§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:—
§ (9.0.) MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)moved an Amendment providing that for the purposes of the Act School Boards in boroughs, and in 1188 urban districts with a population of 10,000, and for other areas the County Councils and County Borough Councils should be the local education authority. He said he was not insistent on adhering to the words of the Amendment, but he put it forward as an attempt to retain for the country the benefits of the School Board system—which had done so good and great a work for the last thirty years, in the education of children. He wished the system preserved, therefore, even if its operations were limited to large urban areas. It had worked well and it had secured the confidence of the voters as was proved by the large number of votes cast at the last elections, and the pride evinced in our Board Schools. Regular attendance and efficiency had been secured, and the most business-like educational experts had devoted their efforts to the work at great personal sacrifice; but if this Bill were passed unaltered their services would no longer be available to 1189 the country. Nearly all these men condemned the Government proposals. Personally he did not claim to be an educational expert, but he had been a manager for twenty years of ten voluntary schools, be had served ten years on a Borough Council, and three years on a town School Board, fourteen years on a County Council, and twelve years on a Technical Education Committee. He claimed some right therefore to criticise the Government proposals from a practical point of view. The Durham County Council was not prepared to to take up elementary education until it had digested secondary education. There were in all 302 boroughs; 193 possessed School Boards, and those which did not might, of course, either establish them or allow their Borough Councils to manage the schools. Universal tribute had been paid from ministers down to inspectors to the work of the School Boards. A former Vice-President of the Committee of the Council, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford, said—
Hon. Members seemed to regard the Bill as a serious inroad and attack on School Boards. He said advisedly, as an educationalist first, and a party man afterwards, that if he thought such injury would be inflicted he would not vote for the Second Reading.Again, Sir John Gorst, who now represented the Board of Education in the House of Commons, had declared—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 these, the Act of 1870 has worked in a most satisfactory manner; the Members of the Boards have been generally elected from those who are sincerely desirous of promoting good education, and who lake a lively interest in Municipal Government, and they have established thoroughly efficient schools. … The effect of the School Board system in the boroughs has been greatly to raise the level of elementary education.Bearing in mind these statements he ventured to assert that to put a system so approved into the melting pot, would damage us commercially and otherwise. The one authority idea was not really promoted by the Bill. Thus the Walls-end and Wellington Quay School Board, economically managed education under one board at present, whereas under the Bill, the management would be divided between two authorities. Hebburn, Jarrow and Monkton had one board, but the Bill would give the control of the education in these places to three authorities. 1190 He did hope that the Government would make some concession so that this good work might be preserved to the country. Sir Joshua Fitch, in a very able article in the Nineteenth Century on the composition of School Boards had pointed out that membership of these bodies demanded special qualification, and it was desirable that those who joined them should be unhampered by other duties. If his Amendment were accepted, he believed it would simplify the task which the Government had undertaken, and it certainly would simplify the educational system of the country. In the case of the 100 boroughs which had no School Boards, if the Government thought it advisable in the event of accepting his Amendment to provide that the Borough Councils should undertake the work of education in those places he would accept that. We had a large number of authorities in this country, and some of them might very well be amalgamated. He believed there were 29,000 of one kind and another, at the present moment attacking the English ratepayers. With regard to taxation, the present system might very well continue. The municipal authorities might still levy the borough rate on the precept of the School Board. One great objection to the proposal of the Government was this, that the boroughs of the country found it very difficult now to secure the best men to carry on municipal work. It involved a great demand upon time, and as a fact the Borough Councils were not composed of the men most calculated to give the necessary impulse to educational efficiency. If they put more work upon those Borough Councils he was afraid that they would become more and more inefficient. He could not imagine what was the great objection to the School Board system, unless it was that to a certain extent it had been in competition with denominational schools and had proved more efficient, thereby creating jealousy on the part of the supporters of the denominational schools. But under the provisions of this Bill denominationalists were to receive rate support, where they never had it in the past, and consequently that ought to remove the objection of their supporters to the School Board schools. It was sometimes said that the School Boards had proved very expensive. No 1191 doubt the burden had been very heavy in those rural districts where agricultural depression was more felt, but he denied that, taking the School Boards as a whole, and especially in the case of the boroughs, there had been any great waste of public money. It was almost impossible to earmark the result of the expenditure, but the fact that the School Boards had retained the confidence of the ratepayers showed that they had given satisfaction to the public. It might be said that the School Board was not a suitable authority to carry on the higher branches of education; that they had their hands full with elementary education, and that the Government had already entrusted the higher education to municipal authorities, who had done good work in organising it. In reply to that, he would say he was quite satisfied that even if the right hon. Gentleman left School Boards where they now were with regard to the control of elementary education, it would be very easy, in relation to secondary education, to devise a system whereby a joint-committee, representative of School Board Councils and Technical Education Committees, might take control. They could so dovetail the system that it would work harmoniously from top to bottom. They could bring the local authorities into communication with each other, and difficulties as to area boundaries could easily be overcome. It might be said that the Government proposal would do away with the expense of School Board elections, but such a saving could equally well be effected by having all local elections in a town held on one day. He feared the Government scheme would entail the appointment of a large staff of inspectors, while with the abolition of the School Board system they would cease to enjoy the advantage of having women on the educational authority, who were better fitted to deal with questions especially affecting female teachers and girl pupils. He moved the Amendment, animated by a sincere love of education, and with the conviction that a, system like that of the School Board, which had been found to work well, should be adhered to, and not be cast aside for the doubtful experiment of creating a new authority. He believed 1192 that if the Government adhered to their proposal in the Bill, and abolished the School Boards, a time would come when their policy would be reversed and they would have to secure a system of more direct control by the ratepayers.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 1, line 7, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words "School Boards in boroughs, and in urban districts with a population of ten thousand, and for other areas."—(Mr. Joseph A. Pease.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted "
§ (9.25.) THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,) Cambridge Universitysaid the Committee would be perfectly well aware that this Amendment proposed to change the whole scope and principle of the Bill, and it was therefore quite impossible that it could be accepted. He did not want to oppose it on merely technical grounds, but he must point out that it would establish a very complicated system. He-could quite understand the observation-made by the hon. Member as to the unwillingness of the county of Durham to undertake elementary education, because in the large boroughs and urban districts they already had School Boards. This Amendment would except all those from the operation of the Bill, but he would point out that, although borough areas were very generally coterminous with the School Board districts, urban districts were not always the units of School Board districts, and a very considerable rearrangement of boundaries would be required. The point of the hon. Gentleman was that, in the large boroughs and non-county boroughs, the School Boards, which had done excellent work, should be preserved. The hon. Gentleman had quoted a sentence of his (Sir John Gorst's) about the work of the School Boards. Not one single syllable of that did he desire to withdraw. He had been held up to the indignation of the people as the enemy of the School Boards. He was nothing of the kind. Ever since he had held office as the Vice-President of the Council he had always borne testimony to the good work done in most of the large towns by the School Boards.
