EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.

HC Deb 23 June 1902 vol 109 cc1409-62

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

in the Chair.

(3.40.) SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN (Stirling Burghs)

I do not think it will be a matter of surprise to the House at large, or to the right hon. Gentleman himself, if I rise to move that you do report progress, and to ask leave to sit again. The changes which the right hon. Gentleman proposes constitute in their most important aspects a new Bill. We are not aware of any inside or outside circumstances, either internal in the Bill itself, or external to it, which has occasioned this change of policy. The right hon. Gentleman said there were certain financial circum stances which were favourable. I suppose that may be taken to have reference to the corn tax. But, at all events, we have got tin's fact, that the Government, having had seven years to elaborate a great national scheme of education, with great deliberation, and no doubt, after ample consideration, have brought forward a Bill based on the one principle of a universal rate for elementary education. Now, at this early stage of the proceedings, they have changed their ground, and they are imposing a great portion of the expenditure as a charge upon the general taxpayer. My right hon. friend at once pointed out one little fact which affects this alteration. There is the Scotch and the Irish taxpayer, who are as much concerned as the English taxpayer; therefore this presages that before the end of the year, I suppose, there may be some new Education Bill which may effect fundamental changes in a system which, so far as I am aware, works very well as it is in Scotland. It may also presage the same thing in Ireland. And we have always to bear this in mind, that every change in the taxes involves a heavier burden proportionately on the poorer classes, on the lowest and most suffering clashes. There are these considerations to be taken into account, and then we have the further point, within the Bill itself, of the great difference in the way in which elementary and secondary education are treated. There are a great many of us who are of opinion that if this large sum of money is to be given for education out of the taxes, a great deal of it ought to go to secondary rather than to elementary education. We are now on Clause 2, the clause dealing with secondary education—dealing with the permissive powers given to the educational authority with regard to secondary and higher education—and I think we ought to have an opportunity of considering how far the very Clause we are now on, as well as other parts of the Bill, are affected by the changes the right hon. Gentleman has instituted. I am aware that it would not be in order now to discuss the merits of these changes, but I think I have said enough to show that we are not unreasonable in asking you to report progress, with leave to sit again, in order that we may have an opportunity of reconsidering the question. I am not without the hope that the right hon. Gentleman himself—I have stated at the beginning of my remarks that he would not be surprised at my action—I am not without the hope that the right hon. Gentleman has anticipated a Motion of this kind, because I observed, although he excluded the Licensing Bill from the Paper of the night, in an answer to a Question he said he did not know what accidents might not occur to interrupt the ordinary course of business. I am sorry to be the creator of accidents, but I think there is reason for asking you to report progress and to ask leave to sit again.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman did more than justice to my powers of anticipation when he suggested that I looked forward to the; Motion, the dilatory Motion, which he has just moved. I confess I am utterly unable to understand, after listening attentively to the right hon. Gentleman, what the grounds for this Motion; are. We are now on Clause 2 of the Bill. Clause 2 deals with secondary education; the change I announced, whether it is good or bad as a matter of policy, deals with primary education. The only relation it can have to secondary education is this, that if you increase the resources of the education authority, it is possible for the authority to conduct both secondary and primary education on easier terms, and pro tanto lighten the burden of that authority and increase its readiness to deal with the problem of secondary education. Is that a reason to be alleged for not going on with the clause dealing with secondary education? Because under that clause secondary education is rendered less onerous to the counties, is that a reason for not discussing it? In no other way is it related to it, and in no other way does it touch secondary education, and I am utterly at a loss to understand why the right hon. Gentleman is unable to discuss a clause relating to secondary education, because he has not had time to discuss a primary education proposal. I think it is much to be regretted the right hon. Gentleman has taken this course. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman and the Party for whom he is responsible do not desire to see further aid given from the Exchequer to primary education, and that if further aid is to be given out of the Exchequer it should be given to secondary and not primary education. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman takes that view. I am convinced it is not the view taken by the country generally, and it is certainly not the view taken by many distinguished Gentlemen on his own side of the House, who, in a deputation which waited upon me the other day, begged that we should do something out of the Exchequer in aid of primary education. Under these circumstances I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press his Motion any further, but that we shall be allowed to proceed amicably and peaceably with the discussion of the policy with regard to secondary education which Clause 2 involves.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I do not think anybody will object to proceeding with the discussion amicably and peacably either today or on any other day, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has entirely misapprehended what my right hon. friend said. He did not say that he objected to assistance being given out of the Exchequer to elementary education. I do not know why this particular sum of nearly £1,000,000 was stated, unless it be that it corresponds very nearly with the amount of the voluntary subscriptions. ["No."] £800,000, I think, is the amount of the voluntary subscriptions, and the charge on the Exchequer is as nearly as possible the same amount. If that sum is to be given from the Exchequer, what my right hon. friend said was that he thought it ought to be considered, in relation to Clause 2, whether a portion, at least, ought not to be given to secondary education. That is the proposition he stated, and it clearly does relate to Clause 2. It seems to me to be an extraordinary thing, if the Government by accident is able to spare this large, sum, that secondary education should not share in the benefit as well as primary. That is really the proposition stated by my right hon. friend, and not that which the right hon. Gentleman seems to have understood.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)

asked whose fault it was that the present Motion—described by the Leader of the House as a dilatory Motion—had had to be made? The Bill had now been under discussion for a considerable time, and over and over again the right hon. Gentleman had been pressed to state what his financial proposals wore.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

pointed out that for the last two weeks the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been engaged in the heavy work connected with the Budget, and that it had been impossible to make the statement earlier.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said he was not blaming the right hon. Gentleman; he was simply trying, in a humble way, to justify the Motion before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had been enabled to make his proposal by circumstances which were beyond his control, but that was no reason why the Committee should not have an opportunity to consider the Bill with the alterations now proposed. The truth of the matter was that those proposals made it an entirely different Bill. Certain schools would be supported practically entirely out of the Exchequer. ["No."] At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that three-fourths of the total expense of education—not merely the maintenance—might in some schools come out of the Exchequer. That was a proposal which, on the Second Heading of the Bill, did not have the assent of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had asked why this particular sum had been fixed upon. The Committee were entitled to have placed on the Table the estimate of the Government, showing, in regard to each local education authority, how the money would be divided. The Motion of his right hon. friend was thoroughly justified, and the Leader of the House would be well-advised to assent to it, because, otherwise, in the discussion, not only of Clause 2, but of all the remaining portions of the Bill, he would be hampered by questions, which could not at present be answered, upon points which would perhaps be cleared up if an opportunity were given to Members to consider the figures concerned and to form their own judgments on the matter.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N)

thought it was very unfortunate that they should have a complete change in the Bill at the present time. The question of secondary education formed a very important part of the Bill, and it was seriously affected by the large additional grant now to be made. The proposal raised an entirely new point, and it was not unreasonable that a little time should be allowed for its consideration. The change affected the ramifications of the entire subject, and could not be considered as touching only elementary education. It raised the question of whether they were to do more and more out of public funds for secondary education, to the relief of people who could afford to pay for it themselves. In the present spirit of the House he did not think much progress would be made by forcing on the discussion; much better results would follow if the further consideration of the subject were postponed for a day and the Licensing Bill proceeded with.

MR. BRYCE

The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to apprehend the ground on which we think this proposal is relevant to Clause 2. In the first place, there are many of us who think that the National Treasury ought to do something for secondary education. Our view is confirmed by the fact that the Government proposes to give this large additional grant to elementary education. We desire to see a part of that grant applied to secondary education, and to put down Amendments to that effect. We cannot put down those Amendments until we see the right hon. Gentleman's proposal on the Paper, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman ought to give us a day during which Amendments could be handed in, raising that very material question.

Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

It is not relevant to Clause 2.

MR. BRYCE

Oh, yes. If this new grant is to be made we should like to put down an Amendment giving power to the local authority to apply a part of it to secondary education.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is a new clause.

Mr. BRYCE

It would be relevant to this clause, because the question is as to what the rating powers are to be. The right hon. Gentleman can hardly remember what this Clause is. The clause gives power to the local authorities to impose a rate not exceeding 2d. There are some Members, such as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, who desire that limit to be reduced to 1d., while, on the other hand, there are others who wish the limit to be raised to 3d. or 4d., or even removed altogether. Surely nothing can be more relevant to the question of what the rating power of the authorities shall be than the consideration of whether they are to be able to apply any part of this proposed new grant to secondary education, or whether words should be inserted in the clause providing that aid from the Exchequer should be given to secondary education. These are both questions which necessarily arise upon this clause, upon which we desire to put down Amendments, and which cannot be properly discussed or adequately-understood unless we see not only the Government proposal on the Paper, but also how it will work out with regard to various localities. This is a most complex question, and it is exceedingly difficult at the first blush to see what will be the result of the plan over the various areas. Therefore, I submit that we have a very strong case for requesting such a postponement as will enable the matter to be fully considered and proper Amendments to be placed on the Paper.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

confessed that he was one of those who would be glad of an opportunity of seeing upon the Paper the proposals which had been made, because, owing to conversations around him or defective hearing, he had not been able to follow as clearly as he could wish the statement of his right hon. friend. One of his principal objects in taking part in the discussion would be, as it had been, to prevent the imposition of fresh burdens upon the rates, especially in particular districts. He agreed with the previous speaker that in the clause they were now being called upon to discuss there was the possibility of very large additions to the rates, and it was true that, with the purpose of raising the whole question, he had placed Amendments on the Paper, the objects of which he would be prepared to explain at the proper time. He might still desire to move the Amendment to which reference had been made, but he could not settle that point until he knew precisely what were the proposals of the Government and how the clause would be affected by them. As far as he was able to follow the statement of his right hon. friend, he believed a great change had been made in the Bill—a change in a direction of which he entirely approved, so far as it went, himself, but the Committee were entitled to an opportunity of seeing the proposals in print and fully considering, them.

