EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.

HC Deb 24 June 1902 vol 109 cc1524-76

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

in the Chair.

Clause 2:—

Amendment again proposed— In page 1, line 19, to leave out the words 'education other than elementary,' and insert the words 'secondary, technical, and higher education, and shall provide for the organisation and co-ordination of all forms of education, including the training of teachers, within their area.'"—(Mr. Mather.)

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)

said he thought it would be necessary to add a few words to the Amendment, in order to meet the objections of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. So far as the substance of the Amendment was concerned, he failed to see what answer the Government could possibly have to it. It called on the education authority to consider the provision of secondary, technical and higher education, and the defect of the Bill was that it contained no definition whatever of what was secondary, technical or higher education. The words were purposely left indefinite, and when they saw how loth the various county authorities had been to enforce their powers under the Technical Instruction Act, it emphasised the necessity for giving in the Bill some indication of what they were expected by Parliament to do in connection with these subjects. Now the Amendment of his hon. friend provided that indication, inasmuch as it suggested that the local authority should arrange the organisation and co-ordination of all kinds of education, including the training of teachers. He regarded the training of teachers as a very important matter indeed, and he proposed to confine his observations on this occasion to urging on the Government the necessity for at once doing something to provide for the training of teachers. They were dealing with education generally throughout the country, and surely the first step they ought to take was one that would secure an adequate supply of efficient teachers. It was conceded on all hands that the teaching system of this country fell far short of that which obtained in other countries with which comparison might fairly be made. The system of training pupil teachers was condemned on all sides as most in-adequate, and he would like to read to the Committee a paragraph from a Report of one of the Chief Inspectors of Training Colleges, issued in the year 1900. [After reading the extract, the hon. Member continued:] He had some figures on this subject which might be interesting to the Committee. There were, at the present time, 143,000 persons teaching in elementary schools; of these only 64,000 were certificated, while of the certificated ones only 35,179 had been through a regular course of training, thus three-fourths of the teachers of this country were entirely untrained. In the last examination for admission to training colleges 10,128 teachers qualified for entrance, but room could be found for only 2,732, or 1 in 4. This was a serious matter so far as elementary education was concerned, but it became still more serious if they were to do anything for secondary and technical education. They must provide teachers with the necessary training for that. Next he came to the form of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had told them, when speaking for the Government, that they had purposely left the words without defining what higher education was. When he was speaking on the previous night, he pointed out the great danger which arose from the adoption of such a course. No one, for instance, could say that the judges might not rule that the training of teachers was outside the powers of a local authority, and if there were a possibility of such a ruling, surely it made it all the more necessary to insert in the clause the Amendment of his hon. friend. He might enforce his argument by calling the attention of the Committee and of the Government to the fact that Clause 12 of the Bill of 1896 dealt with the matter in the way the Amendment now proposed. The heading of the Clause read that the education authority, for the purpose of promoting education other than elementary, might, amongst other things, do such and such things. It might supply, or aid in supplying, teachers for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the teaching staff, whether in elementary or other schools, and it might aid in the establishment of organisations for the training of teachers. They thus had a precedent in the Bill of 1896, and surely if the Government had any genuine intention of doing something in the direction he had indicated, there was no harm in adding the words he was suggesting. It would make clear the position and powers of the local education authority, and would indicate to that authority what Parliament thought it ought to do. The right hon. Gentleman on the previous night said the addition of the suggested words might not cover the whole ground, and to meet that objection he proposed to insert the words "amongst other matters," after the word "shall," in the first line of his hon. friend's Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! It is necessary to make a hole in the Bill before it is possible to stop up the gap.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

Cannot my hon. friend the Member for Rossendale accept the Amendment in the form I am suggesting?

MR. MATHER (Lancashire, Rossendale)

I accept the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

Then you ask leave to withdraw your Amendment and substitute another?

MR. MATHER

No.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

Is it not open to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment on the condition that another is substituted for it?

THE CHAIRMAN

That is what I have suggested to the hon. Gentleman.

MR. MATHER

I am prepared to accept that suggestion.

Amendment; by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed:— Page 1, line 19, to leave out the words "education other than elementary," and insert the words "secondary, technical, and higher education, and shall amongst other things, provide for the organisation and co-ordination of all forms of education, including the training of teachers, within their area."—(Mr. Mather.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

(2.50.) SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

said that he thought the wider words of the Government were better calculated to moot the case than the long schedule which appeared in Clause 12 of the Bill of 1896. The old style was to have long and elaborate definitions, but that had been found to be fraught with considerable danger, and in later days it had been discovered that it was desirable to use more general terms. This was one of the questions in which, in his opinion, the new system was far better than the old, and he therefore hoped that the Committee would adhere to the language of the Bill as printed by the Government. Objection was taken on the previous evening to the Clause as it now stood on account of the difficulties which might arise through the non-existence of scholarships, but in the West Riding of Yorkshire there were a large number of scholarships constituted by the Technical Instruction Committee. He had not the figures with him in regard to that county, but so far as Lancashire was concerned he might tell the Committee that a sum of no less than £7,260 a year was set aside and awarded in April and May, 1901, for scholarships. It was quite clear, therefore, there need be no difficulty on that ground. There was another remark which he desired to make in comparing the Bill of 1896 with the proposals now before the Committee. So long as they were dealing with the language of the Bill he had not a word of complaint to make; but the proceedings of the previous night had thrown upon the local authority the duty of making enquiries as to the condition of education throughout its district. A similar direction was given in the Bill of 1896, which also instructed the local authority to make inquiries with respect to the education given by any school within the county. But then words were added excepting schools which, in the opinion of the Education Department, were of a non local character. This raised a question in regard to endowed schools, which were of two classes. Some were almost exclusively local, and therefore ought to be dealt with by the local authority; while others were national in their character, and consequently any interference with their administration might give rise to great difficulties. He had the honour of being a member of the governing body of the Bradford Grammar School, one of the most excellent schools in the country. It was essentially a local school, serving the needs of a particular locality, and it ought to be administered and governed, as indeed it was, according to the wants; of that locality. But in the case of non-local schools it was clearly the intention of the Government, as indicated by their Bill of 1896, that they should not be brought within the jurisdiction of the county authority. With regard to the question of training colleges, there was no doubt a great deficiency in that respect. He shared the labours of five councils of such colleges, and he was able to state that, as a rule, the inspectors reported very favourably on those institutions. Some colleges were so admirably planned and conducted that no complaint could be made. The standard was already high, but they were endeavouring to raise it year by year; and he was sure that there could be no just complaint as to their efficiency. Where they considered the number of children, a different question, however, arose. According to the estimates for the year, the number of children in training colleges, mainly for a two years' course, was 6,076. He believed that their energies could not be better directed than in extending the training colleges, and no work elicited greater sympathy. With reference to the training of teachers in secondary schools, the only remark to make was that such training was non-existent. A Committee sat on the question some years ago, and the result of their enquiry satisfied every member of the Committee that a condition of affairs existed which should not be permitted to continue. No doubt a great deal had been done since then, but what had been done by no means met the case. No doubt they were making progress, but he deemed it his duty friend of education, to draw attention once again to one of the most important factors in their educational system. He was glad the Committee had given him an opportunity of making a few remarks on a subject which appeared to him to be deserving of consideration.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire. W.)

I had myself put down an Amendment on the Paper very much to the effect of that which has been moved by my hon. friend, and I, therefore, rise to support his Amendment. The question is, are we or are we not to give any indication to the new educational authorities as to what we desire and expect they will do in regard to higher education, according to their means, and according to what commends itself to them? What, indication does this Bill give as it is? There is nothing in this Clause which indicates at all what higher education means in any sense. It is only a negative kind of indication, for the Clause merely says it is not to be elementary education. The moment I read this Bill, the first thing that struck me was that it was not a Rill for secondary education at all, and everything that has taken place since has only confirmed that opinion. Care has been taken that the new education authorities shall be under no obligation whatever to do anything at all for higher education; and it really comes to this, that they may, if they think fit, do something for secondary education. All that is now asked is that an indication shall he given of what we desire the new educational authorities should do if they think fit, and are able to do something for higher education. What is it the Legislature would be glad they should do? It would be glad they should do something for secondary education, and something for higher education, and, above all things, it would be glad they should do something for the training of teachers. I ask. Is an Education Bill good for anything that does nothing for the training of teachers or for higher education? I say it is not an Education Bill at all, and to bring forward as a great new scheme for education a Bill which makes no provision, or does not even indicate a desire, to do anything for the training of teachers is absurd. The education authority may say that education other than elementary does not mean the education of teachers but of scholars. I go further; the local authorities generally have, as regards technical education, declined to do anything except so far as the money was supplied to them from other sources than their own. They have done good work for technical education so far as the whisky money enabled them to do it, but beyond that, and as regards any money raised by them selves, they have not, as a general rule, done anything at all. I know the interpretation which has been placed on these words by some of the rural authorities with whom I have been speaking. It will not do to have secondary education only in the county towns. In a large county like Devonshire or Hampshire you must have classes for secondary education accessible to the children throughout the county, but the county authorities will say, "Oh, we never intended to do anything of the kind. What we understood by the Bill was that 'education other than elementary' meant just those subjects which have been sterilised by the Cockerton judgment, and nothing more." If the local authorities do nothing more than carry on continuation schools, night schools, and the training of pupil teachers, they will absolutely satisfy the terms of this Bill. In my opinion, in the greater part of the country districts that is all which will be done. I know that in large towns they will do a great deal more, and will be prepared to do a great deal more, but that is not what we want. What we really want is a continuation of education up to the highest scale in the rural districts of this country. The great towns like Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham will take care of themselves. One thing that struck me in the professed desire to promote secondary education is the limitation of the rate in these great towns. Why should you not allow the great towns to spend what they like, and what they can? Why should Birmingham, for instance, be prevented from spending more than a 2d. rate? That is an astounding thing. What I desire to indicate is that we want something to be done in regard to higher education in the rural districts, but you have taken good care that there shall be no obligation on the local authorities to do it. Let us at least further indicate what we think is desirable in the language of this Bill. Let us affect a belief if we have it not; and even if the words should he hypocritical as regards the agricultural districts, at all events let us render to virtue the tribute which is paid to hypocrisy, and let us have these hypocritical words, even if they mean nothing, put into the Bill. That is really the purpose of this Amendment. If this Bill is about to go forth with the bare sterile enactment in regard to higher education, it will be the worst condemnation of the Bill it is possible to conceive. In regard to elementary education we have made it compulsory, and we have provided additional funds for this purpose; for higher education we have nothing at all, and at all events I think it is of the highest consequence that we should put words into the Bill which would indicate what we desire should be carried out as regards secondary education.

