. The West Riding County Council had carried a resolution which was absolutely on all fours with the Amendment he now proposed. The Isle of Wight had also carried a resolution hostile to the proposals in the Bill. The Technical Education Committee of Devon County Council had passed a resolution, and he had no doubt it would be carried at the next meeting of the council, against the bringing of elementary education under their purview. It would be very much better to leave elementary education out of the Bill, and to deal thoroughly with secondary education. If that were not done the control of elementary education would be forced on many unwilling authorities who would be obliged to increase the rates which the right hon. Gentleman was pledged to lessen, and an outrage would be committed on the consciences of the Nonconformist portion of the community.

Amendment proposed.— In page l, line 7, to leave out the words 'the purposes of this Act,' and insert the words 'education other than elementary.'"—[Mr. Lambert.]

Question proposed, "That the words 'the purposes of this Act' stand part of the clause."

(4.17.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have often explained to the House the reasons which have induced the Government to frame a comprehensive measure; and I ask the House to assent to it rather than to confine itself to the single problem presented by secondary education. The difficulty of dealing with secondary education alone, as the hon. Gentleman opposite is perfectly aware, has been enhanced by recent legal decisions. He, I understand, accepts these decisions as the basis of any proper Amendment of primary education, because he looks forward, were his Amendment carried, to the County Council managing not only secondary education and technical education, but also evening continuation schools, pupil teacher centres, and all the rest of it—all the matters which are transferred by the Cockerton judgment from the purview of the School Boards, and which were declared to be beyond their powers. I do not think a Bill of that kind would receive much approval from the urban School Boards. I am convinced that the hon. Member for North Camber-well would regard a Bill which simply cut down the privileges of the existing School Boards, and left them without any control or authority over the voluntary schools, and no power of continuing their work in regard to evening schools or pupil teacher centres, as most imperfect. The hon. Member for South Molton does not, I think, speak for the great bulk of hon. Members on his side of the House when he puts forward this proposal. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the immediate result of the Bill as we have proposed it would be that the whole management of the primary schools would fall into the hands of a body incapable, from the mere amount of work entrusted to them to do that work properly, and incapacitated by their distance from the local schools, to manage those schools with any directness and economy of time and labour. He seems to think that all their proceedings will be involved in red tape; that they themselves will have to lay down odious restrictions; and that they would have responsibility but no control. If the hon. Gentlemen had listened to the speech on the Second Reading of Debate delivered by my hon. friend, I think he would have been convinced by one of the greatest experts on local and county government that his fears under that head are baseless, and that he need not entertain any vain terrors lest this particular class of evil should overtake the County Council. I utterly fail to understand what his alternative plan proposes with regard to primary education in the counties. I do not ask the Opposition to construct Bills for the Government. It is perfectly legitimate to vote against the Second Reading of a Bill, if you have no better to put in its place; but we have our plan and the hon. Gentleman is trying to amend it, and he ought to tell us what he really wishes to establish in the counties and boroughs. I fail to understand exactly what that is. I fancy that he wishes to leave the School Boards in the counties exactly as they are, and to leave the voluntary schools in the counties exactly as they are. Does he propose that as an alterative plan, and, if that be his alternative plan, is it in the interest of the ratepayers? The hon. Gentleman has said a great deal about the ratepayers in the course of his speech, and he led us to understand that he was pleading for the ratepayers. What is the policy he suggested in the interest of the ratepayers? I understood the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we should separate primary and secondary education in the meanwhile, and that the county ratepayer, not feeling the burden of elementary education over him, should at once be introduced to secondary education on his twopenny rate.


indicated dissent.


If that is not so, I fail to understand what that branch of the hon. Gentleman's argument was directed to. He said that one of the evils of our associating the two portions of education together was that the County Council, would not manage it on a twopenny rate. I do not know whether they will or will not, but I am perfectly certain it ought not to be induced to spend a twopenny rate on the ground that it is at some day or other, either by this or another Bill, to have the responsibility for primary education. When I hear that this Bill is an attack on the interests of the ratepayers I really am amazed. Is it not perfectly clear to everybody, that if this Bill is not passed, the voluntary schools will be allowed one by one to be extinguished, which I understand is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman? If that be done a more disastrous fate will overtake the country ratepayers, than the fourpenny rate of which the hon. Gentleman speaks. Whether we consider the interests of the ratepayers or of education in counties or boroughs, we are alike driven to the conclusion that if we are to introduce any kind of order out of the chaos which at present exists, if we are going to bring the education authority which is to look after the elementary education of the country into relation with the education authority, which is to provide the teachers of the country, and the secondary education of the country, you will be compelled to come to the conclusion that we have come to that it is only by identifying these authorities and making them coalesce in one single authority and giving all the power into one set of hands—it is only by that machinery you really can produce that orderly arrangement of our education which has so long been wanting, and which educational reformers have so long desired.


said he sympathised very much with the mover of the Amendment who, he understood, believed in the principle of one authority for all grades of education, both primary and secondary. He understood, however, that the position taken up by the hon. Gentleman was that the authority proposed in the Bill was so bad that he desired to dissociate elementary education from its control. He said that the real reform which was required was in connection with secondary education. That was acute no doubt. For thirty years, middle class people had been paying school rates for the education of other people's children, while they had to undertake the education of their own children at considerable expense. It was a fair thing for them to ask—and as they had asked, the Government now proposed to reply to them—that something should be done for the organisation of secondary education out of public funds. Whether it was to be done out of State funds or out of the rates was a matter on which they should hear by and by. But that was not the real acute educational problem of this moment. The real acute problem was in connection with the hopeless state of education in the elementary voluntary schools. There were 5,500,000 children in all the elementary schools, and of that number 3,000,000 were in the voluntary schools and the rest in the board schools. Although all the schools got part of the money given by the Central Exchequer, the voluntary school people had to depend largely for the maintenance of their schools on local contributions. He was sorry that he could not take part in any proposition which did not give immediate attention to the condition of the children in the voluntary schools. If these schools were excepted from the Bill the result would be that we would have a number of conflicting authorities, and money would be wasted by the duplication of administrative machinery. If time permitted he could show that a large amount of the money spent on education was wasted by the useless multiplication of small autonomous authorities for education. School Committees would squabble as to what were their respective areas. The worst of it was that if elementary education was struck out of the Bill, the Schools would not be linked together so as to allow the elementary children to move from one school to another. It so happened that he went to an elementary school in Exeter, but no boy there had ever found his way to the endowed grammar school. And why? Because the secondary school was managed by another authority. The important consideration today was to get all the schools under one authority, so as to prevent friction or overlapping, and, most important of all, to link those schools and harmonise their aims so that they might constitute an educational ladder from the elementary school to the university. It was for that reason that he was compelled to vote for the Amendment.


said he had listened with surprise to the speech of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, because he knew of many instances where endowed schools were linked with elementary schools. Apart from that, he contended that the School Boards had discharged their duty most effectually. He wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman a plain question—whether the rural School Boards were to be done away with because some of them were inefficient? If so he might remind the right hon. Gentleman that under Section 40 of the Act of 1870, power was given to the Education Department, under the Privy Council, to consolidate or unite certain small School Board districts, so that, being amalgamated, they might form an effective School Board. His contention was that the county area was too large for the effective supervision of elementary education. He had not a word to say against the voluntary schools, because in his own constituency they had a number of exceedingly efficient and well equipped voluntary schools. But what they, in the north of England, wanted to know was, "Why are you going to abolish our School Boards; we are vigorous and active; our members have given a large portion of their life to the cause of education, and we think that we have done our work well considering our great experience. Why should you ask us to become members of the County Council? We are not prepared for that, because the duties of the members of the County Council are outside the range of our interest and experience." One of the most capable of men in the north of England had told him the other day that if this Bill passed and if the County Council abolished the School Board he would be constrained to part company with the County Council, of which he had been a member since it was originated. He admitted that there was a great deal to be said for denominational schools, but his objection to the Bill was that it destroyed altogether the School Board schools, and he insisted that no justification had been shown for the abolition of School Boards. If secondary education was a difficulty, why not give the School Boards a power of control over secondary education?

* MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)

said he very largely shared the idea of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, and he should like to see one authority for all education. He was bound to say that he felt more strongly about secondary education, because there was no doubt that in the north of England they were better off in regard to elementary education than in the rural districts in other parts of the country. What the industrial community in the North wanted more than anything else was a sound secondary system, and they could not look at any Bill which did not give them this. What chance was there of secondary education under this Bill? The real issue of this Bill was, elementary education. Secondary education, with all the new duties imposed, upon it, was out in the cold; it was only to have a 2d rate applied to it; it was I to be pinched for want of money; all compulsion was to be left out of the Bill. There was to be no real scheme for secondary education. But there was something more serious, and that was what the electorate was going to think about if it was to work the Bill as it stood, and that was not education. If this Bill was passed, it was going to raise nothing but religious wrangles; the elections would not be on the educational question, but merely religious controversies. There was a chance of the refusal of the rate for voluntary schools by Nonconformist Councils, so long as there was a test for teachers. Then there would be the wrangle between these Councils and the Education Department. The Nonconformists of this country had got past the stage of persecution, past the stage of mild disability: I they had got to the stage of toleration; but in this case the Government were doing what the Nonconformists of the country almost universally believed to be an act of gross injustice. But he did not now put forward the view of non-conformity. He asked those who disagreed with that view what chance was there if they raised all this bitter feeling? It was for these reasons they were bound to try and save something out of the wreck, and for these reasons it was necessary to get a Bill dealing in some measure with secondary education. If the Government would announce that they would set up a really representative authority for the control of education, and that, where public money and rates were expended, there should be proportionate representation on the local management, the attitude of the Opposition might be modified. He supported the Amendment.

*(4.52.) MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)

said he supported the Amendment, and in doing so, he had done what the Government had done in the previous year. He believed the right thing was to deal with secondary education first—to provide an authority for secondary education, and to test and prove that authority—before handing over to it the extra work of elementary education. Elementary education was universal, it was compulsory, it was practically free, and for the most part it was good; but we had most in-adequate provision for secondary education. We had no knowledge even of the number of our secondary schools, of their pupils or their teachers; and with all this we had to face the future handicapped and hampered by our indifference. France and Germany had been organising their secondary as well as their primary education for a long period, but we, with perhaps the finest raw material in the world, were not making full use of it. The two questions to be considered were, firstly, should secondary education be dealt with separately and alone; and secondly, even if the scheme of the Government were right (and everyone admitted the desirability of the one authority), was there any reasonable chance of dealing with both this session? Until this session secondary education was dealt with on a separate basis. Why was this sudden change? He did not admit the cry of one authority for all grades. He was not sure whether it was a true cry. It was no doubt a true ideal, but he thought that ideal should be approached rather by a system of evolution than a system of revolution. This cry of "one authority" was like the blessed word Mesopotamia. The phrase was not a true one. They had four authorities for each voluntary school. The new authority and area was good for secondary education, but it certainly was not for elementary education. All these hundreds of elementary schools could not be dealt with by one central authority. With regard to rating, there were significant signs that the local authorities would not support secondary and technical education unless they had the definite duty laid upon them and unless they were left free to carry out this work. They would not be left satisfactorily free if they were burdened with the whole system of elementary education at the same time. Considering the period of the session and the bitterness of this contest, he asked the Government whether the eventual settlement of the question of elementary education would suffer if postponed till the secondary education problem was solved. In view of the great and glorious news of peace, he appealed to the Government not to associate a session which, for this and other reasons, would be so memorable, with the prolongation of such a bitter contest.

*(5.0.) MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

thought that the issue raised was that, given a certain amount of money available, they should decide how that money could be most effectively used. That question could only admit of one answer. It seemed to him that technical and secondary education were the most urgent necessities of the times. He agreed that at the present time 3,000,000 children were not receiving so good an education as they might receive in the voluntary schools of the country: he did not deny that that matter would have to be dealt with at some time. But what he urged was that the imperative and urgent want of the country, and the want that was ever growing more and more urgent at the present time, was the rapid development of an adequate system of secondary education. No loss would be suffered, even in the point of view of hon. Members opposite interested in voluntary schools, if that question were deferred, and they concentrated their attention upon what was the greatest educational problem of the moment. The right hon. Gentleman might make a considerable alteration in the views of the Committee by an announcement as to the financial aid from Imperial sources. If elementary education was now dealt with, it was clear that the greater part of the rates available would be given to that side of education, owing to the pressure of the clergy and their supporters in this matter. They could not divide the Bill from the educational history of the last seven years, and that history was a history of seven years war against some of the most desirable educational forces of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had challenged this side of the House to produce an alternative. In his opinion, there was one alternative in the way in which elementary and secondary education had grown up under one elected authority in Scotland. Another alternative was the scheme laid before the country some time ago by Lord Spencer at Manchester, of a central authority for secondary education and local elective authorities for elementary education. He thought that was a workable scheme, or that, again, it was perfectly possible to reconcile the handling of secondary education on the lines of the Secondary Education Commission's Report, with direct representative authorities in smaller areas for elementary education. There were other alternatives to the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, but the point he wished to lay before the Committee was that, instead of going to the root of the question, which was our inability to compete with other nations of the world owing to our want of secondary education—instead of concentrating all our thought and energy and our present limited resources on this vital problem, this Bill was merely a Bill which would do little for secondary education, and had for its real object the knocking to pieces of the best machinery, and would sacrifice the future of education and the equipment of the nation to the interests of the least efficient schools. We had to face commercial competition and educational competition. We talked on trade, and of tying down the colonies to buy their goods of us, but Australia and Canada bought goods from America and Germany, because America and Germany had had the common sense to make their leaders of industry more ingenious and skilful, and by so doing they were enabled to supply the market at a cheaper rate. The A B C of economics at the present time——


Order, order! The hon. Member is wandering a long way from the point.


On the contrary, Sir with all respect——


Order, order! I do not think the hon. Member ought to contradict me in that way.


disclaimed any intention of disobeying the ruling of the Chair by the observation which he made. All he desired was to point out the grave deficiency of our secondary education. It was nearly forty years ago since the most brilliant genius who had ever served the cause of education in this country, Mr. Matthew Arnold, in his classical report to the Schools Inquiry Commission on education abroad, pointed out how hopelessly behind we were in scientific and systematic training. While he showed that in Germany secondary education had been organised two generations before, and in Switzerland one generation before his inquiry, here we were still—a whole generation later than Matthew Arnold, absolutely unequipped for higher education. We were still in a very chaos of inefficiency.


said that was not the occasion for a lecture on secondary education. The only point was whether any part of elementary education should be included or not.


said the point he desired to impress on the Committee was that, while our system of elementary education required various reforms, it was in no sense in as urgent a position as secondary education. The Association of Technical Institutions had put forward that very contention—that an effective Secondary Education Bill should be passed forthwith, that we were giving a real scientific education only to a very small number of young persons over 15 years of age and between 15 and 19 years of age, and that even those who were being thus educated had not the advantages of a thorough grounding in suitable and efficient secondary schools as in Germany and America; whereas in Germany and America technical instruction was being given to students over 18 years of age, and in vastly greater numbers.