(4.0.) MR. DILLON

said the First Lord of the Treasury, with his large experience of the House, could not fail to have anticipated this Motion. Was there ever a case in which a great radical change was announced, involving the introduction of a totally new principle—

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

What is the new principle?

Mr. DILLON

said the new principle was the subvention from the Imperial Exchequer. The result of the course which the right hon. Gentleman had taken for making this announcement would be that he would have two discussions instead of one. It appeared to him to be as clear as daylight that these new proposals were pertinent to the question whether Clause 2 should be postponed or not. The whole question would be discussed on Clause 2 of the Bill as to whether there should be a subvention to secondary education from the Exchequer, and how on earth could that be discussed without this large grant to primary education? He would conclude by emphasising what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen that the claims of Ireland and Scotland for an equivalent grant must be fairly considered.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said he hoped the Government would stand firm on this matter. What the country was looking for was that the House should get on with its business.

MR. MATHER

said hon. Members on the Opposition side thought it would increase the progress of the Bill if the right hon. Gentleman would give them an opportunity of discussing amongst themselves the effect of the proposition which he had made to-day. Secondary education could hardly be dissociated from primary education, and as many of the Amendments on Clause 2 had to deal with the financial system which was to support secondary education, it was important that they should discuss those Amendments in the full light of the effect which this large grant from the Exchequer would have upon primary and secondary education.

SIR W. HART DYKE

said that neither of the proposals which had been announced by the First Lord of the Treasury was a new one at all. His right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen said it might be possible at a later stage for a proposal to be made to take a large slice of this money and apply it to secondary instead of to purely elementary education, but in his opinion it was absurd to argue, from that fact, that they should consent to postpone discussion upon the Bill. The proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury abolished the former grants, but as regarded the new grants there was no new principle involved.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

said he did not think the First Lord of the Treasury could carry his recollection back to the time when a change like the present one was announced to the House, affecting the whole position of the measure, without progress being reported, in order to obtain time for the consideration of the proposed alteration. Every constituency desired to have the Papers in front of them, in order that they might see how this change would affect them and their revenue. The number of letters he bad received on the general merits of the Bill was nothing like the number he had received recently as to how constituencies were to be rated, and what for. There was an enormous desire in the North of England for further technical education, and many County Councils were now using the whole of the whisky money for that purpose. Adverse decisions in courts of law had, however, very much affected technical and evening education. Now a great change of front had been announced, and no time was to be allowed in order to ascertain the views of the constituencies. In this matter he I thought the usual course ought to be followed, and hon. Members ought to be given the opportunity of taking a quiet look at these proposals.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

urged the Committee to come to a decision upon this matter. He did not think that hon. Members opposite were treating the Government quite fairly. If he was always to be met by the argument that he was proposing something which would make a vital change in the Bill, and that they must be allowed to go home and contemplate it in the quietude of their own chamber, they would never make any progress, and it was not a very convenient way of dealing with the business. He asked the Committee to allow them to proceed at once with the Bill.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

said that a a good many people in the country desired to consider the information which had just been given to them across the Table of the House. It was the easiest, quickest, and the best method to adopt, when a great change or a little change was announced, to report progress.

(4.15.) MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said the proposal which had been made introduced into the Bill an element which did in some measure, or at all events might, modify Clause 2 He agreed with those hon. Gentlemen who desired fuller information with regard to the absolute effect of the new proposals. He thought it might affect the discussion on Clause 2. In that clause there was a proposal that there should be a rate of 2d., but after this addition of£900,000, a Member might see a reason for limiting the rate to Id. He pointed out that it would be absolutely necessary to have a full discussion of the new proposal to grant £900,000, in all its effects and working, and that discussion should be taken in the form of a Money Committee. There must be a Money Committee for granting that amount or no new grant could be taken He submitted that that would be the proper occasion for discussing the change made by the new proposals of the Government. He could not agree that it made the Bill a new Bill. It certainly proposed to import a new contribution from the Exchequer for education, and so far as it went, it was a relief of the rating part of the Bill rather than a further burden; but the discussion of that should take place when Members had on the Paper before them the absolute proposals of the Government which had been stated verbally this afternoon. What they were now discussing would be more appropriately discussed when the Committee came to consider the Motion of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet had given notice, namely, that Clause 2 be postponed. He suggested to the Leader of the Opposition the propriety of withdrawing his Motion.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he was glad personally that the Government had decided to throw a larger proportion of the cost on the Imperial Exchequer. He thought the Government had been rather badly treated by one or two of their own friends. When it was proposed to throw the coston the rates, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford was seized with a sudden attack of agricultural depression, but now that it was proposed to give a larger Imperial grant, he did not seem to be satisfied with that. He wished to press upon the First Lord the question he put to him just now, and which, he thought, was very germane to the discussion on Clause 2. That clause provided that the local authorities should have some duties regarding secondary education, and other parts of the Bill provided that they should have obligations regarding elementary education. The Committee could not get from the Government even now whether these elementary education functions were compulsory.

THE CHAIRMAN

That does not arise on the Question now before us.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he wished to ask the First Lord whether the Government had come to any decision on the subject. Clause 2 would be efficient on not according as the local authorities were compelled or left the option to deal with elementary education. He submitted with all respect that that was a question which he might be allowed to urge at this juncture.

MR. M'KENNA

asked whether, before the First Lord of the Treasury introduced his financial proposals by resolution in Committee, any Amendment could be moved by an unofficial Member on Clause 2, to allocate part of the new Exchequer Grant to the purpose of secondary education; and, secondly, whether if the First Lord had introduced his proposals in Committee, any unofficial Member could then move an Amendment, changing the, purpose of the Exchequer Grant from primary to secondary education.

THE CHAIRMAN

The reply to the first question is in the negative, and to the second question in the affirmative.

MR. M'KENNA

May I point out to the First Lord that by the present system of proceeding he does not allow us to move such Amendments on the second clause as we should have been able to move had he introduced his present proposals originally in the Bill?

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

said his hon. friend had by means of these questions elicited answers which gave a strong case in favour of the Motion to report progress. Supposing it were proposed by Amendment to place secondary education on the same basis as under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act which provided that there was to be an equivalent grant for the I rate voted by the County Council, according to the answer which had just been given by the Chairman it would be impossible to change the Bill on those lines. That was very seriously to handicap the House of Commons in settling the question of secondary education. He would point out to the Committee that when they got to the Report stage they were limited in discussing financial questions altogether. Therefore although the Bill would be complete when they got to the Report stage they would not be allowed to move amendments on purely financial issues, and they would not be allowed to discuss what was far the most important point in regard to secondary education. Secondary education was very largely a matter of finance. Take the case of a School Board district where at present the rate was 1s. in the £1. That district felt that it could give 1s. for education, but, however much the zeal for education might be there, they could not see their way to give more than 1s. owing to the poverty of the district to other circumstances, or to the strength of the economy party. But one result of the proposals of the First Lord of the Treasury would be to reduce the rate in that district from 1s. to 8d. in the £1. Therefore in that district it would be a very fair thing to ask the local education authority whether they would give the balance of 4d. towards secondary education. Was that not a relevant question for consideration when they were discussing whether the rate was to be 2d., 3d., or 4d. They were really discussing the clause when they had in their mind that the argument would be affected by something which was not in the Bill, but which they knew would be introduced into the Bill. He thought the Leader of the House ought not to put the House in that position. They were discussing this question of a grant as if a grant came from nowhere. After all somebody paid this grant. It was part of the financial vice of the Government. When they were considering the question of the coal tax they were told that the Russians would pay; when they were considering the tax on imported corn they were told that the Americans would pay; and now on the question of this grant, It droppeth like the gentle rain from heaven, but after all the same people who paid the grant paid the rates. It was of vital importance that they should have a discussion on the resolution to make the grant first of all. He did not think they should have strongly controversial questions brought before the House this week. He should have thought that in the interest of concord, amity, and good feeling, they should have avoided a controversy which divided the country so actively and which practically amounted to a keen religious war. [AN HON. MEMBER, "No."] But it did. He did not recollect anything which had excited the same measure of bitterness and acrimony in the country. Was it really a tactful thing that a controversy of this kind which aroused the bitterest feelings should be proceeded with in coronation week when they were trying to shake hands and to be good friends with each other? He asked the First Lord whether it would not be better to proceed with the Licensing Bill which, he thought, would be very relevant to coronation week.

(4.25.) MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

said he spoke as one who had joined in the Agricultural Deputation to the First Lord, and welcomed to a certain extent the proposals of the Government because they were very much on the lines of Amendments which he had placed on the paper himself. He thought the discussion on the Bill should be adjourned until they were placed in a position to deal with it. There was to be an allocation of £900,000 for elementary education, but no announcement had been made that an equivalent sum would be allocated to the local authorities to help them in regard to secondary education. That seemed to him to constitute an irresistible reason for not going on with the discussion of this clause at the present time. He suggested to the First Lord of the Treasury that the wisest and fairest way of dealing with the question of assisting secondary education would be to introduce a bill of one clause making a grant of money which would enable them to move Amendments allocating a portion to secondary education. The other alternative was to announce the allocation of a further grant in favour of secondary education.