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

I think the right hon. Gentleman has been unusually unfair in the criticisms he has addressed to the Government measure when he tells us there is nothing in this Bill dealing with higher education, and he asks that words should be inserted, such as the words of the Amendment, in order to indicate what the intention of Parliament is. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have been absent from the part of our debate last night when the Government accepted an Amendment, following a suggestion made by my hon. friend the Member for North Hackney, in which we laid on the local authorities the obligation to consider the needs, and to take such steps as might seem to them desirable after consultation with the Board of Education. The Government propose to give the local authorities fuller power and discretion to do what they think right in the interest of education other than elementary education. The right hon. Gentleman objects—as he is entitled to object—to anything proposed by the Government, but what he is not entitled to do is to put his own construction on our language and to ask the House to accept it. The powers which will be given to the local authorities will be fuller, greater, and more liberal than they possess at the present time. I appeal to the Committee to say are not the words "other than elementary" wider than the words "secondary technical and higher education"? What is there that could be done under the new words which cannot be done under the powers of the clause as it now stands? The local authorities will be able to do what they like in the way of superior education. Has the right hon. Gentleman no confidence in the power of the localities to decide what is best for the locality I County Councils have done great work in connection with secondary education, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Mid Gloucestershire last night and again tonight with unanswerable force. What has been done with the whiskey monies? The local authorities have applied those not to the relief of taxation, as they were entitled to do, but for higher education, and all the Government asks is that, in the new powers we propose to give, discretion shall be left with the local authorities to do what they think is right and best in the interests of each locality. If the Committee passes the Amendment on the Paper it will be going in direct hostility to the Amendment accepted last night. The Amendment last night was accepted as a compromise, and the Committee, having accepted words which leave the matter in a very wide and open form, is now asked to narrow the issue by accepting these words, and because the Government refuse to accept this Amendment it is said we are hostile to higher education. We have made a distinct advance now from the words of the clause as they originally stood, and I hope the Committee will adhere to the words already agreed to and resist this Amendment. I entirely repudiate the suggestion that the Government are not as much in favour of higher education as anybody else and I ask the Committee to adhere to the proposal of the Government, because I believe that our words will give greater power than those suggested by the hon. Member.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

said he could not see that the words proposed were in any way limiting. They were rather expansive. The President of the Local Government Board appeared to think that this Amendment was inconsistent with that which was passed last night, but really that was not so. The Amendment agreed to last night left it to the local authorities to consider the needs of the locality and confer with the Board of Education upon the subject. The Amendment of his hon. friend indicated some of those needs, but it did not exclude others. The local authorities would be in a better position if this Amendment were passed, because they would have an indication of the will of Parliament with regard to the matter sailed to their attention. The Board of Education also would be much strengthened if it was able to point to the Act and say—"These are the subjects which Parliament thinks fit for your attention, and they are to be dealt with by you." It was really complementary. The Government claimed for this Hill that one of its chief objects was to bring about the co-ordination of elementary and secondary education. There was one matter in which the two branches were in close touch, and that was the training of teachers; but he was afraid that that was a matter which the local authority would neglect unless they were instructed to attend to it. In his view, the Bill was entirely inadequate if it did not give far more specific directions to the local authority.

SIR MICHAEL FOSTER (London University)

said the Amendment seemed to him to have two parts. One was a more exact definition of "other than elementary education." He preferred the wider definition, and so far as he could see, these words included all forms of education. He had the greatest reluctance to keep alive distinctions between the different forms of education, and it was his hope that within a measurable space of time the hard and fast distinction now drawn between elementary and the higher forms of education would disappear. Therefore he could not support that part of the Amendment. With the other part of the Amendment he had the fullest sympathy. He considered one of the most important matters was to co-ordinate the different forms of education, and he conceived the House was not going beyond its duty when it definitely recommended, as one of the important duties of the new authority, the co-ordination of education, so that the waste of educational energy which was one of the greatest evils of the present time should be diminished as far as possible. He would, therefore willingly support the second part of the Amendment, as well as that part of it which dealt with the training of teachers. That was undoubtedly a great want of the present time He suggested to the hon. Member that he should withdraw the first part of the Amendment, which was really only a quibble as to terms and only submit the latter part.

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

thought that as the obligation was to be laid upon the local authorities to consider the needs of higher education and to consult with the Board of Education, those authorities might very fairly turn round and ask for a definition of higher education. The words at present were "other than elementary," and the Vice-President had said he could not do more, because, if a categorical list were made out, many subjects would probably be omitted. But the right hon. Gentleman was not imbued with the same difficulty in 1896, because in Clause 12 of the Bill of that year there was a list of subjects, running through the letters A to G of the alphahet, and no objection, so far as he knew, was taken to it. He agreed that there ought to be no hard and fast line, but he could not help remembering that during the last year or two grave difficulties had arisen in consequence of a lack of definition. The difficulties recently created in the Law Courts had all arisen because of the failure of the Act of 1870 to provide a definition. There were a number of definitions in the various parts of the Bill. First of all, higher education would include technical education. There would be no difficulty about that, as the municipal authorities had been doing that work for some years. Then it would include all secondary education, and there a difficulty would arise at once. The local authorities had not been doing any classical or modern secondary education, and if this clause were left in its present nebulous form, with the "Cockertons" very active in the educational world, many local authorities would feel that it was a dangerous matter to take up, and, in order to be quite safe, they would leave it alone. With regard to science and art instruction they would be on perfectly safe ground, but then came the training of teachers. That was a new duty; they would not know exactly how the law stood, and rather than risk landing themselves in the Courts, many timorous authorities would leave that branch untouched. A more serious matter still was the training of pupil teachers. That matter was before the Courts at present. It was difficult to say who was responsible for that duty, but it had always been understood to be the elementary school authority. It was very desirable that the local authorities should know distinctly whether or not it was to be their duty to provide for the training of pupil teachers. Night-school work also came within the term "higher education" in the Bill. But probably 75 per cent. of night-school work was purely elementary, and as these local authorities would be composed of persons of common sense, they would very likely refuse to go on with the work because of its elementary character. While, therefore, he sympathised with the view of the hon. Member for London University, he thought it was essential that higher education should be defined so far as possible, so that the local authorities should know what they might and what they might not do.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

said the hon. Member for London University had drawn a very proper distinction from two portions of the Amendment. There might be a difference of opinion on the part dealing with the question of definition, and on the whole he thought it better to accept the somewhat vague words in the Bill. But the second part raised a very different question. The word "shall" ran counter to the agreement arrived at on the previous night, and required the substitution of the word "to" if the lines of the compromise were to be followed. The Government would, however, improve the Bill by adding some reference to the organisation and co-ordination of all forms of education. As to the training of teachers, that was not included in the ordinary meaning of "education," and it was desirable that the local authorities should have some indication that that was intended to be a part of their duty. Unless the condition of the Government aid were made much more liberal, however, every local authority could not be expected to set up a training college, but they could do a great deal in the way of classes, pupil teacher centres, and scholarships.

(3.43.) SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)

quite agreed that if the compromise of the previous night was to be followed, the word "to" ought to be substituted for the word "shall." if the Government would accept the Amendment somewhat in that form, he thought it would be a most valuable addition to the Bill. The importance of the question raised by the Amendment was shown by the speech of the hon. Member for London University. Some of them were anxious that the Bill should form the beginning of a real system of national education, and that was the object the Amendment had in view. The hon. Member for London University very rightly desired to see all distinctions between elementary, secondary, and higher education done away with. The Amendment was using the Bill in that direction. It was true the Bill named different kinds of education, but that was in order that they might be co-ordinated, and a way made for a really national system. He suggested that if the Government would accept the proposed Amendment, it would make the arrangement of the previous day more complete, and considerably add to the value of the clause.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that the difference between hon. Members who desired an Amendment of this proposal and the Government, was not really a difference in principle. They were all agreed as to what it was that they wanted, but the views of the Government were that the words of the Bill were wider even than the Amendment, and there was no doubt as to their meaning. The hon. Member for North Camberwell asked who would carry on the night schools, but it was quite clear that the education authority would be able to do this. The hon. Member also suggested that there was a doubt whether the local authority would be able to provide technical education, but that was not the opinion of the advisers of the Government who contended that the words of the Bill included all that was necessary for education other than elementary. Therefore there was no difference in regard to principle between the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The proposal now made was in distinct opposition to the Amendment of last might, which left everything to the local authorities. They were now commanded to inquire, and it was left to their discretion to act, and from that arrangement the Government could not depart. If it was simply a question of clearing up a doubt, or making something self evident, it would be different, but the present issue before the House was a totally different one, and if the Government accepted it, (hat would be a clear departure from what was laid down last night.