Order, order! I have thrice called the hon. Member to order for irrelevancy, but he persists in pursuing the same topic. I must, therefore, ask the hon. Member to discontinue his speech.


thought that, in supporting this Amendment, it was not necessary to discuss the relative merits of School Boards and County Councils. Personally, he was a great believer in establishing the supreme authority of the County Council in matters of elementary education, but so far from doing that, the Bill proposed to set up several authorities. As far as secondary education was concerned, the County Council would still be the authority, because Town Councils in boroughs of over 10,000 inhabitants, and District Councils representing populations of over 20,000 would have to enter into arrangements with the County Councils before they could conduct schools for secondary education purposes. But that was not the proposal with regard to elementary education. A little experience was worth all the arguments in the world, and a glance at the system in Wales would help to enlighten the Committee as to the advisability of dealing with the two subjects separately. In no country was the sectarian controversy more acute than in Wales, and there was probably no part of the world in which there had been more fighting between Nonconformists and Churchmen.


Hear, hear.


said that doubtless the hon. Baronet had a most faithful recollection of the controversy, because he took a very prominent, but as usual, a genial part in it. But what happened when, through the invaluable assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford, who was then Vice-President of the Council, the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill was passed? If elementary education had been concerned, even the authority of the right hon. Gentleman would not have been sufficient to secure the present democratic authority. After the Bill was passed, one or two of the Bishops—particularly one—endeavoured to arouse all the sectarian spirit possible, but absolutely failed. All sections of the community worked together; the Committees were appointed without regard to sects or to denominational interests; they were in the hands of the lay element, and everything worked well. But if that Bill had covered both secondary and elementary education, all the sectarian venom on both sides would have been aroused, and the system completely broken down. Men would have been selected, not as educational experts, as at present—the best men in the district for the purpose being chosen—but for sectarian and political reasons, and instead of the system being worked in the interests of education, sectarian quarrels would have prevailed, while education suffered. In his opinion, it was not the authority that mattered so much, as that the authority whatever it was should be worked in good faith. Even a bad authority from the democratic point of view would work better than the theoretically perfect authority, if it was worked without bias or prejudice, purely in the interests of education. That could be done with regard to secondary education. If the elementary portion of the Bill were omitted, all these great controversies would drop, and the educational experts of the country would put their heads together and work the scheme for all it was worth. Why denominationalism and sectarianism should be introduced into elementary but not into secondary education he did not know. Perhaps it was because the children concernedin secondary education were better able to judge for themselves and did not become the prey of priests to the same extent as in the case of elementary education, but the fact remained that there was not the same controversy over the one as over the other. It would, therefore, be entirely in the interests of education to separate the two things in the present Bill. Another reason for taking this course was the question of expense. In Lancashire it was said it would cost 6d. in the £ to put the Bill into operation in regard to elementary education. If another twopence were added, the ratepayers would quarrel with it, and play into the hands of economists who took a thoroughly mean and shabby view of every enterprise, municipal or otherwise, and whose sole object was not to get a good system of education, but purely and simply to keep down the rates. There would be a combination of the denominationalists—whether Nonconformists or Churchmen—who happened to be in a minority, and the economists, and between them education in the particular district would be starved. He instanced the case of tradesmen rated at £100. With regard to the 6d. for elementary education he would have very little option, as the Board of Education would force him to spend a certain minimum upon the schools. That 6d. would mean £2 10s. on £100, and such a sum represented a considerable deduction from the tradesman's income. But would that man consent to another addition involving a further 16s. 8d. out of his income. Unless he was a very keen educationalist he would object to bear such a burden to provide secondary education for the children of people who could very well afford to pay for it themselves. Under such circumstances there would be a strong inducement for people to starve the secondary system; whereas if it was taken separately, as in Wales, the natural pride of the people in having the best school in the district would induce them to go up to the limit of the twopence. It had taken some counties ten years to go to the limit of the whiskey money—a gift really intended for technical education; how long, then, would it take them to persuade themselves to put on a twopenny rate for the purposes of secondary education? The First Lord would probably find it to the interests of his own scheme of the successful working of the Bill that the two systems should be separated.

(5.29.) MR. NUSSEY (Pontefract)

said that, while he was certainly not satisfied with the existing state of education, he was by no means convinced that the plan of the Government would effect any improvement. It was rather a pulling down than a building up. It seemed to him that such a step should be taken with great care. Were they quite sure that the Town Councils wanted this new power, and were they sure that they were the proper body to deal with education? He ventured to predict that at the Town Council election matters would be dominated by the education question and they would hear of such things as Church of England gas and Nonconformist roads. By this Bill they were introducing at those council elections controversies which were buried a long while ago. Recently the West Biding of Yorkshire County Council passed a resolution asking the Government to drop the elementary part of this Bill. How was it possible for a County Council meeting only three or four times a year to look after elementary education? By adopting this principle the Committee were adopting a dangerous expedient which might recoil upon the heads of the supporters of voluntary schools. He had never been a strenuous opponent of voluntary schools. But in his opinion there was not only a religious but the rating difficulty in regard to them, and this Bill proposed to put voluntary schools on the rates without giving the local authority any control over them. What they wanted in this country was a better scheme of secondary education which required improvement. For those reasons he believed the elementary part of the Bill ought to be dropped not only to avoid a religious controversy but rather in the interests of education itself.

MR. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)

I have been waiting in hope that we might hear from the other side of the House some sort of answer to the arguments which for two hours my hon. friends have advanced with brevity and force in support of the Amendment, and which have apparently been addressed to deaf ears or irresponsive minds on the Government Benches. No answer has been returned to these arguments. No one can say that those arguments have been without weight, or that they have not been presented to the Committee with clearness. This debate ceases to serve any useful purpose and becomes a mockery and a farce if the arguments on this side are to be received with unbroken silence on the other side. Although I do not profess to contribute much to what has already been said in support of the Amendment I will venture to summarise the arguments which have been addressed to the Committee in support of the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. friend behind me. This Amendment does not involve on the part of those who are going to support it any denial of the principles that co-ordination and, as far as possible, unification, in the educational authorities are desirable, and that there is urgent need for reform in the system of elementary education. These two principles are admitted by all sensible men in both parties who have given attention to the subject of education. The question at issue is one of administration rather than of principle. If we entrust the new authority with the function of providing secondary and higher education, and also transfer to it the duty of dealing with elementary education we shall of necessity so absorb the time and so burden the resources of the new authority that it will be unable to meet the more urgent of the two demands made upon it—namely, the provision of secondary education. That is a proposition which is put forward on this side of the House, and, as my hon. friend who has just sat down has pointed out with great force, whereas under this Bill the provisions with regard to secondary education are permissive, the provisions dealing with primary education are compulsory. Therefore the new authority must begin by undertaking, to the postponement of everything else, the enlarged powers and responsibilities in connection with primary education which the Bill propose to throw upon them. That is not the practical way of dealing with the matter. It is not that we are opposed to coordination, or that we do not wish to see the cessation of overlapping and waste which undoubtedly happens under the present system, but what the supporters of the Amendment say is that, as practical men, in dealing with an administrative problem of this kind, we must be content to go step by step. If the Amendment is accepted there will be created a competent authority for dealing with secondary education. We should then proceed, by slight Amendments in subsequent clauses, to make its function to provide secondary education not permissive, but compulsory; we should give adequate funds whether imperial or local, or both, for the performance of that task; and, lastly, but not least, we should absolutely exclude from its composition and working, in its early stages at least, and perhaps for all time, all extraneous influences, and particularly the intrusion of religious controversy. But if the Government persist in the scheme of the Bill they will run the risk, while not increasing the efficiency of elementary education, of postponing, what every one admits is our primary need—the establishment of a really effective system of secondary education. I hope that before we come to a division we shall have some reply to the arguments which have been addressed to the Committee.