Mr. SAMUEL EVANS

asked whether after the answers which had been given to his hon. and learned friend the Member for North Monmouthshire, the First Lord of the Treasury meant to pass Clause 2 through Committee without any unofficial Member having an opportunity of proposing Amendments which would encourage the counties in the matter of secondary education. As he understood him, the right hon. Gentleman, when he made his statement, said that a portion of this money was to be devoted to Secondary Education; but now they were in this position that no one except the occupants of the Treasury bench would be able to move any Amendment at all. He would give an illustration. The right hon. Gentleman said he was in favour of secondary education. Now, one way undoubtedly of securing the attention of the local education authorities to secondary education would be to give them a portion of this money. How were the agricultural counties to be encouraged to spend money at all on secondary education when no portion of this money was to be allowed them? If the right hon. Gentleman would propose or accept a reasonable Amendment which said that a portion of the money should be given to secondary education, the backward agricultural county authorities would be thereby encouraged to give something out of the rates towards secondary education. He thought they had a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was in accordance to his view that he should press Clause 2 through Committee without their having an opportunity of moving Amendments. That would not be fair to the Committee. If progress was reported and Clause 2 adjourned, the Committee could devote the sitting to some other useful business.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he did not think the Government could accept the Amendment. He would point out that the Motion to report progress could only be justified, if it could be justified at all, on the ground that the Committee had not had time to consider the financial proposals of the Government. But even if these financial proposals of the Government had been introduced into the Bill originally, they would not have come before, but after, Clause 2—that was to say, on Clause 3, and therefore it would not have been competent to discuss them on Clause 2 at all.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said that it would; the Chairman had ruled it so.

THE CHAIRMAN

said he ought to guard himself by saying that he had not yet had an opportunity of seeing the Reso- lution to be moved in Committee of Ways and Means. Much might depend on the terms of the Motion, but they might be so strict as to prevent any extension of the money from primary to secondary education. But, on the assumption that the proposed financial proposal was to be devoted to education generally, then it would be in the power of the Committee to allocate the money according to its judgment.

MR. M'KENNA

said that a non-official Member was not debarred from moving an Amendment changing the allocation of the money voted in the Resolution, but he could not move an Amendment which would raise public money for another purpose than that mentioned in the Resolution.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said that they all understood that the Resolution was specially and absolutely confined to Part III.—that was, to elementary education—that it had nothing whatever to do with secondary education, and that it would be impossible to make any allocation to secondary education.

THE CHAIRMAN

said he would like to ascertain the exact terms of the Resolution. He understood that the intention of the First Lord of the Treasury was to devote the money to primary education, but he did not understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the terms of the Resolution were going to be so strict as to limit it in the way he had indicated.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the argument he was endeavouring to set before the House was quite independent of the terms of the preliminary Resolution. But suppose they confined it to Part III. it would not have been competent to discuss this question on Clause 2. He was totally unable to see how the Committee was in any way prejudiced by the course the Government proposed—to refuse to report progress at that time. He thought they ought now to proceed with the business.

(4.38.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 251. (Division List, No. 243.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Helme, Norval Watson	Priestley, Arthur
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Rea, Russell
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)	Reckitt, Harold James
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Holland, William Henry	Reddy, M.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Horniman, Frederick John	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Barlow, John Emmott	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Redmond, William (Clare)
Barry, K. (Cork, S.)	Hutton, Alfred R. (Morley)	Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Jacoby, James Alfred	Rickett, J. Compton
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Jones, Day, Brynmor (Swansea	Rigg, Richard
Bell, Richard	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Boland, John	Joyce, Michael	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Broadhurst, Henry	Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Labouchere, Henry	Robson, William Snowdon
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Langley, Batty	Roche, John
Burt, Thomas	Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)	Roe, Sir Thomas
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Runciman, Walter
Caine, William Sproston	Leamy, Edmund	Russell, T. W.
Caldwell, James	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Schwann, Charles E.
Cameron, Robert	Leng, Sir John	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Levy, Maurice	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Lewis, John Herbert	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Lloyd-George, David	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Causton, Richard Knight	Lough, Thomas	Soares, Ernest J.
Cawley, Frederick	Lundon, W.	Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants
Channing, Francis Allston	MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Condon, Thomas Joseph	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Sullivan, Donal
Craig, Robert Hunter	M'Govern, T.	Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Crean, Eugene	M'Kenna, Reginald	Tennant, Harold John
Cremer, William Randal	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen)
Crombie, John William	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Dalziel, James Henry	Mather, William	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William	Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Mooney, John J.	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Delany, William	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Toulmin, George
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Murnaghan, George	Tully, Jasper
Donelan, Captain A.	Murphy, John	Ure, Alexander
Doogan, P. C.	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Wallace, Robert
Duncan, J. Hastings	Newnes, Sir George	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Edwards, Frank	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Ellis, John Edward	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Evans, Sir Francis H (Maids'tne	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Weir, James Galloway
Ffrench, Peter	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	White, George (Norfolk)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Whitleey, George (York, W. R.
Flynn, James Christopher	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N	Whitely, J. H. (Halifax)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	O'Mara, James	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Fuller, J. M. F.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Partington, Oswald	Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Paulton, James Mellor	Young, Samuel
Haldane, Richard Burdon	Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)	Yoxall, James Henry
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)
Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Philipps, John Wynford
Hayden, John Patrick	Pirie, Duncan V.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Power, Patrick Joseph
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Price, Robert John

NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Baldwin, Alfred	Bignold, Arthur
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Blundell, Colonel Henry
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds	Bond, Edward
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Banbury, Frederick George	Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)	Boulnois, Edmund
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Midd's'x)
Austin, Sir John	Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks	Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Beckett, Ernest William	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Bain, Col. James Robert	Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.
Baird, John George Alexander	Beresford, Lord Chas. William	Brymer, William Ernest
Balcarres, Lord	Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Bull, William James

Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Plummer, Walter R.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Pretyman, Ernest George
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Helder, Augustus	Purvis, Robert
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Pym, C. Guy
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Hoare, Sir Samuel	Randles, John S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)	Rankin, Sir James
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r	Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Chapman, Edward	Hornby, Sir William Henry	Reid, James (Greenock)
Charrington, Spencer	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Hoult, Joseph	Renwick, George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)	Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybdge)
Coddington, Sir William	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Ropner, Colonel Robert
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Round, James
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.	Rutherford, John
Cranborne, Viscount	Laurie, Lieut.-General	Sackville, Col, S. G. Stopford.
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Lawson, John Grant	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Lecky, Rt. Hon William Edw. H.	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants Fareh'm	Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Seton-Karr, Henry
Denny, Colonel	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dewar, T. R. (T'r H'lets, S. Geo.)	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
Dickinson, Robert Edmond	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Dickson, Charles Scott	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield.	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Dillon, John	Long, Rt. Hn. Walker (Bristol S.	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Spear, John Ward
Dorington, Sir John Edward	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Macartney, Rt. Hn W G Ellison	Stewart, Sir Mark. J. M' Taggart
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Macdona, John Cumming	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Maconochie, A. W.	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Fardell, Sir T. George	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Majendie, James A. H.	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r	Manners, Lord Cecil	Thornton, Percy M.
Finch, George H.	Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Fisher, William Hayes	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Warde, Colonel C. E.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton	Webb, Col. William George
Flannery, Sir Forteseue	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Welby, Lt-Col. A C E. (Taunton
Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Flower, Ernest	Milvain, Thomas	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.	Montagu G. (Huntingdon)	Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Galloway, William Johnson	Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w	Williams, Rt. Hn J Powell. (Birm
Gardner, Ernest	Morrison, James Archibald	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Garfit, William	Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn	Mount, William Arthur	Wills, Sir Frederick
Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby. (Sal'p	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)	Muntz, Philip A.	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Graham, Henry Robert	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Myers, William Henry	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry	Newdigate, Francis Alexander	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart.
Grenfell, William Henry	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Gretton, John	Parkes, Ebenezer	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Greville, Hon. Ronald	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley	Younger, William
Gunter, Sir Robert	Penn, John
Hain, Edward	Percy, Earl
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	Pierpoint, Robert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x	Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Platt-Higgins, Frederick

(4.55.) MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said the discussion which had taken place had placed the Committee in a somewhat different position to that which it would have otherwise occupied if the right hon. Gentleman had not made his statement, and the object of the Motion he proposed to move was to defer the consideration of Clause 2 until an opportunity had been afforded to the Committee to gather all the financial facts. He approached this question from a different standpoint, from almost any other member of the Committee, because he was one of the few surviving members who had taken part in the discussions on the Education Bill of 1870. He had divided the House on that occasion against compulsory attendance, and ever since then he had always strongly opposed any charge being made upon either the rates or the National Exchequer for any education beyond rudimentary and elementary education. Under this Bill they had no control over the expenditure, there were various authorities more or less connected with the administration of educational affairs, every one of which had power to spend as much money as possible, and the Board of Education itself, so far from controlling the expenditure, if it interfered at all only interfered for the purpose of stimulating that expenditure.

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman seems to he discussing the merits of the Clause and the general financial system. He would not be entitled to do that. He is only entitled to give reasons for postponing the discussion of the Clause to a later date.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

said he only drew attention to these matters to show that this Clause could not be discussed until the Committee had full knowledge of the facts with regard to financial control. If they passed the Clause as it stood the Committee would endorse a principle of practically unlimited expenditure. Unless an accompanying provision was inserted to control the expenditure, the financial control would be largely left in the hands of Committees who could not be controlled, and it would be like leaving the financial control of the Navy to a Committee presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Woolwich, or in Army matters to a Committee of Service Members.