MR. MATHER

said that his Amendment was conceived purely in a spirit of making the Bill provide a better and a truly national system of education. In some of the smaller boroughs the local authorities would be constituted the authorities for secondary education, and for that reason he desired that in this Bill the Board of Education should keep a considerable control over the methods they would pursue when they had a larger authority than at present, namely, that of including secondary education and higher education in the character of the education which they at present conducted. There was a great waste of money in the manner in which the Technical Instruction Acts were now carried out, and this arose more from the want of ability than the desire to do right, because the localities had not bad the experience and the knowledge which was necessary. It was because he wished the Board of Education to be made cognisant of what was going on that he wished to include in the Bill words which would sketch out a certain plan by which local education authorities might prepare their schemes and be able with the help of the Board of Education to carry out those schemes. It had been said that the words "other than elementary education" provided for all that was required. There were many non-County Boroughs where they had in the past spent a very small amount of money beyond that which was derived from the local taxation account. Over the whole of England, including Wales, only about £100,000 per annum was being devoted to higher education under the Technical Instruction Act. That would give the Committee some idea as to what extent these bodies would be likely to tax themselves under the new Act. He thought they ought, in the smallest communities, to provide that there should be a school for higher education. He was afraid that it would be impossible under this Bill to obtain in small communities the higher instruction which ought to form part of the education of the smallest community in the land, it had been suggested by the hon. Member for East Somerset that if the word "to" were introduced instead of "shall" it would satisfy the Government. They were grateful to the Government for improving the Bill, and although his Amendment dealt with a serious matter, he was perfectly willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Somerset.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that, as he understood, the hon. Member wished to amend the proposal by inserting "to" instead of "shall." He wished to point out that this Amendment would apply to county authorities, but they would have no jurisdiction in the autonomous areas within their own districts. The non-county boroughs would be autonomous in regard to elementary education. He was also advised that the words of the Bill covered, without question or doubt, the proper training of teachers as a necessary part of education other than elementary. Hon. Members opposite were apprehensive that the words were not clear enough. He was loth to accept the Amendment even in an a mended form, but he thought it was a great pity that they should go on debating this point at great length when there was so little difference between them. He had no objection to accept the word "to" instead of "shall," but he could not take the responsibility of accepting the Amendment in regard to the co-ordination of all forms of education, because he thought that would lay upon the county authorities duties which they would be unable to perform. If the hon. Gentleman would regard that concession as meeting him, he thought the Committee might accept this suggestion and deal with the question in that way.

(4.0.) MR. MATHER

said he understood that so far as the suggestion of his hon. friend was concerned the Government would accept the word "to" instead of "shall." He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that without the words proposed in the Amendment they could not work the Bill. The local authority would not be the one authority. There would be an autonomous authority for primary education and an autonomous authority for secondary education. Co-ordination and organisation must be applied in those cases. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider the Amendment from that point of view.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that he rose to state exactly what the suggestion of the Government was, with the view of bringing this discussion to a close. If that end would be secured the Government would be willing to accept words that would not involve a departure from what was arranged last night. They could not possibly accept the words "organisation and co-ordination" in the face of the advice they had received. He suggested that after the words "shall consider the needs and take such steps as seem to them desirable"—the words "to supply or aid the supply of all forms of education other than elementary" should be inserted. If there was any doubt as to whether those words included the training of teachers, they might add the words "including the training of teachers." If that would satisfy the hon. Gentleman and bring the discussion to an end, some such words might very well be inserted, but if they were to continue the discussion with the view to other Amendments, the Government would stand by the words in the Clause.

MR. BRYCE

said he was rather at a loss to understand how the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion was to meet what his hon. friend desired. It had been the general desire on both sides of the House that the training of teachers should be specifically mentioned. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would not prejudice his Bill if words to that effect were introduced. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether such words as these could be introduced—"secondary, technical, and higher education, with the view of providing for the organisation and co-ordination of all forms of education." There would be no Compulsion in that, and it would follow the lines of the Amendment adopted, last night.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

said the President of the Local Government Board had raised an objection in this form, that where certain authorities were autonomous in Part III. of the Bill for elementary education, therefore they must co-ordinate education in their area.

MR. WALTER LONG

No, no.

MR. WHITLEY

said the local authority for secondary education were thereby precluded from co-ordinating education in their district. One would be inclined to say, "What about the one authority of the Bill?" but that was not the ground he took. The ground he took was that, even granting there was an autonomous authority for the purpose of elementary education, that elementary education was so defined and limited by the Bill that it formed simply the foundation-stone for the superstructure. It was perfectly in the power of the county authority to take that as a starting-point to co-ordinate all committees of education. He thought his hon. friend the Member for Rossendale would be well, advised to hold to that part of the Amendment which authorised the local? authority to provide for the organisation and co-ordination of all forms of education in their area. He asked the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury to an important point arising out of what the Vice-President said last night, namely, that the phrase, "other than elementary" included university education. The cities of Liverpool and Birmingham had power to impose a penny rate for the purposes of their universities, but if the phrase "other than elementary" remained in this clause, it clearly followed that that would form part of the twopenny rate provided for in the second part of this Bill, and therefore these cities would be seriously circumscribed in their university work. It would be very advisable that any powers for university education should be additional to any provision made under this clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he agreed that they ought to be careful not to circumscribe the present powers.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)

said he was very anxious that the Committee should arrive at unanimity in this matter. He could quite understand that the President of the Local Government Board was justified in asking that nothing now accepted should be in contravention of the principle laid down last night, namely, that there should be a, certain discretion, but as he read the words suggested by the Member for East Somerset, there was really no departure from that principle at all. These words would still have left certain discretion with regard to action, as distinct from consultation in the local authority, He urged the Government to accept the words proposed by the hon. Member for East Somerset, and if it should be found that there was any technical difficulty in regard to partially exempted areas the matter could be set right when they were considering a number of small matters of finance, or on the Report stage of the Bill.

(4.15.) MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

said that after the concession made the previous night, it would not make much difference if the Amendment in its proposed amended form were accepted; for in his humble judgment the Government had given the whole show away. There were promises that a difference would be made between elementary and secondary education, but it was impossible to contend, taking the Amendment accepted the previous night, that secondary education would not now be practically made compulsory. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, that was his view of the situation, and if it were disputed he thought he should be able to demonstrate that he was right. Indeed, if it were not so, what on earth was the meaning of all the speeches that had been made, and why was it that hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side were so delighted? In one respect he regarded it had less disfavour than he otherwise would have done, because it could not fail to strengthen the demand—which would be made when the proper time came—that secondary education should be treated financially as the Government had agreed to treat elementary education.

SIR EDWARD GREY

said he agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman had said that he would get much support from that side of the House towards getting more money for secondary education. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to the last part of his speech, that there were two parties in the House—one of which was, he would not say hostile, for that was too strong a word, but unfriendly to the further development of education. This Amendment was in the interests of education, and he was disappointed that just at the moment when it seemed that the Government were going to accept it, at any rate the last sentence of it, which was very important, namely, "for the organisation and coordination of all forms of education" a difficulty had arisen. And what was the difficulty? The difficulty was their own abominable proviso in the first Clause which positively obstructed them at the very moment they had seen their way to make this admirable concession. He did think that organisation and co-ordination of all forms of education were very important, but he did not think that the proviso in the first Clause should stand in the way of their being accepted by the Government. The argument of the Government was that there would be certain excepted areas within the areas of the County Councils, and that, therefore, the County Councils would only have a limited power of organising and co-ordinating. That was to say that there would be certain exceptions, but there might still be co-ordination if the separate authorities within the areas were agreed. If this Amendment was passed with these words retained in it, a lever would be given to the County Councils to go to the separate authorities and say "Will you help us to carry out co-ordination?" Suppose the separate authorities would not consent, then the County Councils would not have any compulsion laid on them in any sense. By this clause of the concession the County Councils would be invited, stimulated and encouraged to co-ordinate with the separate authorities, but not compelled, in regard to all forms of education. The County Councils could not be compelled to do more than it was in their power to do; they would be only invited to use to the utmost the powers given to them under this Bill—the powers limited by the proviso in the first Clause.