(5.43.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I should not have thought it necessary to speak again, but for the direct challenge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, gives a rather rosy view of the contributions to the debate from the other side of the House, when he says that the argument which he has so admirably stated has been advanced unanimously by hon. Gentlemen behind him. As a matter of fact entirely different views of the Amendment were put forward from the other side. I do not say that by way of reproach, for this is a question upon which hon. Members opposite may honestly take different views. They agree in expressing their willingness to admit that an ideal educational authority is the County or the Borough Council dealing at the same time with primary and secondary education. Having announced that, you immediately proceed to defer that ideal to an ideal future. Let me state very briefly what I think is the position of the right hon. Gentleman. He seems to think that the one difficulty in our education, or, at any rate, the overwhelming difficulty in our education in the position of secondary education. Well, I do not agree with that. Bad as is the position of secondary education, no body can deny that under the existing system of primary education things need much reform, and will need reform more and more every year on account of the position of so many of those schools supported by voluntary contributions. That is the first proposition I advance. The second proposition, and it is even far more important from, an educational point of view, which I advance is that it is impossible for any authority properly to weigh and to decide upon the course it ought to pursue for secondary education without taking elementary into view; and conversely, that it is impossible for any authority to decide upon the course it ought to pursue for elementary education without taking secondary education into view. They are two indivisible parts of one great problem. The right hon. Gentleman would say to the County Council "You may consider secondary education, but, if you will, you must consider it in isolation. You must consider it financially and educationally in isolation, irrespective of the effect. When that is realised, you may then have a Bill to deal with primary education also." It should be remembered that unless elementary education be efficient no secondary schools are of the smallest use in the world. I do not believe that any secondary authority can carry out the work with the fullest advantage unless it has not only under its control or supervision secondary education, which is the crown of the work of primary education short of the universities, but, also absolute control of the whole apparatus by which the children of the country are to be rendered fit to receive the full advantages of what we are spending on secondary schools. Apart from that, the money spent on the secondary schools is money thrown into the sea. It is in vain that you multiply scholarships and insist upon a high standard of educational excellence, if the children who come up to be taught come up wholly unprepared and unable to take advantage of the whole of the privileges you have provided. We have heard, as we usually do in these debates, a good deal about what Germany and America have done in the cause of secondary education. Let me say that they have never been so idiotic as to suppose that they can carry out an efficient system of secondary education without making the system of elementary efficient also; they have always considered them together, as parts of a whole, and their example is one which in this respect the Government are most anxious to follow.

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

The right hon. Gentleman has favoured the House with some arguments in reply to those of my right hon. friend, and he has summarised those stated earlier in the evening on this side of the House. In the first place he commented on the difference in the arguments used on this side of the House. With the exception of those of the hon. Member for North Camberwell all the arguments were perfectly consistent with one another. In the next place, the right hon. Gentleman accuses us of a desire to postpone the unification of our educational machinery to the dim and distant future. That is not our position at all. Our position is that, if you give us a good and useful scheme for a consolidating authority for all kinds of education, we are willing to accept it, but the reason why we refuse the present scheme is because we think it entirely bad and ineffective. It is because we think the area bad, and the authority bad, that unification cannot be carried out consistently.


Do you say that the area is bad?


I do. I think the county area is bad, and we say that the objection we entertain to the Government scheme is that the result will be worse than the present system. If it were a proper unification we should accept it without hesitation. The right hon. Gentleman asks me why I object to the area. It is because the county area is an unsuitable area for elementary education. The county area is eminently suitable for secondary education. I will not go so far as to deny that I can conceive the county authority as being suitable to have a certain amount of general supervision over elementary as well as the secondary schools. That I think is possible, but it is not fit to do the work which this Bill proposes to throw upon it. It is not fit to do the work of administering the elementary schools. What is wanted for that purpose is a smaller area, with a smaller authority. You want an area much larger, I admit, than the area of our present rural School Boards. You want an area probably not smaller than would be formed by the union of five or six of the present average English parishes. In an area of that size you would have proper scope for administration, and you would have the elements from which to draw proper School Boards. My objection goes further. The work you propose to throw upon the county authority is enormously heavy. It is heavy not only because, as was well said by my hon. friend the Member for South Molton, it is associated with other work, but also because the county authority will be at a great distance from many of the schools in the rural parishes which it is to supervise. There is another reason also. It will throw a tremendously heavy task on the county authority. Do you remember what the condition of the counties is? We are still imperfectly supplied with railways and it takes a long time to get to the county centre. If a man sets himself to the work of administering the whole of the elementary schools in the way it ought to be conducted, it will for a year or so occupy the whole of his time, and how are you to get members of the county authority, who must come from all parts of the county, to give constant attendance in the county town in order to enable them to meet this enormous amount of work which is thrown upon them? You have only to imagine what the amount of the work is in order to realise how inadequate your scheme is. Now I come to another argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. He says that secondary education is not the most urgent thing.




I think the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that what was most wanted now was elementary education. I believe that with scarcely an exception all the educational experts of this country are of opinion that secondary education is the most urgent thing. I have not in the course of the discussions which have arisen on this Bill, heard that denied by any one whose opinion is entitled to the weight that belongs to an educational authority, apart from those whose religious or political proclivities lead them to take another view. Of course, the one point where in our educational system we are behind our competitors, is in the provision for secondary education, and yet the right hon. Gentleman says it is more important to provide for the voluntary schools.


I never said anything of the kind.


I understood him, and I think most people understood him frankly to admit that this Bill is primarily and mainly intended to secure the denominational schools.


The right hon. Gentleman was not listening I suppose, and I will repeat briefly what I did say. I said that in my opinion primary and secondary education are equally national necessities, and that it is impossible to divide them, because you cannot have good secondary education without good primary education, and conversely. They must be taken together.


I will not pursue that matter further, but I will endeavour to meet the argument he has now advanced that you cannot treat them separately. The right hon. Gentleman says you cannot isolate the two and pay no regard to elementary education. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech appealed to the Cockerton judgment. I take him on that point. Now that the Cockerton judgment has come into the field, we know what elementary education is, and the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman as to schools upon the border line is immensely reduced. The right hon. Gentleman wound up by saying that Germany and America did not proceed upon a system by which elementary and secondary education are separated. No, they do not, but they do not proceed upon a system by which they are managed by authorities elected for different purposes altogether. In America, as in Scotland, the authority is chosen to deal with education and with nothing but education, and it is considered to have ample work if it deals with all forms of education. The right hon. Gentleman must please not fail to understand why we support this Amendment. I support it because I conceive the area is an unsuitable one for elementary education, unless minor areas be created immediately. We want secondary education to have a fair chance of being considered and of having proper pecuniary support given to it. If you throw it along with elementary education upon the new authority, you overload the new authority with more work than at first it is able to discharge. If you give it control of secondary education you give it the work which naturally grows out of what the counties have already done in the matter of education, and which they will be able properly to perform, because it is only the natural development of their present sphere of action. I put it to the Committee that the sensible, practical, business-like way is to go step by step, and to give each educational authority only so much work as it can do at a time. Let them make a survey of the field and devote the amount of money that may be found necessary to raise through the proper rate to secondary education; and when they have been at work for two or three years, then, if the Government think fit, let us add elementary functions also, but not the two at the same moment. It has been the good fortune of secondary education heretofore, to be free from sectarian controversy. Would it not be the best thing for secondary education to allow it to be started apart from the heat which such sectarian controversy engenders? For these reasons I feel that in the interests of educational progress and for the sake of the Government themselves, it would be far better for the Government to abandon the elementary part of the Bill, and turn their attention to that part of it devoted to secondary education, which is at present quite inadequate.