§ DR. MACNAMARANot in London.
§ SIR JOHN GORSTYes, even in London. He had suffered martyrdom because he had borne testimony to the extremely excellent religious instruction given in the London Board Schools. He had never, in speaking of even the London School Board, uttered anything against the day schools except such criticism—which he supposed they could bear—as that their schools were too large. Then why could not the School Boards be preserved? Because in all the large towns there are two great educational authorities whose powers overlap, and this led to a waste of public money. To secure efficiency in the management of the schools in large towns, all the powers must be vested in either the School Boards or the Municipal Councils. He had said before, and he repeated again tonight that, as far as the interests of education are concerned, in places like Manchester, Bradford, and Liverpool, it does not matter a pin whether the management of the schools is vested in the Town Council or in the School Board. Why had the Government preferred the former? It was entirely upon the principle that it was most essential for the strength and power of local government that there should be one authority responsible for the rates of the town. The most certain way to weaken local government was to have two independent authorities, each levying rates for different purposes. This fact was recognised in the United States, where, despite the diversity of such systems in the various Stages, the final power of the purse was, in almost every case, in the hands of the municipal or county authority. He appealed to his right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen to bear him out on this point.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid he could safely say that, wherever the rating power was not vested in the education authority, it was the practice of the rating authority to impose all such rates as the education authority required.
§ SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that that might be practice, but the rating authority alone had the power of rating. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to produce a case in which the education 1194 authority had the power to lay an unlimited rate, without reference to the City or the County Council.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid he believed that there were such cases, but it was not easy, on the spur of the moment, to answer as to the law in forty-five States.
§ SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that that might be, but he had tried to find such a case and had failed to do so. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman, who was a much better authority than he was on the American constitution, did not know of a case either. It had been said that the Bill was going to destroy such School Boards, and all the work that they had done. But the School Boards were not permanent bodies; they were elected every three years by the ratepayers. The Municipal Council would only take the place of a newly elected School Board. He did not think that in a place like Bradford, for instance, there was likely to be any interruption of the continuity of the work. The Municipal Council there would, he conceived, be likely to appoint some of its members on the educational committee, and to avail itself also, of the services of the members of the existing School Board. He had not the slightest doubt that in the great towns the work of such School Boards would be carried on under the Town Council in exactly the same way as it had been carried on before, and that the difficulties and dangers and disasters prophesied by hon. Members opposite would never occur. It was most essential in the interests of education that some method should be found, by which the good work in the direction of higher education, established by School Boards in time past, should be saved and he felt sure that good work would not be thrown away, but would be continued by the Town Councils under the powers given by this Bill. The Government, however, would be ready to accept any suggestions for the improvement of the Bill which would ensure that object.
§ *(9.38.) MR. MATHER (Lancashire, Rossendale)said that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President, must have produced a very disappointing 1195 impression on those Members on that side of the House who had, for weeks past, been endeavouring to assist the Government, by alternative proposals, to make the Bill an effective measure of national education. They had been taunted on that side of the House that they had not supported the Government in their proposals for advancing the education of the country. He repudiated that suggestion. The only educational standard existing in this country in regard to elementary education was that erected by the School Boards in the last 30 years. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, if they regarded themselves as the only source of light and patriotism or the only channel through which intelligence could How? Did not the Opposition represent anything? He granted that they were rather, for the moment, a conglomeration of atoms, but on this question of education they were bound together by a great principle. They earnestly desired that education should no longer be trifled with, and there was no Amendment that could be proposed which would make so much for efficiency in education and simplicity of administration, as that proposed by his hon. friend. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President had argued that there could not be two education authorities in one town, and that as the Municipal Council had authority in one direction already, it must be taken as the one authority. But all the authority the municipality had at present was to carry on technical education under the Technical Instruction Act. But what did that amount to? It amounted to this, that with the whiskey money and a penny rate they might build one large technical school, the management of which was handed over to a Committee. He maintained that no municipal authority could attempt the task of superintending elementary education without entirely recasting its existing constitution. He therefore urged that the municipal authorities should be allowed to devote themselves to secondary education, for some time at least, and that the School Boards should continue their work of devoting themselves to elementary education. Then the 1196 voluntary schools would come under these conditions which bon. Gentlemen opposite considered desirable, and which would give them support out of the rates. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite made this concession, he would help the Opposition to do good work in the construction of this Bill, instead of working for its destruction. The question of control and efficiency did not in the least interfere with the suggestion of his hon. friend. They asked that these long-established bodies, which had great experience, and which admirably performed the work entrusted to them, should continue until such time as Parliament saw fit to alter their position and status. He considered that they had a right to press that view on the Government with all the earnestness which it was in their power to exert. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to take up a non possumus position from first to last in connection with the Bill. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR dissented.] He was delighted to hear that indication from the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman would make the concession now asked, he would open the door to the Opposition to do good work in the construction of the Bill, instead of working for its destruction. He would, therefore, urge on the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of accepting the Amendment, or some modification of it. There was a further point. They wanted co-ordination—one system, one authority, no overlapping, and perfect unity of administration. That ideal could not be realised, in his opinion, perfectly, unless by the retention of the School Boards. A statutory obligation that they and the secondary authorities should at once draw up schemes would enable co-ordination to be perfect. It would mean co-ordination, not only in the sense of there being no overlapping, but would create a mutual interest, each authority doing its very best. One anthority would be devoted to one stage of education, the other to another, and they would be dove-tailed together in perfect harmony. Only last winter in Manchester there were gathered together in one room in the Town Hall members of the Owens' College, members of the technical schools, now the great pride 1197 of Manchester, and members of the School Board, who were all united in perfect accord in a free and voluntary arrangement. All the projects in the Bill with regard to unifying the two grades of education were based, not on experience, but on theory. If the Amendment were accepted, and if the new authorities to be set up by the Bill failed in the work of elementary education, then the School Boards could be extended. More than that, the acceptance of the Amendment would cause the Bill to pass through the House of Commons as representing a compromise without any necessity for an Autumn session, and it would give immense satisfaction to the working classes, who, after all, are the chief beneficiaries of national education. He spoke with earnestness on the matter, because his convictions were deep; and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, or, if not to reserve the matter for the consideration of the Cabinet, and not compel the Opposition to conclude that the Bill was never intended to consult their feelings, but simply to satisfy one particular party in this House. He himself did not accept that view. He believed that earnest minds had been engaged on the Bill, and he therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give the appeal he now made to him full consideration.