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Member is giving reasons against the Clause as a whole—reasons which would be in their proper place when I put the clause as a whole. He must confine himself to his reasons for the postponement of the Clause.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

said he thought they were not in a position to deal with this clause until the main essential with regard to the control of education was laid down. He begged to move.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2 be postponed."—(Mr. James Lowther.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

expressed the hope that this Amendment would not be pressed. There was no provision in the Bill for the control of the local authorities over the spending of money on education, the view of the Government being that the local authorities were perfectly competent to manage their own affairs in the matter.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

And spend National money?

Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

said there was no National money involved, except the whisky money. He did not think anything would be gained from his hon. friend's point of view by the proposal he had suggested.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)

contended that the Clause ought to be postponed on several grounds—first, because up to now the Government had never definitely declared whether they intended to stand by the provision that the County Council should have the option of adopting the Bill. This affected both Clause 18 and Clause 5. Clause 5 was the clause under which the counties were to have the right of adopting the Bill. The Committee was absolutely in the dark with regard to this matter, owing to the way in which the Government had chopped and changed about. Then there was the question as to whether the Local Education Committee would have to report to the County Council or not. That was a most important question, because if they were, the County Council had power to upset all their decisions under Clause 2; and the same might be said with regard to the Technical Education Committee. That brought him to Clause 18, and until the Government had decided whether these were coterminous authorities, the House should not determine whether or not the secondary education authority should have the power proposed in Clause 2.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is speaking at large on the Clause; he is not giving reasons for postponing it. He must give reasons.

SIR EDWAED STEACHEY

said that this Clause ought to be postponed until the Committee knew what relief was to be given in respect of primary education.

MR. BRYCE

said another matter arising out of Clause 18 made it desirable that Clause 2 should not be taken until after Clause 18. Clause 18 decided what was technical and what was elementary education; and until the House had decided that, they could not say whether the 2d. rate was adequate. Every Member had regard more or less to the effect the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman would have in his particular constituency, but he preferred to raise the point of whether the 2d. rate would or would not depend on what was to be done out of it. It was for secondary education. If secondary education included a vast amount of matter which until the present had been considered elementary, then 2d. would not be enough, but if not, a 2d. rate might be sufficient. It was impossible to judge whether a 2d. rate was adequate until the House had decided what was elementary and what was secondary education. He thought it was very desirable that the Clause should be postponed.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

asked the First Lord of the Treasury to tell the Committee at what time and in what manner it would be possible for them to express an opinion that some of this new grant from the Exchequer should be devoted to secondary education. This was a material question for discussion. Could it be done under Clause 2?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

asked, was he to take it that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman meant that at no time could it be discussed.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That was not my answer. I said it could not be discussed under Clause 2.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

asked, in that case, could the right hon. Gentleman say when it could be discussed, because it appeared to him that the House had been placed at a great disadvantage in this matter.

Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

said the right hon. Gentleman opposite had suggested that the House had been placed at a disadvantage, but it was impossible for the Government to acquaint the House with their financial proposals at an earlier stage. If they could have done so, hon. Members would have been in no better position in regard to moving Amendments. The Clause must be prefaced by a Resolution, and until he had considered the exact form the Resolution would take it was impossible for him to say, even if he were an authority on the matter, whether or not the question the right hon. Gentleman desired to raise could be raised.

SIR WILLTAM HARCOURT

said it was plain that the House should have an opportunity of considering what proportion the contribution from the Exchequer to elementary education would bear to secondary education. If this new Clause had been in the Bill originally, and Part III. had been placed before Bart II., an opportunity might have been given to discuss it. The House might have refused to have given this money to secondary education until Part III. had been dealt with. If Part III. had been put before Part II. the House would have had an opportunity of considering what effect the grant by the Exchequer would have had upon elementary and secondary education. That was a very good ground for postponing the discussion on the method of secondary education until the House had determined what was secondary education.

(5.20.) MR. DILLON

said that if the right hon. Member went to a division on this Amendment he would certainly support him, because in this matter, in his opinion, the Government had put the cart before the horse. The fact of putting secondary education before primary education had greatly increased the difficulty of discussing the Bill. He would explain why he thought it had greatly strengthened the case for the postponement of the second part of the Bill until after the consideration of the third part. If the statement had no special reference to Clause 2, as the right hon. Gentleman declared, why was it made on the eve of the consideration of Clause 2? It was perfectly manifest, from the fact that the further progress of the Bill was put off until today, so that the Cabinet might be in a position to announce their decision, that there was a direct connection between Clause 2 and the statement which had been made.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No.

MR. DILLON

asked where, then, was the necessity for making the statement at the beginning of public business instead of putting the proposals on the Paper? The Committee would find themselves cribbed, cabined, and confined in discussing the Amendments already on the Paper with regard to Clause 2, by not knowing what were to be the policy of the Government and the decision of the House with reference to Part III. Then there was another aspect of the question, and that was as to whether the Bill was to be permissive or compulsory in its character. There were dozens of Amendments on the Paper having for their object the compulsion of the local authorities to adopt the Bill with regard to Clause 2. Was it not manifest that the decision of the Committee on that point would depend largely on the policy of the Government with regard to Section 5? If the third part of the Bill was to be optional, it would be a strong argument against making the second part compulsory But if Clause 5 was to be got rid of, and the Bill made into a real and courageous attempt to settle the education question, and not a mere scheme to be hung up before the local authorities for them to adopt or not, the measure ought to be compulsory as regarded the second as well as the third part. Then among the Amendments to Clause 2 was one commencing, "In any case where the School Board remains"—[An HON. MEMBER: That will be out of order.] He believed it would not be out of order.

THE CHAIRMAN

I may set the hon. Member's mind at rest on that point. The Committee has, by a decision already come to, practically abolished School Boards, and the Amendment would not be in order.

MR. DILLON

submitted that if the optional clause was retained the School Boards were not abolished, but, on the contrary, had an indefinite lease of life. The waste of time arising from discussing Amendments as to what would or would not be done in the case of School Boards remaining would be enormous. If the discussion of the Bill was to be conducted on business lines, the Committee should first decide, as they had done, to set up the new authority; secondly, whether the measure was to be optional or compulsory, thirdly, the broad financial provisions; and then come to what was now the second part of the Bill, which was governed by the previous considerations. If the second part were now proceeded with, some points would inevitably be discussed over and over again, and the progress of the Bill enormously obstructed.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

was not personally interested in whether the discussion of the Bill took a long or a short time, but he did desire that while the Committee were discussing the measure they should know exactly what they were doing. It was impossible properly to discuss the Amendments unless they knew what the scheme of the Government was. Clauses 2 to 4 dealt with higher education. He had been earnestly trying to find out what the intentions of the Government were, and the conclusion he had come to was that the Government did not want to do anything at all with regard to secondary education. That was his opinion, but the Committee were entitled to have the view of the Government on the point. Did the Government intend that the whole of the £1,730,000 should go to primary education? That was a plain question, and upon the answer would depend the action that ought to be taken with regard to Clause 2. But they did not know—

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he would repeat his statement. The Clause dealing with this money would be introduced in Part III. of the Bill. The grant had to do with primary education, but its relation, indirect but real, to the promotion of secondary education, was that the money was to be given to the same authority; it increased the resources of that authority, and, pro tanto, made it easier to carry out secondary education.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

confessed that he was still not enlightened. If more money were given to the same authority, it, of course, made it easier for them to apply money to secondary education, if they thought fit to do so, but what he wanted to get at was the proposal of the Government themselves on the matter. The very first Amendment on the Paper was to insert after "authority" the words— Shall make adequate provision to the satisfaction of the Board of Education for secondary and technical education within their area. That Amendment was in the name of a supporter of the Government. Did the Government propose, in view of the larger sum they were placing at the disposal of the education authority, to place any obligation upon that authority?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That should be discussed on the Clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is really going beyond reasons for a postponement; he is entering into a general discussion of the scheme foreshadowed by the Leader of the House.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

contended that it was in the interest of a proper explanation and discussion of the Amendments on the Paper that the Clause should be postponed. He assumed that the Board of Education or the Local Government Board possessed some sort of Return, showing the respective proportions of the grant that would go to particular counties, urban districts, or municipal boroughs, and the Committee ought to see that return before they discussed this Clause.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)

said he wished to take note of one observation made by the right hon. Gentleman. He said that the extra grant was to be given to the same authority as that which dealt with secondary education. That statement seemed to imply that the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind to put an end to the adoptive Clause in the Bill. If this was not the case, the authority in a very large number of cases would not be the same as that which now dealt with other portions of education. This question about the adoptive Clause was constantly coming up. According to the ruling of the Chair they had abolished School Boards by the decision which the Committee had come to upon the first Clause, and, therefore, arguments to that effect would be out of order under that ruling. But if the adoptive Clause remained, School Boards would remain, and therefore, in that case, the ruling of the Chair would probably have to be modified. They were all in the dark upon this question, and he was not disputing what was the exact Amendment upon which the right hon. Gentleman should make his statement. He thought, however, that at a very early date they should be told what the view of the Government was with regard to the adoptive Clause in the Bill.