EARL PERCY (Kensington, S.)

said he did not agree with his right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford that the Government had given away the whole case the previous night. He thought that there was a great difference between words imposing a duty to provide and an exhortation to enquire. The Amendment only said that the local authority should consider the needs of the district and take such steps, after consultation with the Education Department, as might seem to them desirable to aid the supply of education other than elementary. Nothing could be more absurd than to say that without enquiry there could be an effective supervision of secondary education. The only difficulty in the way of accepting the Amendment was that in regard to co-ordination; but it was quite impossible for local authorities to inquire into and consider the needs of a district without taking into consideration how far secondary education was already provided in the district. If the duty of co-ordination was not sufficiently implied in the duty of enquiry, he would suggest that that object might he secured if the hon. Member for Rossendale withdrew his Amendment altogether, and if the Government were to add, at a later stage, to the words introduced the revious night relating to consultation with the Education Department, "And with the local authorities in their area." Then they might safely add the words of the hon. Member for Rosendale in regard to co-ordination and the provision for the training of teachers within their area.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

said as he understood the difficulty it undoubtedly was the proviso in the first Clause which had taken it out of the power of the County Councils to organize primary education in the autonomous areas. But that did not apply to co-ordination. It might meet the difficulty if words were inserted in the Amendment to make it read:— The local authority should consider the needs of the district and take such steps, after consultation with the Education Department, to supply or aid in supplying education other than elementary, including the training of teachers within their area, and then to proceed to make provision for the co-ordination of all forms of education. That would meet the view of the hon. Member for Rosendale.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said he would be very sorry if some such words as "the organization and co-ordination of all forms of education" were not in the Clause. It seemed to him that these words were the most important in the whole scheme of the Bill. What they were trying to do was to get the schools organised on a very efficient system seeing the chronic state of inefficiency at the present time. If the Clause ran "other than elementary, and shall proceed to the organization and co-ordination of all forms of education, including the training of teachers," but leaving out the words "within the area," that would, he thought, solve the problem.

(4.28.) MR. HELME (Lancashire. Lancaster)

said he would support the Amendment, because it was a recognition that there should be co-ordination. He represented the case of the non-county boroughs. It would be remembered how the Cockerton Judgment had upset the arrangements which had been made by the School Boards under the sanction of the Education Department, it was necessary that the utmost precautions should be taken that the words of the clause should clearly express the intention of Parliament. When Mr. Goschen was speaking on that, the whiskey money in this House, he gave it as his opinion that the non-county boroughs would receive their share of that money, just the same as the other boroughs. But when the Bill was passed it was found that that was not so, and that for the purpose of sharing that money the non-county boroughs became part of the county. He would point out that in the non-county boroughs the work of the evening continuation schools had been excellently carried on and that they should be able to make arrangements with the local authorities in the county boroughs to take part in a scheme of co-ordination.

MR. BOND (Nottingham, E.)

said he agreed that it would be desirable to include in the Bill the power of the local education authorities to provide training colleges for teachers; but he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rosendale did not accomplish that object. It provided for the co-ordination of all forms of instruction, including training colleges; but it did not provide for the institution of training colleges which did not now exist. He thought, having regard to the difficulties that had arisen, it would be better to leave out "organisation" and that the Committee should confine itself to "co-ordination." If the form of words were adopted by the Government it would be done with the entire assent of the Committee. He expressed his willingness to accept the form of words suggested. He hoped the Committee would influence the Government to accept these words. He accepted the view of the Government that "secondary technical and higher education" might be struck out.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the Committee were agreed in substance, and he suggested that the words should run as follows:— The local education authority shall consider the needs, and take such steps as seem to them desirable, after consultation with the Board of Education, to supply or aid the supply of education other than elementary, including the training of teachers and the general co-ordination of all forms of education. There was no different opinion on either side of the House. They all wanted the teachers trained, and the matter resolved itself into a question of drafting. He was not quite sure about the drafting, but, if there was any error of a drafting character, it might be put right on Report.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

hoped his right hon. friend would not forget the financial aspect of the statement, because under this Amendment it might be possible to exceed in expenditure the desire of the ratepayers.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No, that is not so.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

said he certainly thought that this Amendment placed in the hands of the Central Authorities of London a power of compelling expenditure whether the local authorities liked it or not. Did he understand that the local authorities would be in a position to defend the ratepayer's pockets when they themselves were against the expenditure?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

said of course if that were so it would remove a great deal of his objection to these particular words.

MR. BRYCE

said he did not think these words were very convenient. The phrase was not a happy one, but he agreed that it was better to leave this matter to the authority.

[Mr. MATHER'S Amendment was withdrawn, and the Amendment suggested by Mr. A. J. BALFOUR was agreed to.]

MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

said he desired to move an Amendment which he hoped the Government would be able to accept without difficulty. The Amendment unfortunately had been dropped out of the Paper owing to some error of the printers, but it would read as follows— After the words last inserted to insert 'and may make application to the Board of Education or to the Charity Commissioners, as the case may he, for the establishment or amendment of Schemes for the regulation of educational endowments and—' Those familiar with this question would perfectly remember that this was provided for in the 17th Clause of the Bill the Government introduced in 1896. His Amendment was identical in principle with that, and therefore he hoped those words might be inserted. The Education Committee Report also recommended that these powers should be given. It might of course be urged that these powers were implied by the wording of the Bill, but as the Government had in a previous Bill introduced powers of this kind, he thought it would only be reasonable to accept this Amendment.

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

was understood to say that he thought the wording of the Bill was quite sufficient for this purpose, and therefore He could see no reason for putting in these powers. As the Bill now stood, the local authority would have undoubted right to apply to the Board of Education or the Charity Commissioners.

LORD EDMUND FLTZMAURICE

expressed the opinion that this was a more important matter than the right hon. Gentleman quite understood. So far as he gathered, the position at the present moment was that any public body could make a communication if it chose, but that was not what was asked for. These powers should go beyond writing a letter; the local authorities should be what was called "interested parties" and be entitled to set the machinery of the Charity Commissioners in motion. At the same time there was no doubt that the Committee was under the disadvantage of discussing an Amendment which, through accident, had dropped off the Paper, and this was not the best place in the Bill to bring forward this question. He would appeal to his hon. friend to withdraw it. There were other Amendments raising the question on Clause 15; he himself had one in the form of a new clause; and he was inclined to think, if it was intended to follow the example of the Bill of 1896, which had a very useful clause of this description, that a new clause would be the best way to raise the question. He would remind his hon. friend that the Welsh Intermediate Education authorities, under the Bill of 1889, were given these powers in an entirely separate clause. And to mix these powers up with another clause would be rather unfortunate. At the outset it was evident that it was a misunderstanding, because the right hon. Gentleman himself had mistaken the character of the Amendment. For these reasons he hoped the Government would consider the matter before Clause 15 was reached, and bring in a new clause analogous to that in the Bill of 1896.

THE CHAIRMAN

Perhaps after what has fallen from the noble Lord the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BOND,

who had on the Paper an Amendment proposing to give power to the local education authority to "establish scholarships and exhibitions to be held in places of education other than public elementary schools," said he did not intend to move it, as the First Lord of the Treasury had promised to consider the matter at a later stage of the Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he entirely sympathised with the object of his hon. friend, but he thought this was not the clause in which it could be met. If there were any doubt as to the power of the local education authority to provide these scholarships, he would take care that the doubt was put an end to at the proper stage.

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomeryshire)> moved an Amendment to enable the local education authority to Make inquiries with respect, to the sanitary condition of the school buildings, including boarding houses, of any school within their county.

(5.0.) MR. BRYCE

had a doubt as to whether this matter should be dealt with by an Amendment at the present point or brought up in a new clause, but there was no doubt as to its great importance. Everyone who knew the condition of the schools in the country knew that very often they were in an insanitary state. There was nothing of which we had more reason to be proud in recent years than the greater vigilance with which we dealt with sanitary problems, and endeavoured to provide for the health of those who, through ignorance, carelessness, or poverty, did not take care of it for themselves. Such an inspection as that proposed by his hon. friend was supported by the report of the Secondary Education Commission, and, while he did not ask the Government to accept the Amendment as moved, he desired to emphasise the great importance of the matter, and to say that it would be left in a most unsatisfactory condition if the local authorities were not given power to deal with the sanitary condition of schools.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that nobody would deny the desirability of schools or any other buildings in which human beings dwelt being in a sanitary condition. He hoped, however, the Committee would not accept the Amendment as moved, because he believed it would be much more likely to lead to conflict and difficulty than to do good. It was not the duty, and it was not desirable that it should be made the duty, of the new education authority to act as the sanitary authority of the district in which a school was situated. There was already a sanitary authority with full powers, but whether it would have power to make the special inspection referred to was another matter. Even though it was desirable that schools should be subjected to this particular inspection, the present was not the place in the Bill in which to introduce the new power; it should be the subject of a subsequent clause by itself. He hoped, however, that no attempt would be made to mix up the powers with regard to sanitary matters. The sanitary authorities had officers properly qualified for the work, and if it was desirable that there should be a special inspection from the sanitary point of view, it should be the work of the sanitary authority of the district and not of the County Council. The hon. Member proposed to throw upon County Councils the duty of inspecting the sanitary condition of all schools within their area, and to declare whether or not they were properly equipped as regarded cubic space, drains, and so on. That could be done efficiently only by an inspector who was not only able to visit once or twice a year, but to make repeated visits, and especially surprise visits. If this was to be done by the County Council it would mean an enormous increase of staff, and consequently a considerable increase in the cost of administering the Act. If any such fresh powers were to be conferred, he hoped the Committee would decide to confer them upon the sanitary authorities rather than the County Councils.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE

agreed that this matter could be better raised in a new Clause, but if the proposal was in some way added to the Bill the machinery would be very simple. It was the duty of the local medical officer to inspect the schools the same as other buildings in the district, and the result of the present proposal would, be that the County Council, as the education authority, would simply have to instruct its own officer to supervise and check the work of the local officer, just as it did now in regard to certain matters. There was also such an officer as the county surveyor, within whose department these questions of cubic space and so on would fall. Moreover, tinder the present Bill, the County Council had already the power of supervising elementary schools in regard to these matters. He thought, therefore, the difficulties had been rather exaggerated, but he agreed it would be better to bring the matter up in a new Clause.