§ (10.0.) MR. GRAY (West Ham, N.)said he was not quite sure whether the hon. Member was aware of it or not, but a great portion of his argument was entirely against the Amendment which he rose to support. He had been for some considerable time emphasising the advantage which would accrue to the community, if School Boards in cities like Manchester were left to work in harmony with Technical Committees. They could meet in the same room, organise schemes, and carry on education, the School Board being the authority for one branch of education and the Technical Committee the authority for the other. Did the hon. Gentleman realise what the Amendment was? If he proposed that in boroughs—there was no limitation, it might be a county borough or the smallest of boroughs—
§ * MR. MATHERsaid that his hon. friend had endeavoured to show to the right hon Gentleman who was responsible for the Bill that he merely wished a concession in the direction of the Amendment.
§ MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid he was prepared to take any concession from the Government which would retain School Boards in the large towns for the purposes of elementary education.
§ MR. GRAYsaid that, considering the days which had elapsed since the Second Reading, they might have had an Amendment which they could discuss, and not an Amendment from which hon. Members opposite ran away. That was not dealing with a serious question in a business like way, and was not treating the House of Commons with proper respect. It was the sort of thing which might be expected if the Second Reading had been taken yesterday, and, in the circumstances, the Committee was entitled to deal with the Amendment as it stood on the paper. The Amendment proposed that boroughs, large and small, should have School Boards as the authority for elementary education; but the hon. Member for the Rossondale division declared that he for one, had no desire to extend the School Board system. He would wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, neither during the debate on the Second Reading nor the debate in Committee, had any hon. Member opposite ever attempted to deal seriously with the argument put forward again and again which desired to secure one single authority that would spend the money and levy the rate. Never had that principle been dealt with seriously during the whole course of the discussions on the Bill. Every conceivable argument was brought forward with reference to the excellent work of the School Boards, the necessity for continuing them, the desirability of direct election, and so on, but hon. Members refrained from dealing seriously with the question of the rating authority being also the spending authority. The Vice President said that it was in the interest of the local Government that there should be one authority, but he might 1199 have said further that it would be in the interests of education also. In his opinion nothing had done more to retard the progress of education than the constant cavilling of the rating authority against the expenditure of the School Board. At every borough council election the borough councillors declared that they were not responsible for the rate; that it was the spendthrift School Board, which might have done its work economically, but instead, squandered the rate-payer's money. If the rating authority was the spending authority it would not grumble at its own work and would not retard the progress of education. Members of School Boards on the other hand declared, at the election times, that they were hampered by the control of the rating authority. He was not concerned to inquire what was the position in the United States, he was concerned at the position at home. He recollected that in 1894 or 1895, in one of the largest towns in the country, the borough council proposed to disallow the School Board rate for the year and that proposal was only rejected by one vote. That such a state of things should be possible was neither in the interest of good Government or of education, and he should suggest to hon. Gentlemen who advocated the continued existence of School Boards, that they should address themselves seriously to the question of good Government and educational progress, neither of which could, in his opinion, be secured until the rating authority was also the spending authority. As one more interested in the educational side rather than in the rating side of the question, he had come to the definite conclusion that the Borough Councils and the County Councils would do the work as efficiently as ever the School Boards did it in the past. He was amused to hear the suggestion that there was no other standard of efficiency than that set up by the School Boards. That showed a lamentable lack of knowledge of the great work accomplished by the Technical Committees of the County Councils. He admitted that the Technical Committees did not seek election every three years, and had no need to advertise their good work. There was no better education authority I throughout the whole country than the 1200 Technical Committee of the London County Council, and no educational work had been done in Manchester better than that which had been done by the Technical Committee of the Manchester County Council.
§ * MR. MATHERsaid he had served on both bodies for many years, and made his statement from his own knowledge and experience.
§ MR. GRAYsaid that he was quite prepared to admit that part of the success of the Technical Education Committee was due to the hon. Gentleman's efforts. The hon. Gentleman devoted time and trouble to educational matters, and his record in Manchester would stand far higher for the good work he did in that district than for his work in supporting an Amendment such as that now before the Committee. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not consider him presumptuous in saying that no one recognised more fully and frankly than he did, the good work accomplished by the right hon. Gentleman, though he could not accept the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that they could only have efficiency by continuing the Manchester School Board and the Manchester Technical Committee as two separate authorities. The hon. Gentleman himself would not desire that the School Boards, truncated as they now were by recent decisions, should continue. He would desire their older powers conferred upon them.
§ * MR. MATHERsaid that all that would be taken from the School Boards would remain with the secondary authority.
§ MR. GRAYasked if he were to understand that it was seriously advanced by the hon. Gentleman and his friends, that in future the School Board should continue as the authority for elementary education given to children below the age of fifteen, which would be limited to the three R's. He never believed that anyone would think of suggesting that the School Boards, cut down as they now were by law, should be continued; and he hoped that no one, who looked at the question from the point of view of education rather than from the party point of view, would ever vote for two authorities, one for elementary education and the other for secondary education. 1201 That was the proposal he was fighting against; whatever might be the phraseology it always remained, and he ventured to assert, knowing something of the work of popular education, that they would get neither educational control nor progress until they had a single authority exercising jurisdiction in a wide area and controlling all forms of education, from kindergarten up to the level of the universities. That was the urgent popular necessity of the hour. Before the Government introduced their Bill it was possible to get hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree to it. He had a lively recollection of what took place in a committee room upstairs, in which hon. Gentlemen, who now stigmatised the Bill as everything bad, endorsed the principle of a single authority for all forms of education, although they now supported an Amendment that the School Boards I should continue side by side with the secondary authorities. That was before the element of partisan polities was imported. For years past, on public platforms up and down the country, he pleaded for one authority, and he saw that plea endorsed by Nonconformists, Anglicans, Catholics, Liberals and Tories, regardless of creed or party politics. But the moment the Government put it into a Bill, it was treated from a partisan aspect. The opposition to the Bill was not educational; it was party and sectarian, and nothing but that. According to the Amendment, every borough should be allowed to retain its school education, but he maintained that with a population of less than 10,000 it would be impossible to make suitable provision for secondary education. One of the main arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen against the Bill was that there ought to be a wide area for secondary education, and a narrow area for elementary education; but the Amendment ran directly counter to that. He thought the best thing to be done was to let hon. Gentlemen opposite settle their differences among themselves, and when they had secured some approach to agreement, to put forward an Amendment from which they would be prepared not to run away, to which they could give undivided support, and which might be worthy of the serious criticism of the Committee.