Mr. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea, District)

said he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there was already legislation existing in Wales and Monmouthshire in regard to secondary education under the Intermediate Education Act of 1899, under which Welsh County Councils had the right to levy a rate not exceeding one penny in the £ in a certain manner in respect of secondary education. That system was now in existence throughout the counties of Wales and Monmouthshire. He had looked carefully at the provisions of this Bill, and he was not at all sure whether this right which was to be left under Clause 2 of this Bill was to be supplemental to or exclusive of the powers given by the Act of 1899. That point ought to be cleared up before they considered the financial arrangements for secondary education over an area which was already satisfied with the provision made.

THE CHAIRMAN

That question can only be discussed when the question of imposing the rate is reached.

Mr. BRYNMOR JONES

said his argument for postponing this Clause was that until they knew exactly what was the true construction of this Bill they ought not to agree to this proposal. They did not know exactly how it would

work out, and they ought to have a clear statement on the part of the Government as to their final scheme before they granted these great rating powers to the County Councils.

Mr. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said the amount of money to be devoted to secondary education depended upon how much of the education was to be called secondary, and this question did not come up until a much later stage of the Bill. There was the great question yet to be settled of what was secondary education, and he did not see how this Committee could fairly consider the question at all when they did not know how much was to be called secondary and bow much primary education.

(5.38.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 179: Noes, 267. (Division List No. 241.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.	Doogan, P. C.	Leng, Sir John
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Duncan, J. Hastings	Levy, Maurice
Asher, Alexander	Edwards, Frank	Lewis, John Herbert
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Ellis, John Edward	Lloyd-George, David
Atherley-Jones, L.	Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone	Lough, Thomas
Austin, Sir John	Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Lundon, W.
Banes, Major George Edward	Farquharson, Dr. Robert	MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Barlow, John Emmott	Ffrench, Peter	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Flavin, Michael Joseph	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Flynn, James Christopher	M'Govern, T.
Bell, Richard	Fuller, J. M. F.	M'Kean, John
Boland, John	Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	M'Kenna, Reginald
Broadhurst, Henry	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Griffith, Ellis J.	Mather, William
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William
Burt, Thomas	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	Mooney, John J.
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen
Caine, William Sproston	Harwood, George	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Caldwell, James	Hayden, John Patrick	Moss, Samuel
Cameron, Robert	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Murnaghan, George
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.	Murphy, John
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Helme, Norval Watson	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.	Newnes, Sir George
Causton, Richard Knight	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Cawley, Frederick	Holland, William Henry	Norman, Henry
Charming, Francis Allston	Horniman, Frederick John	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Craig, Robert Hunter	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Crean, Eugene	Jacoby, James Alfred	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid
Cremer, William Randal	Jones, D'vid Brynmor (Swansea	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Crombie, John William	Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Dalziel, James Henry	Joyce, Michael	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Delany, William	Langley, Batty	O'Malley, William
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)	O'Mara, James
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Layland-Barratt, Francis	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Dillon, John	Leamy, Edmund	Partington, Oswald
Donelan, Captain A.	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Paulton, James Mellor
Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)	Russell, T. W.	Wallace, Robert
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Schwann, Charles E.	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Perks, Robert William	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Philipps, John Wynford	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Pickard, Benjamin	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)	Weir, James (Galloway)
Pirie, Duncan V	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	White, George (Norfolk)
Power, Patrick Joseph	Soares, Ernest J.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Price, Robert John	Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Rea, Russell	Sullivan, Donal	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Reckitt, Harold James	Taylor, Theodore Cooke	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Tennant, Harold John	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Redmond, William (Clare)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.)
Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Rickett, J. Compton	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings	Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersfd
Rigg, Richard	Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower	Young, Samuel
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)	Yoxall, James Henry
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Toulmin, George
Robson, William Snowdon	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. James Lowther and Sir Edward Strachey.
Roche, John	Tully, Jasper
Runciman, Walter	Ure, Alexander
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby. (Salop
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby. (Linc)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Compton, Lord Alwyne	Graham, Henry Robert
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Green, Walford D, (Wednesbury
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Cranborne, Viscount	Grenfell, William Henry
Baird, John George Alexander	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Greville, Hon. Ronald
Balcarres, Lord	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Groves, James Grimble
Baldwin, Alfred	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Dalkeith, Earl of	Gunter, Sir Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Guthrie, Walter Murray
Banbury, Frederick George	Denny, Colonel	Hain Edward
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)	Dewar, T. R (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.	Hall, Edward Marshall
Bartley, George C. T.	Dickinson, Robert Edmond	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Dickson, Charles Scott	Hambro, Charles Eric
Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x
Beckett, Ernest William	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield.	Hamilton Marq of (L'nd'nd'rry
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.
Beresford, Lord Chas. William	Dorington, Sir John Edward	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Bignold, Arthur	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Bigwood, James	Duke, Henry Edward	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Helder, Augustus
Bond, Edward	Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Henderson, Alexander
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Egerton, Hon. A de Tatton	Hoare, Sir Samuel
Bousfield, William Robert	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)	Faber, George Denison (York)	Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)	Fardell, Sir T. George	Hornby, Sir William Henry
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Hoult, Joseph
Brymer, William Ernest	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Bull, William James	Finch, George H.	Hudson, George Bickersteth
Butcher, John George	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow	Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Carlie, William Walter	Fisher, William Haves	Johnston, William (Belfast)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Fison, Frederick William	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose.	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Laurie, Lieut.-General
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Flower, Ernest	Lawson, John Grant
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.	Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r	Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Gardner, Ernest	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Chapman, Edward	Garfit, William	Leveson-Gower, Fredk, N. S.
Charrington, Spencer	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.)	Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Gordon, Hon. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos, H. A. E.	Gordon, Maj. Evans. (T'rH'mlets	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Long, Col Charles W. (Evesham	Percy, Earl	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.	Pierpoint, Robert	Stuck, James Henry
Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Lowe, Francis William	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Plummer, Walter R.	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Pretyman, Ernest George	Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)
Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Macdona, John Cumming	Purvis, Robert	Thornton, Percy M.
Maconochie, A. W.	Pym, C. Guy	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Randles, John S.	Tritton, Charles Ernest
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W	Rankin, Sir James	Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward
Majendie, James A. H.	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Warde, Colonel C. F.
Manners, Lord Cecil	Reid, James (Greenock)	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Maple, Sir John Blundell	Renshaw, Charles Bine	Webb, Colonel William George
Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n	Renwick, George	Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton)
Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.	Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge	Welby, Sir Charles G. E (Notts.)
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Midlemore, Jno. Throgmorton	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Milvain, Thomas	Ropner, Colonel Robert	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Round, James	Wills, Sir Frederick
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Royds, Clement Molyneux	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Rutherford, John	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Morgan, David (W'lthamstow	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford.	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Mount, William Arthur	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Wodehonse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Muntz, Philip A.	Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln	Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grah'm (Bute	Seton-Karr, Henry	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Sharpe, William Edward T.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Myers, William Henry	Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Nicol, Donald Ninian	Simeon, Sir Barrington	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	Smith, HC (North' mo. Tyneside	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Younger, William
Parker, Gilbert	Spear, John Ward
Parkes, Ebenezer	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Btomwich)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