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that he might bring up a new Clause.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that if the hon. Member brought up a new Clause the Government would consider it, but he could not undertake the responsibility of bringing up a Clause himself.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MATHER

said the Amendment he was about to move was one of a large number having the same object. It would be more satisfactory to the education authorities, when they undertook the work under the Bill, if they had a definite sum on which they could depend without any charge on the rates for the purpose of efficiently discharging their educational duties. If the Government intended to concede the point, it would not be necessary to argue the question, but he might mention that, of the total amount of the whisky money—about £900,000—a portion had been capitalised in some of the larger county boroughs in the form of large expenditure on the building of central technical schools, which not only afforded educational facilities for the surrounding area, but were visited, in some instances, by students from Germany and other Continental countries. That part of the money was gone for ever. As to the maintenance of night classes and other matters, many local authorities had entered into arrangements of a permanent character, and unless this excise money was absolutely secured under the Bill, these authorities would always have hanging over their heads a doubt as to whether the money might not, at some time, be diminished. Even in the small centres of population it was quite certain that a very huge sum of money in addition to that spent on technical education would be required, and a sum far greater that the rate of 2d. in the £, which the County Council already had the right of imposing upon the ratepayers. In the interests of education, and in view of what they had to do to provide sufficient technical and secondary education, it was important that it should be made compulsory that the Councils should spend this whisky money, and then come upon the rates for the balance which this amount would not cover. A 1d. rate levied over the whole of England would amount to £700,000 per annum, therefore, a 2d. rate would produce £1,400,000. If that amount was raised there would he, with the grant of £900,000 from the Exchequer, which was announced last night, and the whisky money, and the Science and Art grant, something over £3,000,000 available for secondary, technical, and higher education, if the sum stipulated for in the Bill was made permanent. He was not now prepared to say whether a rate of 2d. in the £ would be sufficient, but it was sufficient at any rate for some considerable time, and with £3,000,000 a good start could be made.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 19, to leave out the word 'may' and insert the word 'shall."'—(Mr. Mather.)

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

(5.20.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said it would be absurd to contend that it was vital to the scheme of the Government that the Bill should remain in its present shape. Although personally he should support the Clause as it stood, because he believed that it added to their resources, He proposed to leave it to the Committee to decide this point. They had added to the resources of the local authority as regarded elementary education, they had given them the technical instruction money, and last night they gave them a clear indication that they ought not to give the go-by to secondary education. He thought himself that that was enough, but he hoped the Committee would deal with the matter perfectly independently.

LORD EDMUND EITZMAURICE

said he was glad to learn that the Committee were to have a perfectly free hand. Two important bodies were brought in who were interested in this question—he alluded to the Municipal Corporations Associations and the County Councils Associations both of which were concerned with county and municipal affairs. Both those bodies had carried resolutions in favour of the substitution of "shall" instead of "may." His hon. friend the Member for the Tewkesbury Division of Gloucestershire had told the Committee that it was the duty of the House to allow a portion of the money popularly known as the whisky money to be used in relief of the rates. It simply meant that if Parliament, after full discussion, altered the financial arrangements in a certain Bill, therefore they should consider that the true intention of Parliament was to be found in the shape in which the proposal was introduced, and not in the shape in which it received the royal assent. Upon the last occasion when the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tewkesbury Division tried to win over the hearts of the County Councils Association, he only got one supporter.

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

said he rather traversed the position taken up by the noble Lord the Member for the Cricklade Division, because for a whole session the House was under the impression, much to the satisfaction of the local authorities, that £390,000 was being placed at their disposal for the relief of their rates. Nobody then had any idea that it was going to be changed until within two days of the end of the session, not knowing what to do with another sum which became available, and not knowing that the sum available was going to be exactly double the amount, this new proposal was made. Mr. Acland himself put upon the Paper an Amendment that one half should be applied to education, and to that he did not think anybody objected at the time, except that it was rather scouted in the debate that £390 000 would be of much use for such a purpose. Mr. Goschen—now Lord Goschen—said he thought that they might very well trust the Councils in this matter, and so the Clause was framed as it now stood. Those were the circumstances under which he rightly or wrongly had advised his county to devote the money to the relief of the rates, and not from any hostility to the principle. The ratepayers were entitled to this money, but they found that had they applied the whole of the money to technical education they could not have done any more good to the ratepayers. It was this theory which had rather destroyed the useful application of this money, in many counties they had dribbled tins money away in little dabs which were absolutely useless. What he contended was that it was extremely bad finance to say that anybody should spend a definite sum of money, whether it was required or not, on a particular object. That should be left to the discretion of the body administering the money, He was looking over the accounts of another county a few days ago, and he found that they had applied the whole of this money for technical education. They had spent it in every sort of way and there had been great waste. If this House would leave the local authorities to use this money in their own way it would be by far the best way of managing the finances for education.

MR. BRYCE

said that so far as He understood his hon. friend's Amendment, it was that the County Councils had considered that they had some sort of right and interest in the money and that they had travelled out of their way to use it in an improper manner to different purposes from that for which it was intended. Surely the reply was that the money should be definitely devoted to secondary education, in which case the temptation to which his hon. friend referred would disappear. Then the money would not be allocated for the relief of the ratepayers, and the local authority would be free to devote it to a definite Parliamentary purpose. His hon. friend said it was bad finance to allocate a particular sum to a particular purpose. If he understood the hon. Member's argument, it was that a definite sum should not be given to a particular purpose, because the needs of that purpose might be greater or less at any particular time, and that, therefore, the amount ought to be adapted to the needs of the time. That would be a sound argument in some eases, but he did not think it applied in this instance, because it was perfectly certain that the needs of technical and secondary education would greatly exceed the sum the local authorities would receive. It was perfectly clear that the local authorities would have to spend a larger sum if they were to do their duty than what was known as the drink money would give them in each year. Therefore the argument of his hon. friend appeared to fall to the ground. The First Lord of the Treasury had taken the very unusual, and, he must say, very satisfactory, course of expressing himself as having an absolutely open mind on the subject. The Government were taking a peculiar course in this matter. The year before last they proposed to devote the money entirely to secondary and technical education. This year they proposed that it should not be so devoted, but left to the discretion of the local authority, and now at the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman told them that neither the first nor the second thoughts were to be followed, but the third thoughts, which were to leave the matter to the House. In these circumstances he hoped hon. Members would not have much difficulty in coming to a conclusion. Three arguments were conclusively in favour of the Amendment. The first was that it was undesirable to leave the destination of the money indefinite; the second was that the most progressive County Councils had already applied the money in the manner desired by his hon. friend; and the third was that no one who knew what the needs of secondary and technical education were, could deny that more money would be needed.

(5.36.) MR. JAMES LOWTHER

said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen had gone far beyond what the facts warranted in regard to the whisky money. He thought it was clear that the intention of Parliament, speaking broadly, was that one-half of the money should go to the relief of the ratepayers at large, while the other half was more or less ear-marked for educational purposes, though it was distinctly provided that the County Councils could, if they thought fit, apply the whole towards the relief of the rates. Not-withstanding that, it was quite true that educational enthusiasts—he used no stronger word—had in many places applied all this money to technical instruction so-called, and deprived the ratepayers of the pecuniary advantage which Parliament intended them to derive from the application of at least half of the money to relief of the rates. In many cases the money had been scandalously misapplied. It had not been used in a way that would advance the rising generation of their localities in the avocations they would naturally follow. The way in which the money had been squandered had disgusted the ratepayers. The Committee were now asked to invoke the aid of the central authority, not for the purpose of controlling expenditure and protecting the ratepayer, but for the purpose of hounding on the local bodies to spend as much money as they could. They often heard in that House lamentations over the extravagant tendencies of the day, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire frequently drew their attention to the times of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone, who were staunch economists. But now no one, not even so sound a member of the body politic ias his right hon. friend the Member for Dartford, would lift one finger in favour of the oppressed ratepayer and the downtrodden taxpayer. This was no small matter. Upwards of twelve millions annually was placed at the discretion of the Education Department and the local educational authorities, and the cry was still for more. Whatever money Parliament granted from the National Exchequer or allowed to be expended from local rates ought to be jealously supervised, whereas on the contrary no attempt whatever was made to curtail local extravagance. He did not know what would have been said by the old economist of the past who protested invariably against even necessary expenditure for the protection of this country. Some of the hon. Members now before him had taken part in divisions with the object of cutting down the Army by a few thousand men, and had advocated economies which were petty when compared with the millions the Committee were now asked to aid the local authorities in squandering without any kind of supervision or control. In fact, these important provisions regarding expenditure involving many millions annually were being left to the mercy of a chance division, without any guidance from the Government which was responsible for the large inroads which it was proposed to make upon public funds. Of course, he was prepared to accept the view that reasonable facilities ought to be offered so far as elementary education was concerned; but as regarded so-called higher education, he believed that private enterprise, which it was proposed to drive out of the field by national competition, had done its work well. He happened himself to represent a constituency where the scholastic element was very strong, and where there were perhaps more schools of a higher class than in any other constituency, to which the sons and daughters of persons resident in distant parts of the kingdom were drawn by the combined attraction of a high-class education and healthy, bracing air. The State was going to enter into competition in a very unfair manner with the owners and conductors of those schools, who had been performing a very useful work. He protested against the utter recklessness with which the financial proposals of the Government in connection with this Bill were being received.

SIR EDWARD GREY

said that when he had made an interjection, of which the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down took notice, he did not mean in any way to reflect on the character of his constitutents. What was in his mind was whether the right hon. Gentleman had entirely taken his scholastic constituents into his confidence in regard to secondary education. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman went on a little further, and said that the scholastic arrangements in his constituency were very greatly the result of private effort and local endowments.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

said they were almost wholly private adventure schools.