§ (10.24.) DR. MACNAMARAsaid that whatever might be the precise terms of the Amendment, no doubt the hon. Member who moved it directed himself to the case of the great boroughs, and his hon. friend the Member for the Rossendale division dealt exclusively with that case. He desired to make an appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury on behalf of the great county boroughs. He confessed he saw no means of securing an effective ad hoc authority in county areas, but he wished to direct attention to the case of the great county boroughs. In 1896, the First Lord of the Treasury on the Second Beading of the Bill of that year, said that the Bill would not apply against the wishes of the local authorities themselves. He ventured to make that appeal now. Why should that particular form of government be thrust on the county boroughs? Local option was the plea of the Vice President many times in connection with the question, and local option was the plea of the First Lord of the Treasury on the Second Beading of the Bill of 1896, and he now pleaded for local option in regard to the great county boroughs. The First Lord of the Treasury in 1896 wrote to a correspondent, stating that the aim of the Bill of that year was not to destroy the School Board system in the great county boroughs. Then the right hon. Gentleman wont on to say that it was desirable to have one authority, but he added that although that important reform was rendered possible by the Bill, it was not obligatory, and that it was not intended to force a change on reluctant local authorities. He could show the right hon. Gentleman many reluctant authorities, who desired the privilege of local option, and the right hon. Gentleman had the support of the Vice President, which was not always possible in educational matters. The great School Boards did not want the happy despatch, and did not desire to see their duties extinguished. The Vice President might say that they were interested parties, but what about the municipal councillors. They did not want the change; they thought they had got enough to do as it was, and that if the work of education were added to their present burden, they would not be able to carry out the work effectively. Already the Cardiff City Council had passed a resolution against devolving on them the 1203 work of education, and the Gloucester City Council had passed a similar resolution. The Manchester City Council also passed a series of resolutions, which, if carried, would modify the Bill to an extent which would make it unrecognisable. The article of the Vice President in the North American Review had already been quoted, but when it was written the right hon. Gentleman was smarting under the withdrawal of the Bill of 1890, and he took his revenge by writing an article of a progressive character. He would not quote from it further, because perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was in a temper at the time he wrote it, but he thought he was entitled to quote what the right hon. Gentleman said at Bradford on January 11th, 1899. He said it would be a most unfortunate thing if the work of School Boards in the great cities—higher grade, science, and evening continuation schools—were in any way to be interfered with. Why did the right hon. Gentleman now countenance that unfortunate proposal? He claimed the Vice President's vote for the continuance of an ad hoc authority in the great county boroughs. Then again the right hon. Gentleman said that there was much to be said in favour of making the education authority for all purposes such School Boards as now existed in many of the large cities. To-night he said it did not matter a pin whether the Council or the School Board was to be the authority for education, but if it did not matter a pin, and if much were to be said for making the School Boards the education authority, why not make them that authority. He thought the First Lord of the Treasury misunderstood him on the Second Reading. He did not ask that the School Boards should be left truncated, with only purely elementary education to deal with. He was with the Vice President, and would make the School Boards the authority for all grades of education. The First Lord of the Treasury replied that that could not be done because the municipal authorities had already been at work on education for so many years. They had been at work for thirteen years on a very narrow branch of education which they got quite adventitiously. The First Lord of the Treasury would remember that in 1888 it was proposed to extinguish public 1204 house licences. That proposal was withdrawn, and the money had to be allocated to some specific purpose or it would have dropped into the Sinking Fund. There was a strong endeavour to secure it for technical education, and it was sent down to the local authorities with a strong hint that they ought to spend it on technical education if they wished its continuance. He was not pleading on behalf of the authorities, who had done that work admirably, but he was pleading on behalf of men who were engaged in educational work for thirty-two years, and were elected to discharge that work. Notwithstanding the gibes of the Vice-President the School Boards had done magnificent work for the poorer classes of the country. He himself was almost ashamed that he was a School Board member, because when he mentioned it, it always caused a derisive laugh from the Treasury bench. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] Then he must have misunderstood the facial expression of many Members opposite when School Boards were referred to. As one elected directly for educational purposes he claimed that the School Boards had blundered on, as the Vice President was only too ready to assure them, until they had obtained a certain amount of educational experience. That experience was an asset which it was now proposed to throw ruthlessly away. If the Council of any county borough said that it had enough to do already, and that it thought that education was of sufficient importance to call for the direct intervention of a School Board, why not let it have a School Board? From his experience of School Boards they had always treated voluntary schools quite as handsomely as they were treated by the Town Councils. Indeed, they had treated them more handsomely, because there were on the School Boards many members of the Church of England, who would not be likely to turn a deaf ear to the voluntary schools. He was convinced that the School Board for London would treat the voluntary schools much better than would the London County Council, because there was a considerable number of clergymen on the School Board. With the large majority of School Boards in the hands of moderates and dominated largely by clergymen of the Church of England, the voluntary schools would be much better off than if they were under local councils, which in many instances 1205 would give them very short shrift indeed. He believed it was physically impossible for the great county boroughs to take over the work of education. He would give a few instances. Bristol had 59,000 elementary school children, 221 elementary school departments, 1,640 teachers and an expenditure by the School Board alone of £150,000. That would be increased to £250,000 or £300,000 if the voluntary schools were taken over and the present work of the Bristol Town Council would be at least doubled. Hon. Gentlemen opposite often charged his hon. friends with megalomania, but he should like to know who were ready the megalomaniacs. Shefield had 66,000 elementary school children, 226 schools departments, 1,700 teachers, and the School Board spent roughly £200,000 a year. Leeds had 78,000 elementary school children, 270 school departments, 2,000 school teachers, and the School Board spent £265,000 a year. An addition of from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. would represent the total expenditure if the voluntary schools were added. Birmingham had 86,586 elementary school children, 267 school departments, 2,100 teachers and the School Board expended £250,000 a year. Manchester had 98,348 elementary school children, 343 elementary school departments, 2,560 teachers and the School Board expended £240,000. Liverpool had 116,000 elementary school children, 420 school departments, 3,000 teachers and the School Board spent £252,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman thought that they could safely superadd to the existing municipal work all the great work of elementary education, but it was bound to break clown. He should like to make an appeal on behalf of the great county boroughs. If the City Council and the School Board desired continuance of the ad hoc body for the purpose of education, the Government should agree to give them that option. Under the Bill, if Canterbury were taken out, the county of Kent would have seventeen separate authorities for a smaller number of children than there were in Liverpool. If seventeen authorities were required for a certain number of children in Kent, could one authority be safely trusted with a greater number in Liverpool. The Amendment covered other matters with which he did not associate himself, but he asked the First Lord of the Treasury to permit the local option as to the constitution of the local 1206 authority, which was provided in the Bill of 1896, to be extended at least to the great county boroughs. He was convinced that if they endeavoured to add the work of education to municipal work it would be bound to fail, because it would be physically impossible to carry it out. He thought that the Government would soften the way for the passage of a great many other features of the Bill if they would give the great county boroughs an assurance that the School Boards should be allowed to continue as the education authority if the localities themselves desired it.