(5.55.) MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.) moved an Amendment on Clause 2, substituting "shall" for "may" in line 18, the object being to make it obligatory rather than optional for local authorities to provide secondary education in their areas. He said the Amendment raised a very simple issue, but it was one which, be ventured to say, the Committee would consider of importance. The question was whether they should make any attempt under this Bill to have a system of higher education hitherto for ten or twelve years there had been a system of local option on the part of authorities who had power to spend money on higher instruction, but there was no obligation to spend a single penny. It was a sporadic unorganised system which was satisfactory in some portions of the country and eminently unsatisfactory in others The question was whether they should continue to have that unorganised, happy-go-lucky system, or substitute for it an organised system of higher education. He believed there had been for several years past a change demanded in the direction indicated by the Report of the Royal Commission of 1894. One of the first and most important of their recommendations, made unanimously, was that in their opinion the duty of seeing that an adequate supply of secondary instruction was provided ought to be imposed by statute on the local education authority. He believed that recommendation had been accepted pretty well unanimously by the various bodies and individuals interested in promoting higher education throughout the country. The present Clause in the Bill was a purely optional clause. If it were passed in its present form the only result would be to extend the field of higher education under the purview of the local education authority from technical instruction to secondary education. Beyond that it would have no effect except in so far as it removed various restrictions which had hitherto been found in the Technical Education Act. Under this Clause, if passed as it stood, no local education authority need spend a single penny on higher education, which was so important to the country. He supposed his Amendment would be met by an appeal to the House to trust the local authority. His answer to that was that the local authorities were creatures of the statute and bodies intended to carry out statutory duties. They could not be expected to carry out or to recognise duties which were not imposed on them. If Parliament had treated other local authorities, such as School Boards or County Councils, in the same happy-go-lucky system as this clause proposed to treat the new local education authorities, the state of the country would be very different today from what it was. Who would contend that they would have had the complete and thoroughly organised Sanitary system now existing if statutes had been passed, not imposing definite duties on the Sanitary Boards, but simply saying that they might do certain things if they liked? The other argument against the Amendment was that the Technical Instruction Act was a purely permissive Act, yet under it a great deal of good work had been done. He was bound to say that that work had been from the first necessarily of an experimental and imperfect character. In the original Act there was little guidance to the local authorities; there were no funds ever actually appropriated to higher education by this House. The funds on which they had had to rely had been perfectly precarious, and because of that there had been many failures in promoting higher education. In many of the Counties there were influential ratepayers—influential even in this House—who did not care to sec a single thing done for higher education by public action; and they would always influence these local bodies to devote this money rather to the relief of the rates than to promote secondary education. That was the real danger ahead to those who wished to erect a system of higher education. After all any system of higher education that was worthy of the name must be permanent, and ought not to be dependent on the will of a local body which was elective. If no funds were to be devoted to higher education in the future, and there was no statutory obligation to provide secondary education, the defects and drawbacks experienced in the past would not only remain but would very likely be very much increased. Different local authorities had taken extraordinarily different views of their duties under the Technical Instruction Act. Some of them had very restricted views, and only aided those Institutions which they were obliged to aid, such as Technical Schools. Others had taken such a wide view that he ventured to think that if there had been a Mr. Cockerton looking after the County Councils as carefully as the School Boards had been looked after, some of them would have been in a somewhat awkward position. Surely this shewed that the time had come for Parliament to say what the local authorities ought to do, and ought not to do, to organise a system out of the present chaos. He did not mean necessarily a uniform system all over the country, but an elastic system which would require the local authorities to provide a reasonable amount of higher instruction, including, at all events, a proper system of evening continuation schools. He had figures which showed the extraordinarily different views which different County Councils had taken within the last ten years in respect of evening continuation schools. He would not trouble the Committee by giving all of them, but would give three illustrations. Take the two comities, of Somerset, his own county, and Gloucester. He found that the average attendance at the evening continuation schools was more than five times higher in the former than in the latter. There was the same difference in the counties of Cambridge and Hereford. In Cambridge the average attendance was nearly 1500, and in Hereford only 300. The county of Devon was just three times as populous as the East Riding of Yorkshire, but the number of children attending the evening continuation schools was thirty times as numerous in the former as in the latter. Could any one say that that was a proper system of evening continuation schools? Yet this was a vital part of education, without which a great deal of our elementary education in day schools was absolutely wasted. Now that the School Boards were to be crippled there was no local authority that could deal efficiently with these schools except the education authority they were going to set up under the Bill; and that authority ought to have some direction, whether the evening continuation schools were to be carried on or not. If they had not, there would be the same ignorance on this vital subject as existed at the present day. There was one other objection. Some people seemed to be afraid that if this Amendment were carried the expenditure on higher education in some counties might be excessive. Of course he had no answer to those who objected to any money, including the whisky money, being expended on the work of higher education; but he could re-assure those who believed that the whisky money should be spent on higher education that the only other fund that need be available for higher instruction was a limited rate left to the discretion of ratepayers in each district. With that restriction, with that veto in the hands of the local authority, and in the hands of the ratepayers there need be no fear that excessive sums would be spent on higher education. There should be a statutory minimum standard, which was bound to be a low standard, because it must be applicable to the country as a whole; but surely it was not too much to expect that in a rich country like England, the whisky money, which came out of the coffers of the State, and which had been applied, in most cases, to the work of higher education, should be spent on it in the future, and that the local authorities should be allowed to spend a certain sum out of the rates for this purpose. He would undertake that his own county would comply with any obligation imposed upon them in dealing with the very limited funds which they were likely to get out of the rates. Almost every civilised country in the world was doing a great work in improving its system of higher education. Other nations believed, although apparently we did not believe, that their future prosperity largely depended upon the training and applied knowledge obtained in technical schools, and to a large extent to secondary schools. He ventured to think if no obligation was imposed on the local authorities by this Clause, and if no funds were appropriated for higher education, we should lose a great opportunity. No one who was really interested in this work, and believed it to be of vital importance to the country, would earnestly oppose such an improvement on the higher education. He would be the last person to support this Amendment if he thought it was likely to wreck the Bill. He felt convinced that the Amendment he now proposed would improve and strengthen the Bill, and it was in that spirit that he appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to accept it.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 18, to leave out the word 'may,' and insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."

(6.10.) MR. BRYCE

said he rose at once to make an appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury not to make up his mind on this subject until he had heard the different views that would be expressed upon it. This was eminently a matter on which there was no Party division. No one who valued this Bill, or who was anxious to see it passed, could think for one moment that the fortunes of the Bill would be endangered by acceptance of the Amendment, which had been put before the Committee by his hon. friend with a force and knowledge which few people inside or outside the House could equal, because he had had long experience of county Government, and had presided over the Technical Instruction Committee in his own county. His hon. friend opposite had referred to the unanimity of the Royal Commission of 1894 on Secondary Education, but there was a far more important fact than the unanimity of the Commission itself, viz., the unanimity with which their recommendations had been received by the country. He could not think that there was anyone possessing the slightest educational authority who did not concur in the view, that the duty of providing secondary education ought to be imposed on the local authorities. He had no doubt that many local authorities would do it, but it was just the authorities which were least willing to do it which would need to be required to do it. As his hon. friend higher education, they must lay upon the local authorities an obligation to start the organisation and development of that branch of work. For the last ten years they had had on their shelves, an exhaustive and unanimous Report, which set forth in the strongest language the urgency of the need for the development of secondary or higher education, but no steps had been taken in the direction of satisfying that need. He gathered that they were all agreed as to the necessity of doing something for the development of secondary education, but the First Lord of the Treasury insisted that they should not impose a statutory minimum upon the local authorities in the way of providing for higher education. He asked at an earlier stage of the debate, whether it would be competent for local authorities to set up a standard for elementary education lower than the Whitehall Code, and the First Lord replied, "Certainly not." He wanted to apply that answer to the matter before them. If it were possible to insist upon the locality coming up to a certain standard with regard to the Whitehall Code, surely they could set up a statutory minimum which they must be compelled to meet. The Government were not taking the stand they took in this matter of higher education in their previous Bills. In the Bill of last year it was laid down that these authorities must spend all the whisky money. He wished to know why it was impossible today to impose any obligation upon these local authorities. In the Bill of 1896 the word "may" was used in regard to secondary education, but it went on to provide for a very categorical description of the duties in respect of higher education. Clause 12 of the Bill of 1896 provided that the local authorities should provide land and buildings, whether by purchase or hire, for schools, supply teachers, and make inquiries with regard to the general need of higher education in the locality. Why were these specific obligations not placed in this measure? Could they fairly expect that the County Councils would make a real beginning with education if the matter was left absolutely to themselves. Out of forty-nine English counties there were ten which were spending large sums of the whiskey money on the relief of rating. For thirteen years they had had the right to rate themselves up to 1d. in the£. for technical instruction, and with what result? At the present time there were only two administrative counties which raised any money at all for higher education through the local rate, and the entire sum they raised was £433 3s. 2d. He contrasted this obscurantism with the extraordinary zeal of the thirteen Welsh counties, which had spent the whole of their whiskey money, £400,000, on higher education, and had, in addition, raised £30,000 out of rates, against the £430 raised by the whole of the English counties. He had no hope of the great bulk of the English counties following this example if they left the Bill in its present form. Some time ago the Vice-President of the Council received a deputation at Whitehall, and he said— Are the farmers in favour of education? Everybody who is connected with night schools and technical education in the country is aware that the opposition of the farmer to higher knowledge and technical training on the part of those they look upon as their future labourers is a difficulty that always has to be surmounted. At a later stage of his speech, the Vice-President said— The landowners exhibit that dislike to intellectual development which was characteristic of a territorial aristocracy. The right hon. Member for Thanet had spoken of too much money being "wasted on so-called education," while the right hon. Member for Sleaford had said they wanted to keep the agricultural labourers on the land, and that the more they were educated the more they were inclined to desire to settle in the towns. That was an economic question more than an educational one, and if they wanted to keep the labourer on the land, then the land must keep the labourer. It was not education, but the lack of education, which was the cause of agricultural depression. Gloucestershire, which had been referred to, spent last year on technical education £6,842, but at the same time it devoted to relief of rates out of the same educational fund £7,294. It had been said that education made these men unfit for agricultural labourers, but to his mind agricultural depression was very often synonymous with agricultural ignorance. He thought they could make a much stronger case to show that it was lack of education which was; responsible for agricultural depression. Another reason why they ought to lay this obligation upon the education authority was, that up to the present it was optional to spend the rates on elementary education. He believed that that option would be struck out now. All the evidence went to show that they could not safely leave the development of higher education to those who held the views of hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite, I but must lay an obligation on the localities to make a start in this long-delayed and urgent reform.

(7.15.) MR. CHAPLIN

said he recognised the great importance of higher education, and the great interest which his hon. friend opposite had always shown in that question. There were, however, other considerations than those which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for North Camberwell. He was very glad to notice the line which had been taken up by his right hon. friend in regard to this question. Under the clause as it now stood the local authority had full power, and it might almost be said that it was one of their duties even now, to provide higher education, and for that purpose they might double the rate which they had the power to impose today. They might impose a 2d. rate, and as much more as they could get the Local Government Board to agree to when application was made to the Board for authority. His hon. friend proposed to make the clause compulsory. To his great surprise the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen and others seemed to think that there was nothing whatever contentious about that proposal. He was afraid that those hon. Gentlemen would be greatly mistaken. His hon. friend the Member for East Somerset said that the local authority under the Bill as it stood, could not spend a single penny for higher education, and that surely in a rich country like England there ought to be a fund from which secondary education could be provided for all who desired it. He agreed with his hon. friend; but let it come from the rich, well able to bear it, and not from some of the poorest and most I impoverished districts of the country, which were totally unable to bear any addition to their burdens at the present time, for a purpose which might not necessarily be beneficial to them. He had always contended that this purpose for which the country was asked by the Bill to spend money out of the rates would be, in one sense, to certain agricultural districts an injury rather than a benefit.