SIR EDWARD GREY

Well, relying on their own resources and not being dependent on the State. That was all very well a generation or two ago, but other nations had done differently. However good these private adventure schools might be, they stood in the way of the establishment of a national system of secondary education. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be hankering after another state of affairs, in which some day we might have a land where there would be no education and no rates. Now, there was a good deal to be said for that view in that education was troublesome and rates were burdensome, but when once we had no education and no rates—

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

said that what he thought was that it was reasonable that the State should provide purely elementary education, but no more, and that no charge should be laid upon the rates.

SIR EDWARD GREY

Well, no higher education and no rates. Rut we were now only at the beginning of higher education. Assuming, however, that the condition the right hon. Gentleman desired—of elementary education but no higher education and no rates—was one that would be enjoyable, it had ceased to be possible. We had got to make our living in the world in competition with other nations, and we must have higher education, whether we thought it a desirable thing or not. Considering, therefore, that the need of higher education was so pressing, the money at our disposal should be turned into channels to be devoted to higher education. It had been said that the whisky money had been badly applied. The hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division said that it had been applied in driblets, and that because the sum was so small and the need so great, they could make no progress with higher education. But that was the reason why it was desirable to ear-mark a, particular sum to be used in conjunction with other sums for the promotion of higher education. He would urge upon the Committee to take that fact into consideration, and that the First Lord of the Treasury had left this an open question. Two principal grants were made for education, and they should ensure that the money so given to the local authorities was used for the purposes intended by Parliament. The surest way to waste money was to give it wholesale in relief of rates, as had been pointed out in the case of the police grants. The true principle was to select something which was of a national character, with a national purpose about it, and let the central authority see that that purpose was efficiently carried out by the local authorities. He believed that when this particular grant was given to the local authorities it was with the intention that some of it should be applied in relief of the rates; but they should regard that money as the first instalment of an endowment of the higher education. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, who was asking more aid from the Exchequer, that here was his opportunity if the local authorities were really desirous of doing their duty towards higher education, it seemed to him that it made very little difference whether this money was to be given in relief of rates or to the promotion of higher education, unless it was assumed that the new local education authority would do nothing at all for higher education. Surely after all they had heard of what had been done in other countries in regard to higher education, they should not be afraid that as much should be done in our own land.

(5.53.) MR. CHAPLIN

said that the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick seemed to have curious ideas as to what was money in the Treasury. Certainly this money was originally granted for the Treasury, but at present it was put at the disposal of the ratepayers; and was it to be taken away from them? The hon. Gentleman and others on the opposite side of the House seemed almost intentionally to distort the reason for which he and his friends opposed this Bill. They had no objection to higher education. [Opposition ironical laughter.] He was not speaking for his right hon. friend the Member for Thanet. On the contrary, he was as much in favour of higher education as the hon. Gentleman opposite himself. Where they differed was as to where the resources for higher education were to come from. Why was one class to pay for an object which they and everyone else admitted was a national concern? But that was what was pro posed by this Bill, and it was for that reason that he and his friends intended to oppose it by every means in their power. He congratulated the right hon. Member for East Fife on the acumen he showed when he told the Committee that the First Lord of the Treasury was evidently anxious to have his hand forced on this question. The right hon. Gentleman divined the First Lord's intention much more accurately than he had done. The Leader of the House said that this was to be an open question, for which his whips were to be withdrawn, and on which the Committee was to vote exactly as it liked. [Opposition Cheers.] It was natural enough that hon. Gentleman opposite should cheer, but having regard to all the pledges that had been given to Members on this subject this was hardly the treatment they expected. This was a proposal which would lose to the ratepayers, if the Amendment was carried, the sum of £390,000. The day before, with great generosity, the First Lord came forward with the great announcement that the Government were prepared to make the concession of a grant to the ratepayers of £900,000. And yet, if this Amendment was carried, and for which every facility was being given—for it must be remembered that if the right hon. Gentleman desired to keep the Bill as it stood, he had only to send his whips to the top of the Table—it would take away nearly half of what the right hon. Gentleman had promised them the day before. He would leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to say how far that was consistent with the pledges he had given.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

What pledges?

MR. CHAPLIN

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that he and I and many others have given pledges to give what relief we can to the rates, and especially in regard to agricultural land?

MR A. J. BALFOUR

My right hon. friend is under an extraordinary delusion. I explained to the House, and to him, that the form in which the proposal was brought in by the Government last year, was a compulsory form. I myself prefer the present form. There has never been any disguise that it is a most difficult and doubtful question, and I do not disagree with my right hon. friend in liking to see the rates diminished.

MR. CHAPLIN

said that ever since 1895 they had been urging that relief should be given to agricultural rates.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

My right hon. friend is really under a delusion. If he will cast his mind back he will find that he himself was responsible in 1896 for tins very proposal.

MR. CHAPLIN

said he did not remember the proposal his right hon. friend referred to. If his right hon. friend said that, he was afraid that they must agree to differ in opinion. But how was it consistent with the appointment of the Royal Commission? That Commission recommended that education, technical and secondary as well as elementary, should be treated as a national service, but how was it being treated now? Was it treating it as a, national service to take away from the ratepayers the relief of £390,000, which they enjoyed at the present time? He did not know that it was. What he was about to say, in conclusion, was that he honestly approached this question with the intention and desire, subject to what he held to be a fair settlement with regard to the question of policy, to bring it to a successful conclusion. If they were to see the interests of the ratepayers sacrificed in order to find favour with the views of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, be did not think it would be in the direction in which his right hon. friend would be likely to find support from those who sat on the Government side of the House. It was only a question of money and where the money was to come from, and even right hon. Members on the Front Bench could not say there was any difficulty on that score, seeing that the money which they had at their disposal could not have disappeared at the present time.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he was not in the habit of defending the present Government, but he certainly could not see what complaint the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had with regard to this matter. All that the Government hadd one was to leave the Committee to decide this question. He was sorry the Government did not adopt that attitude oftener. He could understand their not doing so on great matters of principle, but with regard to subsidiary matters he thought the House should be allowed to consider the questions on their merits. He agreed with the right hon. Member for Thanet that a great deal of the whiskey money spent on technical education had been wasted, but it had been wasted because the County Councils of England had only subsidised an occasional science school and an occasional lectureship. They had not considered thoroughly any scheme for the expenditure of the money on a systematic basis. In Wales, on the other hand, the money had been spent on education, and the people in addition had taxed themselves to the extent of a halfpenny rate and had also got an equivalent grant. In Wales it was impossible to point to a single case in which the money had been wasted. Wales had a good system and had not been extravagant or wasteful. The Committee must remember that at present education had been a purely subsidiary duty of the County Councils. A certain sum was handed over for educational purposes; but in the future education would be their primary duty. There was not a tithe of the amount spent upon anything they did that they would have to spend on education. The whole of the education of the counties would be in their charge. They would have a better class of men and better committees and better export advice throughout the country, and the result would be that the money would be better spent than at present. The hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division objected very strongly to spending the whole of the money on education. He said he could net see how it could all be spent. If the hon. Member had read the Education Report upon the secondary education of Switzerland he would have no difficulty in understanding it. In the Canton of Berne, with a population about equal to Gloucestershire, they had 72 secondary schools and 5 colleges for the training of teachers, all the money for which came, out of the taxation of the Canton. In Gloucestershire most of the money came from Imperial sources, and, comparing a poor country like Switzerland with a rich country like Gloucestershire, he thought the hon. baronet ought to be ashamed to advance such an argument simply because he had spent £7,000 in subsidising a few butter factories.

MR. JASPER MORE (Shropshire, Ludlow)

said his county represented 860,000 acres, and in that county they had lately spent £80,000 on one school and 60,000 on another, and there was still £100,000 to be spent on secondary education. He dwelt on the difficulties of spending the whiskey money on secondary education in such a county as that, so that the results might be accessible to all the inhabitants. The farmers would probably form a contemptuous opinion of secondary education if they saw the money spent on itinerant lectures. He asked for some guidance as to the manner in which the proceeds of a twopenny rate and the whisky money should be expended in a county such as Shropshire.