(10.42.) MR. HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)said he quite agreed with the arguments of his hon. friend who had just spoken, but the case which he had made out as to the inability of the Councils of county boroughs to carry on elementary education might just as strongly be made out against some of the country districts. He particularly referred to his own county. The County Council of the West Biding of Yorkshire had considered the Bill, and had come to the conclusion that it would be impossible for them to carry it out, and they passed a resolution to that effect. The County Council of the West Biding had had more experience with regard to educational matters than any other County Council, and it was not for lack of interest in education that that Resolution was passed. It was simply because the County Council came to the conclusion that the matter was beyond their power. The hon. Member opposite attempted to speak slightingly of this proposal, but he thought the hon. Member would find that the question of the abolition of the School Boards was not quite such a trivial question as he imagined. The acceptance of the Amendment would not lead to any conclusion, and would not make any difference in the control of the county authority or the Education Department. It would, however, make a great deal of difference to the efficiency of the schools, and more than that, it would make a great deal of difference in the interest which people displayed in the work of the School Board. The comparison was hardly a fair one. The Town and County Councils would have nothing to do with the ad-ministration of the Act; that would be 1207 handed over to a Committee. He emphasised the principle of the School Board, because he desired an opportunity to be given to the people to establish the schools in which they were interested, and it was entirely against the interests of education to remove a body which had done this work, and this work alone, and to put the work into the hands of a body which could not have the direct interest and responsibility which the School Boards had had. The progress of education had been due simply to this principle of having the direct control of the hands of the people, and to place the work in the hands, not of the County Council, but of a Committee, as proposed by the Bill, would do more to damage the efficiency and progress of education than any proposal which had passed through the House of Commons. In the rough-and-tumble of a School Board election many elements of suspicion and supposed injustice were entirely removed, and the Government would do well, before they abolished the School Boards, to consider the fact that where those Boards existed, and had established schools, they had always secured the majority of the people as their friends. The Boards had the confidence of the people, and in taking any steps which would result in their abolition the Government were taking a course which would not only injure education, but do a great deal to damage the interest taken by the people in the control and management of their own affairs.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)stated that the Irish Party would oppose the Amendment because it was directly against the general principle of the measure, to which they had given their support. For his own part, however, he did so with the greatest diffidence as to the ultimate result. In the interests of the Roman Catholic schools he could not concur without grave misgiving in the attitude of the heads of his church in this country when they were parting so lightly from the principle of the cumulative vote. The cumulative vote by which Catholics had secured representation on all the great School Boards of the country, was introduced into the Bill of 1870 for the purpose of giving a voice to small minorities. In parting from that principle they had not, in his judgment, thoroughly appreciated the consequences 1208 which would ensue. The Roman Catholics had always dissociated themselves from any general movement of hostility to the School Boards or to the progress of education. There was nothing inconsistent between doing justice to the denominational, and particularly the Roman Catholic schools and educational progress; and he believed the School Boards—judging from the action of the Manchester and Liverpool School Boards with respect to the Roman Catholic schools—would have treated the denominational schools generously in the matter of rate-aid if their hands had not been tied. The Manchester School Board had recently met the Catholics of that city in the most generous spirit in regard to the evening-continuation schools, and paid over to them out of the rates some thousands of pounds although the schools were completely under denominational control. The Amendment afforded a striking illustration of the great injuries to the cause of education which arose from the tone and temper in which this Bill had been faced from the beginning, and from the failure of leading men on both sides of the controversy to attempt to find some modus vivendi by which the Bill might be considered from the point of view solely of educational efficiency, the religious difficulty being eliminated. From the point of view of educational efficiency, he believed the Amendment was a good one and if the religious difficulty could be eliminated and the power of continued existence for the denominational schools secured the proposal would be generally acceptable. But the Amendment would not be considered from the point of view of educational efficiency. The majority who would defeat in the division lobbies entertained the belief that it was necessary, in the interest of the continued existence of the denominational schools that it should be rejected. If hon. Members could assemble around a table and come to some understanding with respect to the levelling up of the denominational schools, it would be possible to consider the Bill from the point of view of education alone. But, as that had not been done he felt coerced to vote against the Amendment because it struck at the vital principle of the Bill, which must be carried if the denominational schools were not to be crushed out of existence. Once more he pleaded for 1209 some understanding by which justice might be done to the denominational schools and the children who, on con scientious principles, were bound to use those schools, and at the same time, the interests of education preserved.
§ (10.55) MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Member for East Mayo has made, not for the first time, an appeal to those who sit on that side of the House to assist him in preserving denominational schools. The hon. Member must be perfectly well aware by this time that any such appeal is made to deaf ears. The only difficulty, absolutely the only difficulty, in my view, which prevents a common agreement being come to between the two sides of the House as to the merits of this Bill, as to the advantages of the authority we propose to institute, and as to the general advantages of education which this Bill proposes, is the difficulty which arises with regard to those schools which are described as denominational schools. Such appeals as those of the bon. Gentleman are necessarily, from the nature of the case, entirely vain, and I do not think he need expend his eloquence, which has been great on this subject, in endeavouring to soften the hearts of those who are opposed to him. If I turn to the Amendment itself, I need hardly tell the Committee that I have no quarrel with the School Boards of this country. [Opposition laughter.] Well, my observations have been many on educational questions on this Bill and on previous Bills, and I think they will bear out my statement. Some of the School Boards, no doubt, are from various causes inefficient; others are extremely efficient. But what does the Amendment ask us to do? It asks us to divide the country educationally into two entirely different spheres, governed by entirely different principles. It asks us to abolish School Boards in all the counties, in all the small boroughs, and to preserve School Boards in all the borough and urban districts above a certain limit of population. That is to ask us to have two entirely different systems of education, based upon different principles, and we have a right to inquire what are the motives which demand this fissure, this great chasm, to be dug, between two halves of our national educational system.