DR. MACNAMARA

Why?

MR. CHAPLIN

Because, in those districts, one of the chief difficulties was to keep the people on the land, and experience had shown that the more the agricultural population were educated the more they desired to leave the land and crowd into the towns; and, while the representatives of the rural districts were ready to bear their fair share of a national burden for education, which, they admitted, was of great national importance, they were not willing to endure an additional burden in their local rates for a purpose which, in their particular districts, might be the reverse of advantageous to them. He was told that, even with the word "shall" inserted in the clause, it would, after all, be very much a matter for the local authority. He thought that hon. Members who took that view were entirely mistaken. There was another clause in the Bill which in his judgment bore very distinctly on this proposition. Clause 11 said— If the local education authority fail to fulfil any of their duties under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, on this Act, in any part of their area, the Board of Education may, after holding a public inquiry, make such order as they think necessary or proper for the purpose of compelling the authority to fulfil their duty, and any such order may be enforced by mandamus. The local authority would have the power, subject to the sanction of the Local Government Board, of spending money to an unknown and unlimited extent for this purpose out of the rates. If the clause were made compulsory, it would cast a burden upon the ratepayers to an unknown extent, which quite possibly would go far to counteract the concessions announced that afternoon by the First Lord of the Treasury. In the speech which he made the other day, and which the hon. Member for North Camberwell had quoted, he would find, by reading the whole of it, he likely to be but a barren effort, and that money spent upon it would be money thrown into the sea. But are Members of this House the only people capable of making that discovery? Are the County Councils and the local bodies, urban and rural, so far behind the public opinion which they are there to express, that it is not possible for them to discover that recondite truth? I do not think so. My own belief is that, though undoubtedly there will be laggards in the race, all will run and all will ultimately reach the goal. The right hon. Gentleman said there was a special danger to be guarded against, arising out of the fact that the Science and Art Department has given an unduly scientific tinge to our secondary education, to its great detriment. I am not going to enter into the discussion that is raging in every educational community throughout the globe as to the exact proportions literature and science should bear in the secondary education of our youth. The problem is very difficult, and I do not pretend to have arrived at any solution on which I can rest with perfect confidence. But, at all events, we may agree upon this, that a purely scientific education, to the exclusion of all the other aspects of education—of history, of art, and so on—is very one sided and narrow, and ought not to be encouraged cither by this House or by the Education Department. But I am told by the Vice-President of the Council that the Science and Art Department are now most careful in allocating their grants, and in seeing that the schools to which they are allocated have a sound curriculum of general as well as scientific education. It is true that the grant is a scientific grant, and that it is given in respect of the scientific side of education but so keenly alive are the Education Department to the very danger and evil of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken, that they have taken care that the money which they give to those schools in which science is taught, is only given where, in addition to science, there is a sound general education afforded to the pupils. In these circumstances I venture to tell the Committee that, quite apart from the interests of the ratepayer—a person not to be left out of account, because if he set himself stolidly to oppose our educational scheme we might do what we liked in Whitehall, we should not get much further—that, putting his interests and perhaps his prejudices on one side, in the interests of secondary education itself, I do sincerely believe that we had better lead the educational authorities rather than endeavour to compel them. The particular method of endeavouring to compel them, which my hon. friend wants adopted, is one which I do not think would work in practice or could be enforced, and which, even if it did work or could be enforced, would only have a petrifying effect on the whole scheme of secondary education we desire to see established.

(6.37.) MR. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)

The right hon. Gentleman has devoted his speech to elaborating the somewhat paradoxical thesis that the best thing to do with secondary education is to leave it in the hands of local option. I cannot help thinking that the form which this Clause has assumed, and the opposition which the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government is offering to the Amendment, is one of the unfortunate results of linking primary and secondary education in the same scheme. With the views which the right hon. Gentleman entertains—which he expressed on behalf of the Government with the immense weight and authority of the Report of the Royal Commission behind them, it can hardly be doubted that, if this had been a Bill dealing with secondary education alone, the duty would have been imposed in clear terms on the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman has told us how undesirable it is that the Education Department should be brought into constant collision, and possible friction, with the local authorities of the country. Here I cannot help remarking on the phenomenon which has struck me more than once during these debates, that we never hear at first hand what the views of the Education Department are. The Minister who is responsible to this House for the administration of that Department sits by the right hon. Gentleman's side. He listens in silence. We do not know what mental operations are going on beneath that unruffled surface, but he listens in silence to the depreciatory views which the First Lord of the Treasury takes as to the possible action of his Department in the future, and he has neither a word of protest nor a word of active assent. The state of his mind is one of those political problems which do not think any one of us has the means to grapple with. But I would point out to the First Lord of the Treasury that this very problem of imposing the duty on the one hand, and providing the sanction for its performance on the other, was confronted and settled by the authors of the Act of 1870. By that Act the very thing was done in regard to elementary education which we are here proposing in relation to secondary education. The duty was imposed upon the district of providing sufficient school accommodation for all elementary scholars; and, if that duty is neglected, the authors of the Act of 1870 did not hesitate to invoke the Education Department, and that Department has not infrequently interfered, and has compelled local authorities in default to perform their duty without any unnecessary friction, and with enormous advantage both to the ratepayers and the community. Both precedent and reason, therefore, I say, point to the imposition of this duty in clear and emphatic terms, in accordance with the intentions of the Legislature, and show that in point of practice there is no difficulty in providing for its enforcement by means of a Government department. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we do not want to stereotype the form of secondary education over all the country. There ought to be great latitude allowed for local enterprise and for local judgment, which must be influenced not only by local requirements, out by the length or the shortness of the local purse. What we want is not a cast-iron system established in every county and every borough, but that there should be a statutory minimum up to which even' local authority should be obliged to conform. To say it is impossible at this time of day, with this growing and ever more urgent gap in our educational system, for Parliament to lay down as a duty, and for the Education Department to enforce that duty, that there should be a minimum standard of secondary education is a confession of impotence to which I hope the Committee will not be driven. As a whole, the local authorities throughout the country have done well under the technical education acts with the small resources placed at their disposal, but there are cases even now where the whisky moneys is not applied to education but to the relief of rates, and that is an additional argument for the view that there shall be a minimum standard. Was not my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen right in saying, and docs not the right hon. Gentleman sympathise with him, that we ought to look forward to a form of instruction which is large, comprehensive, and humane, which does not merely comprise that which is useful as the foundation for technical knowledge, or professional pursuits, but which enriches the mind and makes the person who it the subject of it a better citizen and more capable of following a humane and refined life? But you have not got, for the purpose of providing that kind of instruction, even the comparatively slight motive that you have in relation to technical instruction. I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman regards the retention of this word as essential to the integrity of his Bill; but, on the other hand, it would be of enormous moment if the House, on a question which is in no sense a party question, but in the largest sense of the word a national question, were at this time, by means of an unmistakeable vote, to declare its opinion that the duty of providing higher education is one which can no longer be neglected, and ought to be cast on the local authorities throughout the length and breadth of the country.

(6.48.) SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)

, in opposing the Amendment, desired to speak on behalf of the counties, which had been so strongly stigmatised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He did not accept the view which had been put forward. So far as his own county was concerned, he believed they had done quite as good work as those counties who had spent the whole of the money, and they had more closely adhered to the intentions of Parliament in originally voting the money. A singular error prevailed among all parties as to what this money was really for. The Secondary Education Commission in their Report ignored the manner in which the money originated, and the purposes it was intended to fulfil. One half of the money was absolutely intended to go in relief of rates. It was voted for that express purpose, and it was only in the closing hours of the Session, when most people had gone away, that Mr. Acland proposed that a moiety should be applied to technical education. That was accepted, but some question arose as to the words in which the proposal was set out, and after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had expressed the belief that so much as a moiety would probably not be required, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he supposed they could trust the County Councils, and that, instead of disputing about the fraction, words should he inserted permitting the Councils to use the money for that purpose. That provision had been most erroneously interpreted as meaning the whole of the money. As Chairman of his County Council, on the the first occasion of their having to distribute the money, he reminded the members of the body that one-half of it came to them by accident and should be appropriated for educational purposes. ["Oh, oh."] At that time, in taking that view, he was looked upon as a very advanced person, and he was certainly in advance of many local bodies, including the; London County Council. His Council devoted to the relief of the ratepayers that portion which was unquestionably so intended by Parliament, one of his arguments being that, whereas the money was the property of the ratepayer as a whole, there were large parts of the county which would not benefit in any way from it being applied to technical education. In the Budget Speech in 1890 Mr. Goschen proposed to provide certain moneys for the purposes of County Finance, viz. £300,000 for the Superannuation of the Police, £382,000 to enable superfluous licences to be bought up, and a sum of about £393,000, called "the residue" to go in relief of rates, replacing the abandoned Wheel and Van Tax. The first and the last were never objected to, but owing to the failure to carry the sum for licences it was thrown into the residue clause, of which a moiety, as mentioned above, was proposed to be given to education, and the clause was so phrased as to lead to the misconception above mentioned. The hon. Member quoted a passage from the speech of Mr. Goschen, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in support of his view with regard to the intentions of Parliament, and contended, that educationists had unduly pounced upon the grant, declaring it to be theirs, while virtually it was given for the ratepayers. He did not think the Government were altogether justified in diverting from the County Councils money which was given them in aid of the rates. They should be left to apply it as they pleased. Prom a financial point of view, a more wasteful thing could not be done than to enact that a definite sum should be applied to a specific purpose, whether it was required or not. His Council did not commence by spending all their money; but limited themselves to a moiety, which for the first few years was not exhausted, though it was now, but last year they voted another £1,000, and this year they would probably vote a further sum out of the other moiety. They adopted the plan because they were able by degrees to find out where the money could be applied most efficiently and practically for the purposes so well stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen. He entirely agreed with the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, but it could not be carried into effect by lavishly shovelling money into the hands of educators. They must get persons to appreciate education, and to know that as a result of the expenditure they incurred some adequate result was being obtained. After the first two or three years the County Council of which he was chairman carefully reviewed their methods, and decided that they must spend their money in blocks, and not in driblets all over the place. On that system they were organising now, and they would certainly spend such sums as were necessary, but they should not be forced to spend money which was not required. On their behalf he welcomed the Bill, because it would enable local authorities to do what they wanted, but which, at present, they had not the means to do in the right way.