(6.15.) LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

said he was extremely sorry to hear the hon. Member for Carnarvon supporting the Amendment, because he had heard him make a speech— which he thought a most eloquent and admirable speech—in an earlier period of the Bill, in which he praised the County Councils' past work and spoke very much in favour of not limiting their powers. This Amendment, however, did limit their powers. The First Lord of the Treasury had declared that one of the objects of the Bill was to make the County Councils the education authority, responsible to the electors for the policy they pursued. He (Lord Willoughby) was bold enough to state that any Amendment such as the one before the House would have the effect of reducing the power of the County Councils. Why should it not be left to the electors to criticise the policy for themselves? Why should not the County Councils have a fight over this question, and not be dictated to by Parliament as to how they were to spend their money? The County Councils had spent a great deal of the whisky money in technical education to the great advantage of the counties; but from his own small experience he equally knew that a great deal of the money had been absolutely wasted. He believed every hon. Member declared himself in his election address to be in favour of efficiency combined with economy. If this money was spent for efficiency, he was the last man to offer opposition, but he certainly did strike' when it came to sending a man round the villages to give lectures on shorthand. His whole approval of the Bill was based on the ground that the County Council would be made the education authority, and he was in favour of placing the onus of responsibility on that body, and not upon Parliament.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE

said the hon. Member had made an excellent speech in favour of efficiency and economy, but he believed that this Amendment could be shown to conduce to that. This proposal was contained in two Government Bills in the last six years. What was the proposal? It was made by the Royal Commission appointed some years ago, and generally accepted at the time, and since affirmed and supported by all the educational and and most of the important municipal bodies. The hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division had been unable on several occasions to persuade the County Councils Association not to lend their support to this proposal at the present time. One hundred county boroughs appropriated the whole of this money, and thirteen appropriated part of this money, to education. The County Council influenced by the hon. Baronet had also recently resolved that the whole of their portion should be so appropriated. The County Councils had taken a limited view of their duties under the Act; they would now have to take an extended view. They would find more opportunity for the legitimate expenditure to which each would have to devote this money. The whole sum of £390,000 was not affected by this Amendment. Not more than £30,000 was affected by this Bill in any way. It was a great advantage to a county body to have a fund definitely appropriated to higher education. At present the fund was in a doubly precarious position. There had been occasions when the Government had abstracted a portion of it. There was also the danger that a County Council elected on a cry of economy might abstract from education money which the previous County Council had devoted to it. As a County Council was elected for only three years, there might be constant reversals of policy, and it would be impossible to establish new scholastic institutions on any permanent basis. It was in the interests of economy as well as of efficiency to have a permanent fund definitely devoted to higher instruction. Horror had been expressed at the fact that a particular county had a year's income in hand. In a county like his own, if they had a year's income in hand they would view the operation of the Act as regarded secondary education with much more equanimity, because there were many institutions which required aid, but they could not be aided unless they had not only such income as was given by the whisky money, but also some reserve income in hand. This was not a question of rating, but of a fund definitely devoted to higher education, and he should heartily support the Amendment.

(6.30.) EARL PERCY

said the hon. Member opened his speech by showing that the present Amendment was uncalled for, because County Councils in the majority of instances already did precisely that which it was now sought to make compulsory, and he could not see the logic of the argument that if a local authority had used its discretion wisely it was a reason for taking away that discretion. But his main objection to the Amendment was that it seemed to be quite incompatible with the spirit of the compromise arrived at on the previous night. It could not be denied that those loyal authorities who, up to the present, had been using the whisky money in relief of rates, would be practically compelled by this Amendment to provide higher education out of a now rate. He regretted that the compromise should be broken through in that way, because it would make those who were very anxious as far as possible to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen on the other side, very wary as to how they entered upon any compromise in future.

DR. MACNAMARA

was greatly obliged to the Government for having left the Committee free to decide how they should vote on this matter. He failed to see what the Amendment bad to do with the previous night's compromise. That the whisky money should be devoted to the purposes of higher education was the unanimous recommendation of the Secondary Education Commission, and he was certainly surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford complain of the action of the Government, because this very proposal was made in the Bill of 1896, on the back of which appeared the name of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet had done his friends in Kent a serious injustice in saying that they ought not to spend public money on higher education, and that they educated the people beyond their station. As a matter of fact, the people of Kent, to their credit, spent all their £31,000 of the whisky money on education, large portions of it being devoted to instruction in bee keeping, poultry rearing, horticulture, domestic economy, and farriery. It was a curious fact that nearly all the opposition to the proposal came from Members representing localities in which the money was at present being spent for purposes of technical education. Even in Lincolnshire, out of the £14,000 received, £13,000 was spent on education.

AN HON. MEMBER

Then why not leave it to the people to go on in the same way?

DR. MACNAMARA

said they were proposing in the Bill that these authorities should rate themselves for the purposes of elementary education, and in many cases, notwithstanding the grant of £1,730,000, they would have to rate themselves very heavily. Under those circumstances, especially if the Bill were made compulsory, many districts would He inclined to draw back from the good work they had been doing, and to divert some of the money now being spent on technical education to the relief of the races. Many statements had been made as to the actual amount of this money. References had been made to "millions". The whisky money last year amounted to £980,000, of which £886,000 were already allocated to purposes of education, so that the effect of the Amendment would simply be to set free another £100,000. It would do a considerable amount of good in some localities if they were obliged to spend this money on education. Preston, for instance, now spent £650 out of the whisky money on education; under this Amendment, Preston would have to spend £2,200, and, if he knew anything of the district, the money was very much needed. Gloucestershire spent £7,000 at present, and this Amendment would make that county spend £14,000 on technical education. Hertfordshire spent £2,750, and this Amendment would make that county spend £6,000. [An HON. MEMBER: Hertfordshire spends £24,000.] He was quoting from the Blue book of the 8th of July, 1901, which stated that Hertfordshire had spent £2,750 on technical education. If those figures were wrong, and Hertfordshire had gone ahead in that way, he was glad to hear it.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said that he always understood that when they were urged to throw in their lot in favour of local self-government, they all anticipated that the electors would be able to exercise their own discretion in regard to the results which they expected to achieve by these grants. They now heard an hon. Member on this side of the House saying that he would support this Amendment because, at some future time, there might be a reversal of this policy. That was what hon. Gentlemen opposite were hoping for, and what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. He did not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite for one moment supposed that Gentlemen on his side of the House were one whit less interested than they were in the matter of national education. The difference between them was that some hon. Members thought it was not necessary to drive all horses and teams at the same pace, and they thought they could get better results by allowing a little more freedom of option to the different localities. It should be remembered that there were large amounts of money available for educational purposes from private individuals, and he thought that was a good reason for not making this proposal compulsory in regard to the spending of the whisky money. In his own county they happened to have large endowments for educational purposes, and surely they ought to be allowed to treat their own income in the way which they thought best. Although the Government had in their wisdom left this question open, he hoped those who were, generally speaking, in favour of trusting these authorities to do their duty, would not be led away by the specious arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but would stick close to the fundamental fact that the localities were better able to judge than Parliament the exact way in which this money should be utilised in their own districts. They should trust in the wisdom and commonsense of the local authorities, and for these reasons he should vote for retaining this option.

(6.45.) SIR W. HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)

said he found it difficult to give a silent vote upon this question. At present he was not going into the constitutional principle involved. He looked upon this as a sum of money given by a very useful mishap, some years ago, for educational purposes. He thought it would be a grievous misfortune if they were to allow any portion of the money now used for education to be utilised in the future for the reduction of rates. Although the first inception of this fund was unfortunate, the accidental grant of this money had been the greatest educational boon that had been conferred in their day, and it would be a national misfortune if it were now allowed to be diverted. This sum of £900,000 was a mere flea-bite compared with the stimulus it had given to educational zeal, and this amount sank into utter insignificance when they remembered how it had stirred up the munificence of rich individuals to supplement this sum by providing splendid buildings for technical education. This sum,per se, was small, but taken in conjunction with the stimulus that had been given to technical education on the one hand, and the provision of magnificent buildings and institutes all over the country on the other hand, good results had been obtained. His right hon. colleague had turned upon him and represented him as a reckless spendthrift in this matter. If the policy he had pursued in the past justified that statement, he was afraid he should continue to be a reckless spendthrift to the end of the chapter, and he was afraid his right hon. friend would always look upon him as a hopeless and incurable case. He intended to vote for making the application of this sum compulsory, and He should do this as an earnest educationist because he believed that a great movement was going on on behalf of technical education, and they should not allow that movement any chance of drifting back in the wrong direction. Not many days ago he visited one of the few establishments in this country for making optical instruments. There He saw mechanical contrivances of the most exquisite kind; he saw all the machinery and the whole process from beginning to end, and he saw a vast amount of the most delicate machinery. He afterwards learned that out of all those splendid machines and instruments He had seen only one of English manufacture. Each separate room had its own particular foreman, and only one of those foremen was an Englishman, the rest being Germans. He could quote many another instance of this land, and therefore he should rote most heartily for making the application of this money compulsory in future.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

heartily supported the Amendment. The attitude He had always endeavoured to take on English Education Bills was that, while he felt it to be his duty to defend the liberty, as he conceived it to be, of educational teaching in this country, and to look after the interests of the voluntary schools, he would never be a party to any obscurantist policy, or to any action which was likely to cause an injury to the spread of education. He had listened with amazement to some of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. There was a small minority of hon. Gentlemen opposite who looked upon the creation of a truly national system of secondary and higher education in this country as a positive misfortune. He could conceive of men arguing in favour of the proposition that, if they gave too much elementary education to the labourers in the country, it would tend to increase the migration of the agricultural population from the country to the town. The reason was that by educating them they were enabled to read newspapers, and in that way were made acquainted with the miserable condition of their surroundings. The conditions under which agricultural labourers were compelled to exist in Lincolnshire and other parts of the country were conditions under which no population ought to be allowed to work. He had read recently an article written by an English lady describing the condition of things in Lincolnshire at the present time. Therefore, it was true, that by teaching the agricultural labourers how to read and write they were breeding discontent amongst them. But, on the other hand, how it could enter into the mind of any man to imagine that by giving to the people of this country a properly organised and co-ordinated system of national education available for the highest and the lowest, and offering to the poorest of the people an opportunity of rising in the social scale if they were found to be gifted with talent—how any man could say that that would tend to depopulate rural districts surpassed his comprehension. Why was it that men longed to go into the towns and cities? Because they were denied opportunities of rising in the country, and they had better prospects of getting on in the towns. So far from injuring the position of the rural population and tending to withdraw them from the land, a proper national system of secondary education or higher grade education would enormously improve the conditions of agriculture and benefit the people in the rural districts. On behalf of the Irish Party, He felt called upon to take part in this debate in order to declare that they would never be parties to any obscurantist policy, and they would support this Amendment to compel County Councils to devote the whisky money to the cause of secondary education. He might also add that if the proposition was made later on in regard to what he believed to be a necessary corollary of this Amendment, that there should be, in addition to the grant already promised, a grant in aid of secondary education in this country to offer some inducement to County Councils to rate themselves in support of technical education, he should support it