(6.10) MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

said he believed it would be quite practicable to devise a good scheme of one authority for all kinds of education. There had been a great movement in respect of this question during the last year or two, and he differed from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, in thinking that the decisions of the Law Courts had made it easier to divide elementary and secondary education. Those decisions, in his judgment, had made it more necessary that there should be one authority throughout the field of education, and to put the supervision of all education under one capable authority. He believed, therefore, the county authority had the capacity to supervise the schools under such a system as was proposed in the Bill.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)

said he ventured to think that the opinion of business men who had the interest of education at heart was more valuable than the opinion of so-called experts. What would be the practical working of the proposal? Did anyone suppose, in the case of secondary education, that the County Councils were going to do their work as well if the duties of supervising elementary education, as well as secondary education, were thrust upon them? Some of them did not care for education at all; and the right hon. Member for Sleaford had stated that he did not care for secondary education. Therefore, if the cause of secondary education was so important, then the practical way out of the difficulty was to divide the educational authority, to create? one authority for secondary and another for elementary education. That would be a businesslike way of dealing with the question. Would anyone who had a practical knowledge of the subject venture to get up and say that a County Council could deal with elementary education? The Government divided secondary and elementary education last year, and now they said that, theoretically, they ought not to be divided. But those who cared for secondary education must come to the conclusion that, at any rate at first, the best way was to make the county councils the authority for secondary education only. Though the county councils were efficient and practical bodies for the work for which they were elected, they were not necessarily the most capable bodies to deal with elementary education The Glamorganshire County Council had passed a resolution unanimously on this subject, saying that their hands were already full, and asking that they should not be entrusted with work which had been so well done by the School Boards. The real fact was they would not have any control at all. In Glamorganshire there were 340 schools; how could the County Council, with all the duties already entrusted to them, exercise any kind of control over those elementary schools? The flimsy clauses of this Bill dealing with higher education were nothing more than a sop to the people of the country to give to voluntary schools the money they required. The parents of this Bill were the bishops and those who, like the noble Lord opposite, only cared for the denominational schools. He supported the Amendment.

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

said the First Lord of the Treasury had tried to make some capital out of the differences on the Liberal side of the House with regard to this Amendment. He himself was surprised the differences were not greater than they were. He had great sympathy with the hon. Member for North Camberwell in some of the arguments he advanced. There was no desire to ignore the great needs of primary education, but it was felt that if this Bill gave the relief that some thought it would to primary education, the County Councils were not the most efficient and proper authorities to give that relief. It was necessary to press the matter of secondary education as the matter of most interest and importance to the country at the present time. It had been acknowledged in the past few months by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to be our most pressing need, and that was still the opinion of the great majority of the experts of the country. In considering the Amendment before the House they had to consider not only the "one authority" ideal but what that one authority was to be. The County Council was not the most efficient authority for the control of elementary education. To promote elementary education the force of public opinion must be behind it, and that could only be obtained by bringing those interested into direct contact with the controlling authority. There was no chance whatever of the working classes of the country getting additional representation under this Bill, yet on the School Boards, as he knew perfectly well, they had done great work. This would bring also a new element into the elections of the County Councils and Borough Councils from which hitherto they had been free. It would bring in political and religious controversy. Hitherto Members had been elected to these Councils quite irrespective of their political views, but under this Bill that could be so no longer. In Norfolk there were 150 School Boards and 350 denominational schools. Now, was it possible for the central authority to manage such a number of schools as that spread over such an area? There were many difficulties in the way of the County Councils administering elementary education, matters of detail, and he thought it would be infinitely better to postpone this Clause. When they asked why this work should be devolved on the County Councils, and the School Boards be extinguished, they were told it was because of the great work they had done in technical education. But he declined to recognise the validity of the argument drawn from the succesful work of the County Council in connection with technical education, seeing that there was no comparison whatever between technical, including secondary, education, and the detailed work involved in primary education. The Bill would do nothing for secondary education. When last year's Bill was introduced, nothing was said of the pressing necessity of first dealing with primary education. That necessity had only arisen owing to the agitation of the Church party. There would be plenty of work for the new authority in remedying the deficiencies of our secondary education. To charge it with the care of both primary and secondary education at once would be detrimental to both.

*(6.30) SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)

said that a great variety of opinions had been expressed on the other side of the House as to what the educational authority should be. Until right hon. and hon. Gentleman had made up their own minds they might be less critical of the proposal of the Government. He objected to the assumption that elementary and secondary education were absolutely separate and distinct. But if they could not be separated, and if in dealing with elementary education the voluntary schools must be dealt with, why should the Government be reproached with raising the religious question? Whether the Government had proposed the best method of solving this religious difficulty might be open to question; but this was a matter to be dealt with later. As to the allegation that the purpose of the Bill was the destruction of School Boards, it must be remembered that by the Cockerton judgment the School Boards had already been shorn of those powers which they arrogated to themselves, and which made their work most stimulating. Therefore the disappearance of the School Boards did not now involve the consequences which would have been involved eighteen months ago. They were debarred from doing work which the Cockerton judgment decided that they should not have undertaken. But this work must be done. Some authority must supervise this borderland of education. How was continuity between the lower and higher grades of education to be obtained if elementary and secondary education were put in separate departments? The Amendment proceeded on an entirely wrong assumption.