DR. MACNAMARA

had listened to the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury with much misgiving and disappointment. It seemed to him that if they were really anxious to promote higher education, they must lay upon the local authorities an obligation to start the organisation and development of that branch of work. For the last ten years they had had on their shelves, an exhaustive and unanimous Report, which set forth in the strongest language the urgency of the need for the development of secondary or higher education, but no steps had been taken in the direction of satisfying that need. He gathered that they were all agreed as to the necessity of doing something for the development of secondary education, but the First Lord of the Treasury insisted that they should not impose a statutory minimum upon the local authorities in the way of providing for higher education. He asked at an earlier stage of the debate, whether it would be competent for local authorities to set up a standard for elementary education lower than the Whitehall Code, and the First Lord replied, "Certainly not." He wanted to apply that answer to the matter before them. If it were possible to insist upon the locality coming up to a certain standard with regard to the Whitehall Code, surely they could set up a statutory minimum which they must be compelled to meet. The Government were not taking the stand they took in this matter of higher education in their previous Bills. In the Bill of last year it was laid down that these authorities must spend all the whisky money. He wished to know why it was impossible today to impose any obligation upon these local authorities. In the Bill of 1896 the word "may" was used in regard to secondary education, but it went on to provide for a very categorical description of the duties in respect of higher education. Clause 12 of the Bill of 1896 provided that the local authorities should provide land and buildings, whether by purchase or hire, for schools, supply teachers, and make inquiries with regard to the general need of higher education in the locality. Why were these specific obligations not placed in this measure? Could they fairly expect that the County Councils would make a real beginning with education if the matter was left absolutely to themselves. Out of forty-nine English counties there were ten which were spending large sums of the whiskey money on the relief of rating. For thirteen years they had had the right to rate themselves up to 1d. in the£. for technical instruction, and with what result? At the present time there were only two administrative counties which raised any money at all for higher education through the local rate, and the entire sum they raised was £433 3s. 2d. He contrasted this obscurantism with the extraordinary zeal of the thirteen Welsh counties, which had spent the whole of their whiskey money, £400,000, on higher education, and had, in addition, raised £30,000 out of rates, against the £430 raised by the whole of the English counties. He had no hope of the great bulk of the English counties following this example if they left the Bill in its present form. Some time ago the Vice-President of the Council received a deputation at Whitehall, and he said— Are the farmers in favour of education? Everybody who is connected with night schools and technical education in the country is aware that the opposition of the farmer to higher knowledge and technical training on the part of those they look upon as their future labourers is a difficulty that always has to be surmounted. At a later stage of his speech, the Vice-President said— The landowners exhibit that dislike to intellectual development which was characteristic of a territorial aristocracy. The right hon. Member for Thanet had spoken of too much money being "wasted on so-called education," while the right hon. Member for Sleaford had said they wanted to keep the agricultural labourers on the land, and that the more they were educated the more they were inclined to desire to settle in the towns. That was an economic question more than an educational one, and if they wanted to keep the labourer on the land, then the land must keep the labourer. It was not education, but the lack of education, which was the cause of agricultural depression. Gloucestershire, which had been referred to, spent last year on technical education £6,842, but at the same time it devoted to relief of rates out of the same educational fund £7,294. It had been said that education made these men unfit for agricultural labourers, but to his mind agricultural depression was very often synonymous with agricultural ignorance. He thought they could make a much stronger case to show that it was lack of education which was responsible for agricultural depression. Another reason why they ought to lay this obligation upon the education authority was, that up to the present it was optional to spend the rates on elementary education. He believed that that option would be struck out now. All the evidence went to show that they could not safely leave the development of higher education to those who held the views of hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite, but must lay an obligation on the localities to make a start in this long-delayed and urgent reform.

(7.15.) MR. CHAPLIN

said he recognised the great importance of higher education, and the great interest which his hon. friend opposite had always shown in that question. There were, however, other considerations than those which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for North Camberwell. He was very glad to notice the line which had been taken up by his right hon. friend in regard to this question. Under the clause as it now stood the local authority had full power, and it might almost be said that it was one of their duties even now, to provide higher education, and for that purpose they might double the rate which they had the power to impose today. They might impose a 2d. rate, and as much more as they could get the Local Government Board to agree to when application was made to the Board for authority. His hon. friend proposed to make the clause compulsory. To his great surprise the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen and others seemed to think that there was nothing whatever contentious about that proposal. He was afraid that those hon. Gentlemen would be greatly mistaken. His hon. friend the Member for East Somerset said that the local authority under the Bill as it stood, could not spend a single penny for higher education, and that surely in a rich country like England there ought to be a fund from which secondary education could be provided for all who desired it. He agreed with his hon. friend; but let it come from the rich, well able to bear it, and not from some of the poorest and most impoverished districts of the country, which were totally unable to bear any addition to their burdens at the present time, for a purpose which might not necessarily be beneficial to them. He had always contended that this purpose for which the country was asked by the Bill to spend money out of the rates would be, in one sense, to certain agricultural districts an injury rather than, a benefit.

DR. MACNAMARA

Why?

MR. CHAPLIN

Because, in those districts, one of the chief difficulties was to keep the people on the land, and experience had shown that the more the agricultural population were educated the more they desired to leave the land and crowd into the towns; and, while the representatives of the rural districts were ready to bear their fair share of a national burden for education, which, they admitted, was of great national importance, they were not willing to endure an additional burden in their local rates for a purpose which, in their particular districts, might be the reverse of advantageous to them. He was told that, even with the word "shall" inserted in the clause, it would, after all, be very much a matter for the local authority. He thought that hon. Members who took that view were entirely mistaken. There was another clause in the Bill which in his judgment bore very distinctly on this proposition. Clause 11 said— If the local education authority fail to fulfil any of their duties under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, on this Act, in any part of their area, the Board of Education may, after holding a public inquiry, make such order as they think necessary or proper for the purpose of compelling the authority to fulfil their duty, and any such order may be enforced by mandamus. The local authority would have the power, subject to the sanction of the Local Government Board, of spending money to an unknown and unlimited extent for this purpose out of the rates. If the clause were made compulsory, it would cast a burden upon the ratepayers to an unknown extent, which quite possibly would go far to counteract the concessions announced that afternoon by the First Lord of the Treasury. In the speech which he made the other day, and which the hon. Member for North Camberwell had quoted, he would find, by reading the whole of it, he pointed out that some portion of the cost must be borne by the rates. If they were to have an effective check on extravagant administration, he further contended that that portion should be the smallest, and that the contribution from the national funds should be the largest which was consistent with economical administration. When the question was referred to in a large and powerful Royal Commission they came to exactly the same conclusion. They recommended that education should be treated as a national service, and, of course, that the cost should to a large extent be met from national funds. These were the grounds on which he would continue to protest against and oppose to the utmost extent of his power any proposal to provide for higher education solely out of the rates.

MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)

said the Member for the Sleaford Division had let the cat out of the bag. The right hon. Gentleman spoke for certain agricultural districts in England where the opinion was held that higher education was not a good thing for the farming interest, because it induced the labourers to leave the land. He also represented an agricultural constituency and a constituency which had suffered less than any other from agricultural depression. Why? Because fanning there was high, because every one there, from the farmer to the labourer, was educated on a scale and used machinery to an extent that were unknown south of the Tweed.

MR. CHAPLIN

The hon. and learned Gentleman should have mentioned another qualification. Land in that district happens to be some of the richest and most fertile in the whole of the kingdom.

Mr. HALDANE

said it was also worked with machinery and a skill and energy which had no parallel in any other part of the world. If the First Lord of the Treasury had his way he would make the Bill a homogeneous whole with regard to education. The right hon. Gentleman knew as well as hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House that they could not make elementary education efficient so long as it was marked off and separated from that which was above. He thought there was nothing which the elementary teachers had more cause to complain, of than the way they had been treated with respect to the benefits of higher education. He appealed to the First Lord to allow the House of Commons to decide this issue. He was sure it was one they knew something of, and they were getting to know more and more about it. In his opinion the blot on the Bill, which in other respects he regarded as good, was the arbitrary distinction it set up between higher education and elementary education. They could not make elementary education efficient so long as they kept it marked off from the stage of education above it; and secondary education to be effective must be made a part of the great educational system of the country.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said the speeches of the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division explained the indisposition of a large number of boroughs to be subordinated to the County Councils.

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

Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.