(7.0.) LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)

said he desired to say a word in this debate, because it was evident that those who voted against the Amendment would be exposed to the charge of being anti-educationists, and of being in favour of some kind of obscurantist policy. Those who opposed the Amendment, however, took a very different point of view. His reasons for opposing the Amendment were not because of any jealousy of education. He might be permitted to say that certainly it would be very foolish from the political point of view to be against education. They were often told that Liberals had a special interest in education, but he could not see why. The people of the towns were much more educated than those of the rural districts, and they were Conservative. The people of the rural districts who were admittedly ignorant were Radical. He should be glad to see any system of education in the rural districts which would make them as Conservative as any other part of the country. One of his principal reasons for being opposed to the Amendment was that he was still an advocate of a cause which hon. Members opposite formerly supported but now seemed to have abandoned—the cause of devolution. He was sorry the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick was not in his place. He spoke eloquently in favour of devolution on the Second Beading of the Bill. He declared himself a megalomaniac in regard to that principle. The noble Lord should very much like to hear the opinion of the hon. Baronet, or the opinion of the Liberal League, if that body still existed, upon this matter from their point of view. If any matter were devolved by Parliament on local authorities it was a small one of this kind, that of saying how the whisky money was to be spent, which could most safely be devolved upon them. Another reason why he opposed the Amendment was that he believed in the necessity of practising national economy wherever it was possible, and he was averse to saying that it was so clear and certain that they ought to spend every penny of this money on education, that they should not leave it to the choice of the local authorities, who were supposed to know the needs of their localities. In the cause of economy this was a proper thing to leave to the discretion of the County Councils. This House was an assembly of most inconsistent persons. The very life of this Bill was the principle of devolution, and now they were asked to express want of confidence in that principle.

MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)

said he was one of those who thought that they could spend their money, whether from national funds or local rates, in no better way than on education. The noble Lord had said that those on the Opposition side of the House were not prepared to place confidence in the County Council. He himself believed that, on the question of education, they ought to adopt a national policy, and to lay down, for the guidance of County Councils, the minimum amount of money that ought to be spent on education other than elementary. If a County Council did not want to spend that money in any particular year, it might be ear-marked for the purposes of education, and become a nest egg upon which future generations could draw to enable then to erect large institutions for higher education. The opponents of the Amendment had been drawn almost exclusively from the agricultural districts. He wanted to point out that in many counties land was allowed to go out of cultivation, very often from the fact that our agriculturists were not up to date with their knowledge of the industry in which they were engaged. Farmers were to be found, year after year, putting manure on the land in the belief that they were doing good to that land, when, as a matter of fact, the kind of manure used was not suited to that particular soil. Those interested in the supply of dairy produce supplied articles inferior to those which came from Denmark and other countries where greater skill was brought to bear on the work. A great deal of agricultural depression frequently came from the lack of education.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said He wished to say a few words in support of the Amendment. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had stated that he was in favour of devolution. He quite approved of that principle, but He thought the noble Lord confused, for the moment, the distinction between legislation and administration. The question here was the administration of public funds. In the Act of 1390 the whisky moneys were carried to the accounts of the borough and county funds with this significant expression in the Act "unless Parliament shall otherwise determine." This showed that at the time the moneys were dealt with there was a reservation in the mind of Parliament that some application of the moneys to education or other purposes would be proposed; and that they were not to be considered as appropriated merely to the purpose of relieving the rates. The noble Lord had defended his view on the ground of efficiency and economy. The hon. Member held that the expenditure of money on education was economical expenditure, and in the end might be made the means of saving the rates rather than increasing them. He believed the local authorities, except some of the County Councils, were in favour of the appropriation of this money to the purposes of education. The more we increased the area of education the more probability there would be of men rising from the ranks who, by a single invention or the solution of a problem in industry, would retrieve far more than their education had cost.

(7.13.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 151; Noes, 251. (Division List No. 245.)

AYES.
Acland Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Colliding, Edward Alfred	More, Robert Jasper (Shropsh.
Anstruther, H. T.	Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds	Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Balcarres, Lord	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r	Gordon, Sir W. Brampton	Penn, John
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Hain, Edward	Percy, Earl
Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	Pierpoint, Robert
Banbury, Frederick George	Hambro, Charles Eric	Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard
Bartley, George C. T.	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x	Pretyman, Ernest George
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry)	Purvis, Robert
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks	Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Quilter, Sir Robert
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Hare, Thomas Leigh.	Rankin, Sir James
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)	Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley	Reid, James (Greenock)
Brassey, Albert	Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Helder, Augustus	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Bull, William James	Henderson, Alexander	Ridley, Hn. M W. (Staleybrdg'e
Ballard, Sir Harry	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside	Robinson, Brooke
Cavendishh, V. C. W. (Derbysh.	Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faversham	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham	Ropner, Colonel Robert
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Round, James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r	Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Charrington, Spencer	Kennaway, Rt Hn, Sir John H.	Seton-Karr, Henry
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Kenyon-Slaney, Col, W, (Salop.	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Keswick, William	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Lawson, John Grant	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Strachey, Sir Edward
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Sturt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cranborne, Viscount	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Dalkeith, Earl of	Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.	Valentia, Viscount
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.
Dickson, Charles Scott	Lowe, Francis William	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Dixon-Hartland, Sir E. Dixon	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Webb, Colonel William George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Macdona, John Cumming	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R)
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Fardell, Sir T. George	Maconochie, A. W.	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Majendie, James A. H.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r	Manners, Lord Cecil	Younger, William
Finch, George H.	Martin, Richard Biddulph
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n
Fisher, William Hayes	Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir John Dorington and Lord Willoughby de Eresby.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.
Forster, Henry William	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.	Baird, John George Alexander	Bond, Edward
Abraham, William Rhondda	Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Brand, Hon. Arthur G.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Brigg, John
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Beckett, Ernest William	Broadhurst, Henry
Ambrose, Robert	Bell, Richard	Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Beresford, Lord Chas. William	Bryce, Rt. Hon. James
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Blundell, Colonel Henry	Burt, Thomas
Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry	Boland, John	Butcher, John George
Austin, Sir John	Belton, Thomas Dolling	Buxton, Sydney Charles
Caine, William Sproston	Jacoby, James Alfred	Plummer, Waller R.
Caldwell, James	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Power, Patrick Joseph
Cameron, Robert	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Randles, John S.
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A. (Glasgow	Johnston, William Belfast	Rea, Russell
Campbell, John (Armagh S.)	Joicey, Sir James	Reckitt, Harold James
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Reddy, M.
Causton, Richard Knight	Joyce, Michael	Redmond, John E (Waterford)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Kearley, Hudson E.	Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Cawley, Frederick	Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)	Renwick, George
Channing, Francis. Allston	Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth	Rickett, J. Compton
Chapman, Edward	Kitson, Sir James	Rigg, Richard
Cogan, Denis J.	Lambert, George	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Langley, Batty	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Cohen, Benjamin Lotus	Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)	Robson, William Snowdon
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Roche, John
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Roe, Sir Thomas
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Lecky, Rt Hn. William Edw. H.	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Crean, Eugene	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Farch'm	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cremer, William Randal	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Runciman, Walter
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Levy, Maurice	Russell, T. W.
Crombie, John William	Lewis, John Herbert	Rutherford, John
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Lloyd-George, David	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Crocs, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Lough, Thomas	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Lundon, W.	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Delany, William	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	MacNeill, John Gurdon Swift	Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneshire
Dillon, John	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Donelan, Captain A.	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Doogan, P. C.	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Spear, John Ward
Doughty, George	M'Crae, George	Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R, (Northants
Duke, Henry Edward	M'Govern, T.	Stock, James Henry
Duncan, J. Hastings	M'Kean, John	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	M'Kenna, Reginald	Sullivan, Donal
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Middlemore, John Throgmort'n	Tennant, Harold John
Elibank, Master of	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Milvain, Thomas	Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Mitchell, William	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Ffrench, Peter	Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w	Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n'N
Fitzroy, Hon. Ed ward Algernon	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Morrison, James Archibald	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford	Tomkinson, James
Flower, Ernest	Moss, Samuel	Toulmin, George
Flynn, James Christopher	Moulton, John Fletcher	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Tully, Jasper
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Murnaghan, George	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Garfit, William	Murphy, John	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)	Newnes, Sir George	White, George (Norfolk)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Grant, Corrie	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Norman, Henry	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Gretton, John	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne
Griffith, Ellis J.	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Haldane, Richard Burdon	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wills, Sir Frederick
Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.
Haslett, Sir James Horner	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)	Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Hay, Hon. Claude George	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Hayden, John Patrick	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-	O'Dowd, John	Wood, James
Helme, Norval Watson	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.	Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd
Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)	O'Malley, William	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Wylie, Alexander
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Parker, Gilbert	Young, Samuel
Hornby, Sir William Henry	Partington, Oswald	Yoxall, James Henry
Horniman, Frederick John	Paulton, James Mellor
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hoult, Joseph	Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr. Mather and Sir Francis Powell.
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Pemberton, John S. G.
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Pirie, Duncan V.

Question put, and agreed to.