said that the Committee had derived some advantage from the speeches of the two hon. Gentleman on the other side. The hon. Member for East Somerset declared that the arrangements of the Government with regard to secondary education were not satisfactory, and the hon. Member for Oxford University admitted that every time the voluntary schools were touched the religious difficulty was raised. That was one of the great evils with which they had to deal, but his hon. friend opposite went further and said he was not satisfied that the method of dealing with the religious difficulty in this Bill was the best possible way of dealing with it, and added that there were several other ways. The Opposition has often been asked to state what their alternatives were, but he would like to know from so high an authority as the hon. Member what were the several methods of dealing with the religious difficulty that were at present locked in his bosom. If the hon. Member was able to suggest methods less mischievous than that proposed in the Bill, the Committee would have made some progress. Hon. Members opposite, instead of observing a silence which did not give consent, ought to state frankly what they thought would be improvements in the Bill, and not leave it to the Government merely to put their foot down and say, "We will have the Bill as it is, it is for you to take it or leave it." Hon Members, however held their tongues, and said nothing of their opinions on the matter. A Bill of such national importance could not be treated in that spirit. Party exigencies in the House must be satisfied by such treatment, but the mind of the country would not be convinced that the question was being fairly dealt with. If the matter was fairly considered, with a view to meeting the difficulties involved, there were many gentlemen on the other side of the House who could make valuable suggestions. The vital clause of the Bill was before the Committee, and on it could be raised all the questions involved in the measure, and the methods by which the Government proposed to invest the County and Borough Councils with power to deal with education, secondary and primary. The fundamental proposition put forward by those for whom he spoke was that if primary education were dealt with in the Bill, various difficulties connected with that branch of the subject would practically foreclose the chances of secondary education. Prom communications he had had, he knew that several people, who were great authorities, especially in rural districts, had altogether given up the notion of dealing with secondary education. The hon. Member for Oxford University had pointed out that the School Boards before the Cockerton judgment were doing something for secondary or semi-secondary education, but now they could not do it. But it would have been very easy for the Government to repeal the Cockerton judgment, and so have aided secondary education. The present scheme attempted something very different. Its object might not have been to get rid of School Boards, but that was what it would do. What were those School Boards doing, and why were they doing it? He would quote the authority of the Vice-President of the Board of Education— Two-fifths of the children of school age are to be found in the Metropolis and in the large county boroughs having their own School Boards. In those the Act of 1870 has worked in the most satisfactory manner, the members of the Boards being generally elected from those who are sincerely desirous of promoting good education, and who take a lively interest in municipal government, and they have established thoroughly efficient schools. That was the ad hoc authority, and the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to it— The effect of the school system in the boroughs has been greatly to raise the level of elementary education.… School Boards were in this particular exceeding the function for which they were designed, but in the absence of any more regular mode of providing the people with that secondary education which the necessities of the time so urgently demand, their proceedings are undoubtedly highly approved by the people for whom they act, and any attempt to curtail by legislation the operations of the School Boards in this direction without providing some better alternative method by which the want of the public can be supplied would be unpopular. Then as to the County Council authority. He did not speak of the Borough Councils, because they might exercise some control. But as for the County Councils, how in the world was it possible for the County Council in such counties as Devon, Glamorgan, and the West Riding of Yorkshire to effect any control or any supervision over the 14,000 voluntary schools? It was impossible in areas of that description. And yet the hon. Member for the Oxford University admitted, indeed asserted, that the voluntary schools were so imperfect in their action, and so inferior in their quality, that it was absolutely necessary that some assistance should be given to them to bring them up to a decent standard. That was the statement also of the Leader of the House, though he seemed to have forgotten it. His hon. friend had said that the principal object was secondary education. It was notorious that what the country expected was that the Government were going to supply, first of all, a good and efficient system of secondary education. But the First Lord said—" I do not agree; the principal object is the treatment of the voluntary schools."


I did not say so.


The right hon. Gentleman had better not contradict me so discourteously. In my opinion he did say so.


Really, if I am misrepresented after I have explained it, I think the discourtesy is on the other side. I have explained what I did say.


said all he could say was that that was the impression left on his mind of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and he believed that that was the meaning conveyed to the Committee. What was the ground on which the ordinary primary schools were brought into the Bill? It was in order that they might get the rates and substitute them for voluntary subscriptions to the voluntary schools. The Government might profess what they liked, but everybody knew that that was the object, and everybody saw it throughout the whole scheme of the Bill. They were putting on the County Council a task which, as the hon. Member for the Oxford University had said, necessarily raised the religious difficulty, because they were using public money for sectarian purposes, and for that reason he should vote for the Amendment.

(6.57.) MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

said the Amendment involved the whole future of secondary education in this country. If the Bill were kept in its present form, with elementary education within its scope, there was not the slightest doubt that it would result in secondary education being placed in the background for many years to come. If the Government had introduced a Bill dealing only with secondary education none could have complained. The matter had been considered more than once, and the Government might fairly regard themselves as having a mandate on that question. But who could say that the Government had a mandate to deal with the question of elementary education? There was only one question before the country at the last general election, and that was the conduct of the war. He ventured to say that in bringing forward these far-reaching proposals with regard to elementary education, and, on the day peace was declared in South Africa, commencing a war on Nonconformists, the Government were taking a course which would not be sanctioned by a majority of the people in the country. He really trembled for the education authorities existing in Wales. For eight or ten years he had sat on one of those authorities. Hitherto they had worked together with the greatest cordiality, and the system of intermediate education had been carried on in the most harmonious manner. So far as the authority of which he was a member was concerned, they had not had a single division, upon any party or religious question, during the whole of that period. If the provisions of this Bill were carried into effect, the result would be that the paradise which they had lived in for the last ten years would be destroyed. He appealed to the Government, in the interests of secondary education, to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend. They had not heard a single word from the First Lord of the Treasury or the Vice-President of the Council to indicate that any important Amendment would be accepted when they came to deal with Part III. Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to promise any alteration in Part III? If not, they would have to take the Bill as it stood, and oppose to the utmost of their power the insertion of Part III, for its adoption would mean the destruction of what had hitherto been a successful system of secondary education.

* MR. HELME (Lancashire, Lancaster)

said he was glad the silence of Ministerial Members had been broken, as it suggested conspiracy on the part of the Government to use its power in order to force through the Bill, as was done, with out the alteration of a single word, upon a former occasion, and it was their duty to protest against such tactics. This Amendment proposed to divide secondary from elementary education for the moment, and in supporting this the Opposition were not unprepared to deal with the great question of elementary education; and he would remind the Committee that at the present time there was a national interest of pressing importance before it which demanded that secondary education should have the first place in our legislative programme. The country had been waiting anxiously ever since the report of the Royal Com mission on Secondary Education for the Bill under which secondary education would be adequately treated. It was necessary that they should now have a national system, universal throughout the country, developed; but one great objection to this Bill was that the secondary system was optional, and that was the most serious blot on this part of the measure. They must have a system which was not permissive, and which applied to those counties where public opinion was not equal to the development of a system worthy of the great object which they all had at heart. Many localities were more interested in the question of pounds, shillings, and pence. But education was a matter of great concern, and where such considerations contributed to educational inefficiency, the power of Parliament should be exercised in order to insist upon the development of the intellect of the children, in order that they might climb the educational ladder, which was absolutely necessary to give this country the advantage of cultivating its brain power. It was necessary that this House should speak in no unmeasured terms——


The time to speak in those terms will be when we reach the second clause, and it does not seem to be relevant at present.


No, Sir; I intended to allude to the permissive words in the second clause—"The local education authority may supply," and "for that purpose may apply, and may spend such further sums as they think fit," and to the limit of a twopenny rate, which would be altogether inefficient and unworthy of a great measure. Continuing, the hon. Member said he should like to know something more about the financial proposals which were behind this Bill. He supported the Amendment in favour of dividing the two subjects dealt with in the Bill, and taking the secondary education part first. In Lancashire they had striven to do all they could to develop technical education, and now this Bill proposed to destroy those Technical Education Committees which had done so much to provide the technological instruction which was necessary for those engaged in manufactures. Therefore they asked that the elementary education part of the Bill should be put second. This measure raised once more the religious difficulty, and abolished the great School Boards which had been the great engines of progressive education, and which had brought about a revolution in education. Naturally there was a strong feeling that it was not desirable to abolish boards which had had so much experience and done such good work. Seeing the enormous difficulties which this Bill was going to introduce, he contended that it would be in the best interests of this country to divide the Bill into two parts, and turn their immediate attention to secondary education. So they must strive, and, although they might be crushed by the numerical majority of the Government, they must remember that the commercial interests of the country were of far greater importance than mere Votes, and these could not be disregarded.