1210 The first reason I have noticed is that mentioned by my hon. friend opposite, the Member for Rossendale, and also by other Members, that if we would accept this Amendment, there would be a general agreement on both sides of the House as to the rest of the Bill, or, at all events, that all heated controversy would be removed. That is the olive branch we are asked to accept. Is there the slightest grounds for expecting any such happy results from the acceptance of this Amendment, or any Amendment like it? The essential basis of all the bitter opposition to this Bill lies in the fact that we propose under it to give assistance to the voluntary schools out of the rates. [Opposition cries of "Without control."] The subject of control will come on later, and it has nothing whatever to do with this Amendment. This Amendment does not touch the question of giving assistance to voluntary schools out of the rates. In the first place, it leaves the counties exactly as the Bill proposes to leave them. In every county area under the Bill, if the Amendment were carried, voluntary schools would be supported out of the rates. Are there the elements of that eirenicon which has been promised by several speakers in the debate in any such system? But even confining our attention to those boroughs which would be affected by this Bill, is there in those boroughs any evidence of a peaceful settlement of this denominational question? As I understand the Amendment, it would require the School Board to support voluntary schools in the same way that the county authorities support them. What element of an eirenicon is there in that? What promise is there of peace over this wretched denominational question in a proposal like that? If it is a matter of conscience with Nonconformists, as we have been told it is, though I find a difficulty in believing it, to reject any Bill which supports denominational teaching out of the rates, how is that cured by an Amendment which leaves the rates liable for the support of voluntary schools, as this Amendment would do, in every county district under a county authority, and in every urban district under 20,000 under a borough 1211 authority? I think I may put that argument on one side.
What is the second argument? That the councils of the boroughs are incapable of supporting this strain of additional work. That may be a good or a bad argument, but it is an argument which applies to county authorities quite as much as to borough authorities. If it is a reason for supporting this Amendment, it is a reason for rejecting the whole Bill. But on the merits of the Amendment itself, may I point out that at least two important boroughs had actually applied for Parliamentary powers to exercise the powers conferred by this Bill before this Bill came into existence. The boroughs of Nottingham and Warrington asked for these very powers over elementary education before this question came up as a political question; and are the town councils of those boroughs incapable of estimating the labours which they wished to undertake? I could quote the case of boroughs who have desired to accept the powers since the Bill was introduced; but the case of these two boroughs is much stronger. I am told that there is no difficulty in producing harmony between the School Board and the borough council; but that is not the Amendment that we are considering. It is an Amendment which would not leave in the possession of the Town Councils any powers which could come into rivalry with those of the School Boards. The hon. Member argues in favour of a plan which would leave the Town Councils of Manchester or Liverpool in possession of all authority in regard to technical and secondary education and leave the School Boards in possession of primary education. I will not argue that point now, but I do not think that is a practical plan; and, moreover, it is not the plan of the Amendment which is to take away all the powers of the borough councils and give them to the School Boards. Is that practical politics? Here you have these great municipalities entrusted with great powers and responsibilities. They have exercised the powers admirably, and have borne the responsibilities with great credit. Yet it is proposed that we should take from such towns 1212 as Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Bristol, and all other great cities the powers they have exercised under the Act of 1889 and hand them over to the School Boards. Before anyone suggests such a transference of power from a body which exists, and must continue to exist, whatever you may do, he should consider whether there is in the School Board after all any peculiar virtue by reason of its mode of election or otherwise which would render it the proper recipient of the privileges and powers now possessed by the town council. After all, although the system of minority representation has some merits, I do not think that the great majority of this House would think it the proper way of electing a great representative body. Are we really to transfer from a body elected by the ordinary direct representation, with which we are familiar in this House, powers which they now possess and exercise admirably to another body elected not by ordinary election, but by the highly elaborate and not always successful methods of election which prevail in regard to our existing educational authority? Everybody knows that the man who is elected to the School Board is elected on a ticket. He is not necessarily elected for educational merit. It is all a question of elaborate pre-arrangement. Can it be that, after all our experience, the hon. Member prefers this system of minority representation to the ordinary principle of electing a municipal authority? Under these circumstances, what is to be said of the proposal before us? It does not get over the denominational difficulty. It does not conduce to educational progress and it, does not solve the educational problem. It does not leave the status quo in the great boroughs. What it does is to take away from the Town Councils in the great boroughs—Town Councils elected by the ordinary method of election which we all approve, powers which they themselves have invariably exercised with advantage to the community—and to hand over all the educational powers of the Town Councils and the existing powers of the School Boards, plus the obligation of supporting voluntary schools, to a body which you may call a School Board if you will, but which is not the original 1213 School Board founded by the Act of 1870, or anything like it—which has not its powers, which has not its duties, which has not its responsibilities, but which has nothing in common with that School Board but that imperfect and, I think, pernicious method of election which, I believe, everybody would desire to abolish, even those who most wish that the School Board system should be maintained. I venture to say that an Amendment against which all that can be said is not an Amendment which the House ought to accept.
§ (11.20.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the right hon. Gentleman stated that he found it very difficult to believe in the sincerity of intelligent Nonconformists——
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI did not say that. I never doubted that sincerity.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought he was in the recollection of the House——
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI never suggested want of sincerity on the part of Nonconformists.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked to be allowed to finish his sentence.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI beg the hon. Member's pardon.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that, according to his recollection, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was difficult to believe that the Nonconformists had conscientious objections in the matter to which he was referring; and what he wanted to say was that, when the next appeal came to be made to the country, he would find that that difficulty would be removed. It would be much easier for him to believe it after that. In fact, there would be a good many electoral foundations of his new belief supplied for him on that occasion. When the right hon. Gentleman gave his reasons for doing away with the School Board, he said Parliament had entrusted corporate bodies with great powers, and they having exercised those Powers well, why should Parliament take them away? For the moment he 1214 thought the right hon. Gentleman was arguing in favour of the continuation of School Boards, for Parliament had created bodies for specific educational purposes. They had discharged those functions well. They had been entrusted with much more important functions than town councils. They had exercised them for a longer period. Why should Parliament now be asked to deprive School Boards of these powers when, according to everybody, they had discharged them so well? The right hon. Gentleman said he had no quarrel with School Boards. When life was destroyed without provocation, the law had a certain word for it. That was what was done in this case. The right hon. Gentleman had no quarrel with their work, and yet he was going to abolish them. He did not think the question of subsidising voluntary schools was necessarily involved in this Amendment, which would not destroy the principle of the Bill if it were adopted. The Amendment only proposed that in boroughs of a certain size, instead of the urban council, the School Board should do the work. In this case the Roman Catholics would have a much better chance of being represented upon a School Board than upon the Town Council, and that surely ought to be a reason for his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo supporting this Amendment. If they did not carry this Amendment, they would not have a single Roman Catholic represented on Town Councils, which would be the paymasters of the Roman Catholic schools, whilst if they carried this proposal, the Roman Catholic priest would be on the School Board. He really thought that the Member for East Mayo had carried his zeal for denominational schools rather too far in this respect. The only difference he could see was that both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for East Mayo wanted to destroy the School Boards. Never was an important proposal made with such little foundation as that. It was a great misfortune that there could not be an agreement between Members on both sides of the House who simply desired educational efficiency. He did not think there would be any difficulty if it were merely a question of 1215 meeting the wishes of those who desired to train their children in their own faith. In Holland the Catholics and Protestants had come to an agreement whereby they obtained the denominational teaching they required without a denominational school system. In Holland they had a public school system under public control, and if his hon. friend sincerely desired that the children of his own faith should get the best possible education from their own selected teachers, he ought not to buttress up a system of this kind but support a system which existed in Holland.