(7.10.) MR. ROBSON (South Shields)

said that the clause which this Amendment dealt with enacted that the local council should be the education authority. One was astonished at the phraseology of the clause. No one in this Committee and no one on the Ministerial Bench had the slightest intention of making the County Council the education authority. On the contrary all that the County Council or the local authority was entitled to do was to take a very limited and modified part in the consitution of the education authority. That was the point of view from which one had to criticise this clause. No one desired to make the County Council the real education authority. If the Bill made the education authority out of the local council, many hon. Members might accept that proposal, provided that it was accompanied by some provision for increasing the personnel of the County Council, and effecting some change in the character of those who constituted the council. To increase the duties of a County Council, as now constituted, to this extent would be to reduce that council to a condition resembling that of the House of Commons with a congestion of business not pleasant to contemplate. The Government therefore proposed to give the County Council authority to take part in the formation of an educational authority. The new authority was to be a nominated authority.


I do not know whether the hon. Member has looked at the Amendment, but if he has I wish to point out that he has not yet approached it in his speech. The only question is whether these new authorities shall deal with secondary as well as elementary education.


said this clause would throw upon the Councils the duty of dealing with elementary education, and his remarks were directed to the proposed increase of their duties. That was what he objected to. The Government had devised a scheme whereby permission should be given to the County Councils to delegate duties to the Education Committee, and it was with that Education Committee the House had to deal in this clause. The Amendment suggested that the Education Committee should not have power to deal with elementary education. He did not regard the Education Committee as an authority to which this House would willingly entrust elementary education. It was not an elective Committee. It was nominated, and it was not nominated exclusively by an elected body. It was nominated partly by an elected body, and partly by other bodies of which the Government had given no definite information. The proposal in the Bill was to take the power from the elected School Board, and put it into the hands of those who were not elected but nominated by sectarian denominations. The sects would not only have control over their own schools, but the Bill imported the control of the sects into the national schools. It meant that elementary education was to be taken away from popular control, so far as it was exercised by and through the School Board, and put under the control of a committee which would partly, and apparently very largely, be nominated by purely sectarian associations, whether the local authority liked it or not. This was not merely a question of local government. They were fighting for something more than that. They were demanding that elementary education should be kept as it was under popular control,

that was to say, that the elementary education now administered in the board schools should be kept exclusively under public control. The Government in resisting that demand desired to place it largely and mainly under sectarian control. [Ministerial cries of "No."] Hon. Members opposite said "No," but the more the Bill was examined it would be seen that the real meaning of the clause was that a sectarian system which had prevailed over the bulk of the schools should now prevail over them all, and that every school should now come mainly under sectarian control. That was the main reason why he supported the Amendment.

MR. GODDARD (Ipswich)

rose to continue the debate.


rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

(7.18.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 251; Noes, 162. (Division List No. 190.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Carlile, William Walter Dyke, Rt Hon Sir William Hart
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cautley, Henry Strother Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Arkwright, John Stanhope Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire Faber, George Denison (York)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Cayzer, Sir Charles William Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Arrol, Sir William Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Mauc'r
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Finch, George H.
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Firbank, Joseph Thomas
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Fisher, William Hayes
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Chapman, Edward Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon
Banbury, Frederick George Charrington, Spencer Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor Clare, Octavius Leigh Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Bartley, George C. T. Cohen, Benjamin Louis Forster, Henry William
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ
Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W
Beresford, Lord Chas. William Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Galloway, William Johnson
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Gardner, Ernest
Bignold, Arthur Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Garfit, William
Bigwood, James Cranborne, Viscount Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond
Blundell, Colonel Henry Cripps, Charles Alfred Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans
Bond, Edward Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Cubitt, Hon. Henry Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin&Nairn)
Bousfield, William Robert Dalrymple, Sir Charles Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Davenport, William Bromley- Gore, Hn G R. C. Ormsby-(Salop
Brassey, Albert Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John Denny, Colonel Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Brotherton, Edward Allen Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Goulding, Edward Alfred
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. Dorington, Sir John Edward Graham, Henry Robert
Brymer, William Ernest Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Bullard, Sir Harry Doxford, Sir William Theodore Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS. Edm'nds
Butcher, John George Duke, Henry Edward Gretton, John
Greville, Hon. Ronald M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill M 'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbur'h, W Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Gunter, Sir Robert M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Hall, Edward Marshall Majendie, James A. H. Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Martin, Richard Biddulph Seton-Karr, Henry
Hambro, Charles Eric Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n Sharpe, William Edward T.
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'sx Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd 'derry) Melville, Beresford Valentine Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd Middlemore, John Throgmort'n Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Hare, Thomas Leigh Mildmay, Francis Bingham Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Harris, Frederick Leverton Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. Spear, John Ward
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Mitchell, William Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.) Molesworth, Sir Lewis Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Helder, Augustus Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Hoare, Sir Samuel Moon, Edward Robert pacy Stock, James Henry
Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire Stone, Sir Benjamin
Hogg, Lindsay Morgan, David J (W'lthamstow Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Hope, J. F Sheffield, Brightside Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hornby, Sir William Henry Morrell, George Herbert Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford Thornton, Percy M.
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hudson, George Bickersteth Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Valentia, Viscount
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Myers, William Henry Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Newdigate, Francis Alexander Walker, Col. William Hall
Johnston, William (Belfast) Nicol, Donald Ninian Warr, Augustus Frederick
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Webb, Colonel William George
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E (Taunton
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Parker, Gilbert Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts
Knowles, Lees Parkes, Ebenezer Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley Whiteley, H. (Ashton un. Lyne
Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) Percy, Earl Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool Platt-Higgins, Frederick Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Lawson, John Grant Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(B'rm
Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H Pretyman, Ernest George Wills, Sir Frederick
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Purvis, Robert Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S Randles, John S. Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Rankin, Sir James Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Ratcliff, R. F. Wortley, Rt Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Rattigan, Sir William Henry Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Remnant, James Farquharson Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Renshaw, Charles Bine Younger, William
Lowe, Francis William Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Ropner, Colonel Robert Sir William Walrond and
Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G Ellison Round, James Mr. Anstruther.
Macdona, John Cumming Rutherford, John
Maconochie, A. W. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Crombie, John William
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Broadhurst, Henry Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Delany, William
Ambrose, Robert Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Asher, Alexander Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Dillon, John
Ashton, Thomas Gair Caine, William Sproston Donelan, Captain A.
Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry Caldwell, James Duncan, J. Hastings
Atherley-Jones, L. Cameron, Robert Dunn, Sir William
Austin, Sir John Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Ellis, John Edward
Banes, Major George Edward Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Emmott, Alfred
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Carew, James Laurence Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Causton, Richard Knight Evans Sir Francis H (Maidstone
Bell, Richard Cawley, Frederick Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)
Black, Alexander William Channing, Francis Allston Farquharson, Dr. Robert
Blake, Edward Craig, Robert Hunter Fenwick, Charles
Boland, John Crean, Eugene Ffrench, Peter
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Cremer, William Randal Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond
Flynn, James Christopher M'Hugh, Patrick A. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) M'Kean, John Shipman, Dr. John G.
Fuller, J. M. F. M'Kenna, Reginald Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Gilhooly, James Mansfield, Horace, Rendall Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Goddard, Daniel Ford Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Soares, Ernest J.
Grant, Corrie Markham, Arthur Basil Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'thants
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Mather, William Stevenson, Francis S.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Mooney, John J. Strachey, Sir Edward
Hammond, John Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose Sullivan, Donal
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Moulton, John Fletcher Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil Nannetti, Joseph P. Tennant, Harold John
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Harwood, George Norman, Henry Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Nussey, Thomas Willans Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Helme, Norval Watson O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Thomas, J. A (Glam'rg'n, Gower
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Brien, Kendal, Tip'erary, Mid Tomkinson, James
Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Toulmin, George
Horniman, Frederick John O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Wallace, Robert
Jones, William Carnarvonshire O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Joyce, Michael O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Kitson, Sir James O'Malley, William Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Labouchere, Henry O'Mara, James Weir, James Galloway
Lambert, George Paulton, James Mellor White, George (Norfolk)
Langley, Batty Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Leamy, Edmund Perks, Robert William Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Leigh, Sir Joseph Power, Patrick Joseph Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Leng, Sir John Redmond, John E. (Waterford Williams, Osmond (Merioneth).
Levy, Maurice Redmond, William (Clare) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Lewis, John Herbert Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff) Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Lloyd-George, David Rickett, J. Compton Young, Samuel
Lundon, W. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Yoxall, James Henry
MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Robson, William Snowdon
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Runciman, Walter
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Russell, T. W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Schwann, Charles E. Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
M'Crae, George Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Mr. William M'Arthur.
M'Govern, T. Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