The hon. Member for North-West Ham objected to this Amendment because he was in favour of the rating authority and the spending authority being identical; and he was also opposed to it because he was in favour of one authority. He (Mr. Lloyd-George) was under the impression that this Bill carried out both these principles. Before the hon. Member undertook to lecture his hon. friend the Member for Rossendale, he might really have read the Bill. If he had read only the very clause which they were now discussing, he would have seen that his criticisms were irrelevant. There were three authorities provided for in this clause, and as for the rating authority being the same, that might be a good principle, but it was one which this Bill had nothing whatever to do with. He would call the County Council the rating authority. The spending authority was the Statutory Committee, the precepts of which the County Council was bound to honour. That Statutory Committee was exactly in the same position as the School Board. If hon. Members would refer to Clause 6 they would see that it was provided that—
The local education authority shall, throughout their area, have the powers and duties of a School Board and School Attendance Committee under the elementary educational acts.'The hon. Member opposite said, that when the ratepayers complained at elections for the councils that the rates were high, the candidates replied, "Yes, it is the fault of the spendthrift School Board, for which we are not responsible 1216 at all." Under this Bill the same thing could be said by candidates at the County Council election, for they would be able to say that they were not responsible for the expenditure of the local education authority.
§ MR. GRAYpointed out that the Education Committee was created by the Council and formed under a scheme initiated by the Council, and necessarily could be removed by it. At the present time the School Boards were totally independent of the Council and were of equal standing and therefore the suggestion of the hon. Member was absurd.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he must again complain that the hon. Member had not read the Bill, which contained nothing that would make the local education authority responsible to the County Council.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that at any rate School Boards were responsible to the same body of ratepayers, but this new authority would not be responsible directly to the ratepayers. The hon. Member for North-West Ham wanted the rating authority and the spending authority to be identical, and he quoted the case of Preston. But who were the spending authorities in Preston? Every school in Preston was a voluntary school, and the spending authority would be, not the County Council, but the managers of these schools.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked who they were responsible to. The hon. Member opposite had talked about the rating and the spending authority being the same, but in every crucial part of this Bill they would find the rating and the spending authority absolutely different. If that was the object which the hon. Member for North-West Ham had in view, then he ought to support an Amendment of this kind.
§ MR. GRAYsaid the managers of the voluntary schools were not spending 1217 authorities under this Bill. It was quite possible that even the salaries of the teachers would be paid direct.
* THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! The hon. Member is entitled to make a personal explanation, but he is not entitled to enter into a long argument.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon, Member had not impaired his argument in the least. If the Bill were carried, the spending authority in Preston would not be the rating authority. The hon. Member opposed an Amendment which would continue the existence of the School Boards that had done efficient work, while in the case of the managers of voluntary schools, who in hundreds of cases had not managed schools well, he would not only continue their authority, but would give them further power and subsidies. The hon. Member for North-West Ham was an educational expert who appealed to them to throw aside partisanship in this way. That was a fair illustration of the impartiality with which the hon. Member had examined this Bill. The First Lord of the Treasury said something with regard to the personnel of School Boards, and he asserted that the members of School Boards were not elected as a rule because they were educational experts, Here the right hon. Gentleman did not agree with the Vice President of the Council, although there was not so much to be surprised at in that. The First Lord of the Treasury said they were selected, not because they knew anything of education, but for other reasons.
§ SIR JOHN GORSTWhen?
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEHe said it in 1896. That was some time ago, and a good deal had happened since then, this Bill being amongst the things which had happened. The Vice President said then that the Act of 1870 had worked in the most satisfactory manner—that was with reference to the School Board in the boroughs—and that the members of the Boards had been generally elected from those who were sincerely desirous of promoting education, and that they had established thoroughly efficient schools. Was the right hon. Gentleman still of the same opinion?
§ SIR JOHN GORSTNo.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was glad to see this unwonted exhibition of loyalty on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, but he was rather curious to know what had changed his opinion.
§ SIR JOHN GORSTI have learnt a good deal since 1896.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had discovered that any of the School Boards did their work less efficiently. If he had, would he point to a single Report of a Government official to show that they were not doing their work efficiently?
§ SIR JOHN GORSTThe hon. Member read out a statement of mine to the effect that they were elected for educational purposes. I was innocent in 1896, but, naturally, since then I have learnt a good deal more about School Board elections.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the right hon. Gentleman wished them to believe that he was innocent in 1896. Well, at any rate, he had not soiled his conscience with a Bill of this sort then. The right hon. Gentleman was really no advocate of these principles in 1896. He had a totally different scheme, and he had never given it up. He was not a wholehearted supporter of the present scheme. The Vice President said the School Boards did their work efficiently, and at the same time he supported a Bill to continue in existence and to buttress up a system which he himself admitted was a great failure.
§ (11.38.) MR. BRYCEsaid that he wished to state the reasons why he and some of his friends felt bound to support this Amendment. He admitted that the Amendment was not drawn in the form in which he should have liked best to vote for it, but it raised a question which was very material, and they must take this opportunity of expressing their opinion on that question. When his hon. friend was moving the Amendment he stated that he would be perfectly willing to accept any Amendment which would make it apply only to elementary education and would not make the 1219 School Boards authorities for secondary education. The fallacy of the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury was the idea that the only difference between the two sides of the House related to the aid to denominational schools. Surely he must know that the objections to the Bill covered a very large number of other points, such as the provisions about authorities, the extinction of the School Boards, and the conditions attaching to the aid given to the voluntary schools. If the Government had spared the School Boards, they would have very much facilitated the progress of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said he objected to the School Boards because they were elected by the cumulative vote, but the objections to that system of voting had come in the past from the Opposition, and its defence from the other side. If they had known that the right hon. Gentleman was opposed to the cumulative vote, he thought they would long ago have taken his powerful aid in getting rid of it. The right hon. Gentleman said he was no enemy of School Boards, but in a speech at St. Helen's in 1895 he spoke of the people there being "threatened" with a School Board, and expressed a hope that they would not get one. He added that if they returned to power an Education Minister with the opinions of Mr. Acland they would surely see one district after another forced, whether they liked it or not, under the educational dominion of School Boards, with all the attendant costs. The right hon. Gentleman went on to oppose School Boards for imposing costs on the district, not knowing that he
§ was going to bring in a Bill which would impose all the cost on districts which he then deprecated. That language could hardly be described as friendly to School Boards. The only reason which the hon. Gentleman, the Vice President, gave why the powers of School Boards should be transferred to the Borough Councils was that there should be only one rating authority in a borough. What, then, became of the rating powers under the poor law, and why had it been left to the year 1902 to discover that it was improper to have two rating bodies? The School Boards were required to go every three years to the electors for a fresh mandate, and if they had rated them too highly the electors could have expressed their disapproval. But they had never done so, and if the right hon. Gentleman said the powers of the School Boards must be transferred because they had made the rates too high, he must mean that the expenditure on education must be cut down, and that he was sure was not the wish of the House. He had only further to express his regret that the Government had met this Amendment in so unconciliatory a spirit and to assure the House that it was from no feeling against the other provisions of the Bill, but solely because they regarded School Boards as popular and efficient bodies, that they now proposed this Amendment.
§ (11.48.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 117; Noes, 291. (Division List No. 192.)
1223| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Causton, Richard Knight | Furness, Sir Christopher |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Cawley, Frederick | Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John |
| Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud | Channing, Francis Allsten | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Asher, Alexander | Craig, Robert Hunter | Grant, Corrie |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Cremer, William Randal | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Harmsworth, R. Leicester |
| Bell, Richard | Duncan, J. Hastings | Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- |
| Black, Alexander William | Edwards, Frank | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Elibank, Master of | Helme, Nerval Watson |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Ellis, John Edward | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E. |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh | Emmott, Alfred | Holland, William Henry |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone | Horniman, Frederick John |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) |
| Caine, William Sproston | Fenwick, Charles | Kitson, Sir James |
| Caldwell, James | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Labouchere, Henry |
| Cameron, Robert | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Langley, Batty |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Fuller, J. M. F. | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington |
| Leng, Sir John | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | Toulmin, George |
| Levy, Maurice | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Robson, William Snowdon | Ure, Alexander |
| Lough, Thomas | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wallace, Robert |
| M'Arthur, William (Cornwall | Runciman, Walter | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| M'Crae, George | Russell, T. W. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| M'Kenna, Reginald | Schwann, Charles E. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Mather, William | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose | Soares, Ernest J. | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Moulton, John Fletcher | Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth |
| Norman, Henry | Stevenson, Francis S. | Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R. |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Taylor, Theodore Cooke | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Partington, Oswald | Tennant, Harold John | Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | |
| Perks, Robert William | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E. | |
| Price, Robert John | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Rea, Russell | Thomas, J A (Gl'morgan, Gower | Mr. Joseph A. Pease and |
| Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) | Mr. Lambert. |
| Rickett, J. Compton | Tomkinson, James | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Gordon, Hon J E (Elgin & Nairn |
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'ml'ts |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Gore, Hn G R C Ormsby- (Salop |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon |
| Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden | Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim |
| Ambrose, Robert | Compton, Lord Alwyne | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Green, Walford D (Wednesbury |
| Arrol, Sir William | Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge | Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Cranborne, Viscount | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Crean, Eugene | Grenfell, William Henry |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Gretton, John |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r | Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Greville, Hon. Ronald |
| Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.) | Davenport, William Bromley- | Hain, Edward |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham | Hall, Edward Marshall |
| Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks | Delany, William | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. |
| Beresford, Lord Chas. William | Denny, Colonel | Hambro, Charles Eric |
| Bignold, Arthur | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld G (Midd'x |
| Bigwood, James | Dillon, John | Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry |
| Bill, Charles | Donelan, Captain A. | Hammond, John |
| Blake, Edward | Dorington, Sir John Edward | Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Douglas Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd |
| Boland, John | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Hare, Thomas Leigh |
| Bond, Edward | Duke, Henry Edward | Harris, Frederick Leverton |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. |
| Brassey, Albert | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Henderson, Alexander |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W. | Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter |
| Brookfieid, Colonel Montagu | Faber, George Denison (York) | Hoare, Sir Samuel |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Fardell, Sir T. George | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E |
| Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Hogg, Lindsay |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Ffrench, Peter | Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside |
| Bull, William James | Finch, George H. | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry |
| Butcher, John George | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Hoult, Joseph |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Firbank Joseph Thomas | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham |
| Carew, James Lawrence | Fisher, William Hayes | Hudson, George Bickersteth |
| Carlile, William Walter | Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon | Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Flynn, James Christopher | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Forster, Henry William | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. | Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W | Johnston, William (Belfast) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Galloway, William Johnson | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Gardner, Ernest | Joyce, Michael |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. | Garfit, William | Kennedy, Patrick James |
| Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r | Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh |
| Chapman, Edward | Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop |
| Charrington, Spencer | Gilhooly, James | Keswick, William |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Kimber, Henry |
| Knowles, Lees | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow | Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Lawson, John Grant | Myers, William Henry | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Leamy, Edmund | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside |
| Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham | Newdigate, Francis Alexander | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. |
| Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Nicholson, William Graham | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Stsand) |
| Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Spear, John Ward |
| Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk |
| Llewellyn, Evan Henry | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid | Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset |
| Loder, General Walter Erskine | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Stock, James Henry |
| Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale | O'Malley, William | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Sullivan, Donal |
| Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft | Parker, Gilbert | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Parkes, Ebenezer | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ |
| Lundon, W. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellesley | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Macartney, Rt Hn W G Ellison | Penn, John | Tufuell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Macdona, John Cumming | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Plummer, Walter R. | Valentia, Viscount |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffield |
| Maconochie, A. W. | Power, Patrick Joseph | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Pretyman, Ernest George | Webb, Colonel William George |
| M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Welby, Lt-Col A C E (Taunton |
| M'Govern, T. | Purvis, Robert | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts |
| M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Randles, John S. | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W | Rankin, Sir James | Whiteley, H (Ashtonund. Lyne |
| M'Kean, John | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Majendie, James A. H. | Redmond, William (Clare) | Wills, Sir Frederick |
| Manners Lord Cecil | Reid, James (Greenock) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R. |
| Martin, Richard Biddulph | Remnant, James Farquharson | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. | Renwick, George | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks) |
| Melville, Beresford Valentine | Richards, Henry Charles | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E R. (Bath |
| Middlemore, John Throgmort'n | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Milvain, Thomas | Robinson, Brooke | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye | Younger, William |
| Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Ropner, Colonel Robert | |
| More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire | Round, James | |
| Morgan, David J. (Walthamsto' | Rutherford, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Morgan, Hn Fred (Monm'thsh. | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Sir William Walrond and |
| Morrell, George Herbert | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Mr. Anstruther. |
| Morrison, James Archibald | Sasscon, Sir Edward Albert |
§ It being after midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.