(7.33.) Question put accordingly, "That the words 'the purposes of this Act' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 299; Noes, 114. (Division List No. 191.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Bond, Edward Clare, Octavius Leigh
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Coghill, Douglas Harry
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bousfield, William Robert Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Ambrose, Robert Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready
Anson, Sir William Reynell Brassey, Albert Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Arkwright, John Stanhope Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Brotherton, Edward Allen Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Arrol, Sir William Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. Cranborne, Viscount
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Brymer, William Ernest Crean, Eugene
Austin, Sir John Bullard, Sir Harry Cripps, Charles Alfred
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Butcher, John George Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Gl'sg'w Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Carew, James Laurence Davenport, William Bromley-
Banbury, Frederick George Carlile, William Walter Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chath'm
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Delany, William
Bartley, George C. T. Cautley, Henry Strother Denny, Colonel
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Cavendish, V. C. W (D'rbyshire Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Cayzer, Sir Charles William Dillon, John
Beresford, Lord Charles Wm. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Donelan, Captain A.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Dorington, Sir John Edward
Bignold, Arthur Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. (Birm. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Bigwood, James Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc. Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore
Blake, Edward Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Duke, Henry Edward
Blundell, Colonel Henry Chapman, Edward Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Boland, John Charrington, Spencer Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Power, Patrick Joseph
Elliott, Hon. A Ralph Douglas Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Pretyman, Ernest George
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S. Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Faber, George Denison (York) Llewellyn, Evan Henry Purvis, Robert
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Randles, John S.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manr. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Rankin, Sir James
Ffrench, Peter Long, Col. Charles W. (Ev'sham Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Finch, George H. Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Brist'l, S. Ratcliff, R. F.
Finlay, Si Robert Bannatyne Lonsdale, John Brownlee Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Firbank, Joseph Thomas Lowe, Francis William Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Fisher, William Hayes Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent) Redmond, William (Clare)
Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Loyd, Archie Kirkman Remnant, James Farquharson
Fletcher, Rt Hon. Sir Henry Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Renshaw, Charles Bine
Flynn, James Christopher Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'uth Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Foster, Henry William Lundon, W. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Uni. Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W Macartney, Rt Hn W G Ellison Ropner, Colonel Robert
Galloway, William Johnson Macdona, John Cumming Round, James
Gardner, Ernest MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Rutherford, John
Garfit, William Macnamara, Dr Thomas J. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Gibbs, Hon A G H (City of Lond. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Sadler, Col Samuel Alexander
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Maconochie, A. W. Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse
Gilhooly, James MacVeagh Jeremiah Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.
Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'rick M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn M'Govern, T. Seton-Karr, Henry
Gordon, Maj Evans (T'r H'ml'ts M'Hugh, Patrick A. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Gore, Hn G R C rsmby-(Salop M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon M'Kean, John Simeon, Sir Barrington
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Goulding, Edward Alfred Majendie, James A. H. Smith, H C (N'th'mb. Tyneside)
Graham, Henry Robert Martin, Richard Biddulph Smith, James Parker (Lanarks
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Greene Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds Maxwell, W. J. H Dumfriessh. Spear, John Ward
Gretton, John Melville, Beresford Valentine Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Greville, Hon. Ronald Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Middlemore, Hn. Throgmorton Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Gunter, Sir Robert Mildmay, Francis Bingham Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Hall, Edward Marshall Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. Stock, James Henry
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Mitchell, William Stone, Sir Benjamin
Hambro, Charles Eric Molesworth, Sir Lewis Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'x Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Sullivan, Donal
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'ry Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hammond, John Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Talbot, Rt Hn J G (Oxford Univ.
Hanbury, Rt. Hon Robert Wm. Mooney, John J. Thornton, Percy M.
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hare, Thomas Leigh Morgan, David J (W'lth'mstow Tuke, Sir John Batty
Harris, Frederick Leverton Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh. Valentia, Viscount
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Morrell, George Herbert Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptf'rd Walker, Col William Hall
Helder, Augustus Murray, Rt Hn A Gr'h'm (Bute) Warr, Augustus Frederick
Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Webb, Colonel William George
Hoare, Sir Samuel Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton
Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E Myers, William Henry Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts
Hogg, Lindsay Nannetti, Joseph P. Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Bri'htside Newdigate, Francis Alexander Whiteley, H (Ashtonund. Lyne
Hornby, Sir William Henry Nicol, Donald Ninian Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Williams, Rt Hn J Powell (Birm
Hudson, George Bickersteth O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid Wills, Sir Frederick
Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Wilson Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)
Johnston, William (Belfast) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Wodehouse, Rt. E. R. (Bath)
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Joyce, Michael O'Malley, William Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. O'Mara, James Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W (Salop O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Knowles, Lees Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Young, Samuel
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Parker, Gilbert Younger, William
Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth Parkes, Ebenezer Yoxall, James Henry
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley
Lawson, John Grant Percy, Earl TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Leamy, Edmund Platt-Higgins, Frederick Sir William Walrond and
Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Mr. Anstruther.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Fuller, J. M. F. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Goddard, Daniel Ford Runciman, Walter
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Grant, Corrie Russell, T. W.
Asber, Alexander Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Schwann, Charles E.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Gordon, Sir W. Brampton Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Atherley-Jones, L. Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Banes, Major George Edward Harmsworth, R. (Leicester) Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Helme, Norval Watson Soares, Ernest J.
Bell, Richard Hemphill, Rt. Hon Charles H. Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northants
Black, Alexander William Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) Stevenson, Francis S.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Horniman, Frederick John Strachey, Sir Edward
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Broadhurst, Henry Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Tennant, Harold John
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh Kitson, Sir James Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Labouchere, Henry Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Lambert, George Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Caine, William Sproston Langley, Batty Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Caldwell, James Leigh, Sir Joseph Tomkinson, James
Cameron, Robert Leng, Sir John Toulmin, George
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Levy, Maurice Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Causton, Richard Knight Lewis, John Herbert Wallace, Robert
Channing, Francis Allston Lloyd-George, David Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Craig, Robert Hunter M'Crae, George Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Cremer, William Randal M'Kenna, Reginald Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Crombie, John William M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Weir, James Galloway
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Mansfield, Horace Rendall White, George (Norfolk)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Markham, Arthur Basil Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Duncan, J. Hastings Mather, William Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dunn, Sir William Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Ellis, John Edward Moulton, John Fletcher Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Emmott, Alfred Norman, Henry Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Evans, Sir Francis H (M'idstone Nussey, Thomas Willans
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan Paulton, James Mellor
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Fenwick, Charles Perks, Robert William Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Reed, Sir Edw James (Cardiff) Mr. William M'Arthur.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Rickett, J. Compton

It being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman loft the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report progress; to sit again this evening.